Mistakes - editorial San Rocco 3

There is plenty of bad architecture all over the place. Stupid, wrong architecture. Architecture that failed, and failed miserably. Architecture that is full of mistakes. San Rocco 3 does not talk about that. San Rocco 3 is interested in another kind of mistake: mistakes that are the product of a disproportion, of a displacement; mistakes that are somehow generous, open, brave; mistakes that involve some sort of heroic failure; mistakes that shed a new light on the limits of the very same rule that labels them as mistakes. Mistakes are evident, public. Like rules, they involve some sort of agreement. Mistakes are the opposite of opinions. Actually, mistakes despise opinions even more than rules do. Mistakes can happen only if there is a shared knowledge. Mistakes do not imply a complete refusal of the rule; rather, a rule is opposed by a new and different rule, not by a mistake. Mistakes do not want to do away with the rule; instead, mistakes try to establish a relationship with the rule (even if this is not a very relaxed one). Mistakes are episodes in which the rule manifests itself in all its weakness and clumsiness. Mistakes are a comedy about rules, or the stumbling and stuttering little brothers of rules. There is something intimately didactic about mistakes. As soon as there is a mistake, there is some sort of correction, some sort of teaching, some sort of school. Mistakes are necessarily plural: if there is a rule, there will be plenty of mistakes. Mistakes suggest the possibility (and the necessity) of a new kind of rule, one that could even cope with this specific kind of mistake. Mistakes somehow point toward some forgotten potential. Mistakes are progressive