I am thinking about Brutalism this week. I am thinking about Brutalism last week. Brutalist wall as prairie …

It seems to me that Brutalism gets loved by two means and neither love Brutalism as it is described in its lines. The first means is the coming to Brutalism with a memory, and therefore body, filled with roses and the breadloaf smell of human skin – which rolls like aquarium marbles behind the silhouette while meeting with Brutalism, noisy and sensible; the second is the language of the structure, which is to say the language the human creates using, for, about the structure. The structure is taught to the infant body as a pidgin (the structure “itself”, its lines – the structure beheld by humans instantly), then structure and all Brutalism is made a creole by the body, which labors naturally to involve and complete.

To live against Brutalism – against it in the sense that lover is against lover in love or an infant is against the breast – is to complete it, especially when the body loves it. To live against the Brutalist structure and love it is to build it to the same invisible texture which the first one brings to the structure which they love and don’t know. The first involves Brutalism with / into their body, the second conpletes Brutalism using their body (body, of course, I use to mean person, personality, and living form and presence).

Neither loves what they see as they see it, unless you can say that the first impact of sight is also the entire act I describe, the building of the experience using as materials: the sight of the structure and the memory (sensual, adult) or the building of knowledge using: the structure taken as ground and also one’s own body (linguistic, infant). It’s important to note here that I do mean the person loves the thing-that-is-seen, only that they don’t love the thing for and only with those aspects which light and air present to the eye.

It seems to me that the structure also builds. It builds itself. Is it like a human, which involves-and-completes (I think involvement-and-completion is uniquely human and is in fact the character of human nature, which would explain why the person becomes Buddha when she supremely ceases to involve or complete)? Or is the structure godlike (like the terrestrial gods, Loki and Odin, Osiris and Set) who telescope their self-natures? All English words for this type of extension, expansion have to do with being witnessed – “radiate, express” need bodies which are warmed or which hear. This growing enacted by structures and gods, self-construction, is phenomenally without audience, or without audience besides the self.

Probably there are humans who are insensitive to sights and like Brutalism for its associations or dislike it for its effect on the light on their faces – this insensitivity is doubtless a shortcoming, a flaw in the body’s capacity to read and experience, and as such according to my beliefs it has special nobility. It is a kind of involvement-completion, but seems to take place entirely on the body …