Nostalgia for the People's Republic of Poland is sweeping ever wider. Bareisms and gadgets of the era are now joined by the way of informing about public intentions, investments and architecture.
"I have no opinion," "It's hard to say," "I don't know." These are the only boxes I check in surveys under articles on various portals. After almost every text, media workers now throw in some related question. How many doubles do you think Putin has? Will Francis manage to sacrifice Easter eggs? Do you think the alignment of the planets affects the mossiness of the blanket? Then several answers fly. The only one missing is the "I know, but I won't tell" box . I would check it like a fool, because I actually know something there, but a vague "something" is nevertheless not enough to be added to the collective dreams about anything.
Of course, I am in the minority. The maximum percentage of not knowing and doubting is about 8 percent in surveys. The rest always know something with more or less certainty. Well, why do I react? I'm bucking the trend. I dream of the day when 100 percent of clickers will say they have no clue about anything. And not just on the Internet, but also in serious surveys. 100 percent answer "I don't know" to the question about voting in elections and - the system will go crazy. No one knows what to say, who to promise, who to rat on. Finally, the questioners will feel like questioners who are trying to embrace themselves today in the growing chaos created by the media, business and politics.
That the chaos is growing doesn't need to be explained; you can see what's going on in the White House and at other summits of everything. In a while the brakes will let go of everyone, because you have to be a sucker not to take advantage of the historical moment when rules and protocols lose their real power and you can scout to your heart's content. In Poland, the already exasperated authorities, led by city and regional governments, will benefit. Since the pandemic, they often act on the principle of "we don't have your coat and what will you do to us". You ask for details of a municipal investment - you get some ogres. You ask for data from a public project - you wait a month or two, only to suddenly get kilotons of documentation. You find the information you need after two weeks of reading in the seventeenth appendix on page two hundred and fifty-three. You inquire why there was no competition for a public building. You get gibberish about the rush and EU funds that would have been lost (and so can be wasted in concert by doing a bad project). You want to elaborate on the answer - you won't get it. The spokesman or spokeswoman will remain silent forever. Sometimes I wonder whether to order an obituary for this or that head of so-called PR. Since she doesn't respond for six months to ten emails and fifty phone calls, she's probably dead.
Such treatment, more typical of the communist era, was already an exception ten years ago. Today it is once again the rule. Media inquirers about space, planning and architecture are thrown a crumpet in the ancient style: "We inform you that further work on the project in question is underway and efforts are being made to optimize the original solutions." Citizens, on the other hand, are shown pretty pictures and are rarely asked for their opinions: usually after the fact, so that Kowalski can smell blood and give a thumbs up or down. The Kowalskis are also viewed reluctantly. In Poznań, the offices have cordoned off the pandemic from them with gates and guards. And so it has remained. Without an invitation and a pass, you will no longer enter the corridors of the magistrate's office, or pee in the bathroom next to the mayor's office.
In such an atmosphere, the citizen loses the feeling that he has an impact on anything. And very well! In the previous decade, he flared up, formed some city movements, associations and initiatives, but - fortunately - enough of pouring sand into the cogs, spoiling the mood of the authorities and the presidents of city companies. There are few activists left on the battleground. What in return? Here is a citizen who can have the illusion that he means something by clicking on the answers of online surveys. Those with questions about Putin, the Pope, the planets and - sometimes anyway - the shape of the new architecture ("iconic!", "get away with it", "nightmare!", "kill the designer"). And that's why I sabotage with my "I don't know" these polls, that is, the decision-makers' saving safety valve, a substitute for the recently abandoned substantive discussions and consultations.
But that's sport for sport anyway, because it's impossible to sabotage the other, more dangerous substitute for substantive discussion: social media, forums, roleplayers and other online rings for exchanging emotions. More: it's imprudent to write today that you don't know, that you don't have a clear opinion, that you have to wait a while for a full opinion, even if you can say this or that now. Here it is already necessary to know for sure, to splash criticism, to shower praise, to predict what will happen in five years and to have no doubt about it.
This also applies to architecture. It's as if it's forgotten that its quality and performance is determined by the passage of time, not entirely predictable use, an environment that may or may not change, and finally by chance and the popularity that flows from it. It happens that an architectural quadruped becomes iconic because a unique club, bar or museum is arranged in it. And - on another note - despite the strengths of form, functionality and location, something will not surprise and the building will settle into blandness, to say the least. I'll mention the hidden flaws for the sake of argument. I saw a train station that began to fall apart right after it was paraded as a seasonal sensation through portals and magazines.
Seemingly all this is obvious, but we are in such a time that it is necessary to remind the trivialities of all-knowing hags ple ple ple, with which they have proliferated not only on anonymous forums. In the original, such a witch appeared in "Fragles" and was a wise pile of leaves with glasses. Today, in partnership with the entire Internet commentariat, clones of this hag shape public opinion, which is being investigated left and right. It is studied and studied, but somehow no one reports on its condition. Well, it's time for me. I'm also going to speak authoritatively and a bit off-topic: the results of opinion polls indicate that opinion is very sick.
Do you think the public would be healthier if they were vaccinated and surveyed more often?
a) I don't know.
b) Hard to say.
c) I have no opinion.
{tag:AuthorA&B}
Read more: A&B 4/2025 - RE-USE + architects' rates,
download free e-issues of A&B
