18:43 Mar 18, 2011 

then it would be important to rearrange the sentence:

"Considering the earnestness/seriousness of the religious issue, inspiring awe-struck silence or (foolish) prate/verbosity, he has succeeded in creating a form of architectural quality that is fervently accepted by Christians and has gained the respect and acknowledgement of non-Christians as well."

I'm sticking with verbosity because I do believe it is slightly derogatory.

18:14 Mar 18, 2011 

Speaking for myself, I am overwhelmed and speechless in view of this in-depth investigation through 8 or so colleagues, and for once I'm not being ironical

16:50 Mar 18, 2011 

Instead of hewing to the Sprach.... metaphor, you may want to use 'blandness' or 'insipidity' (the architectural design does not "emote", i.e. is distant and non-communicative), while 'geschwätzig' could be described as all kinds of things, "officious/self-serving/grandstanding/overbearing/shrill etc, in other words overdoing it in pushing the envelope

16:24 Mar 18, 2011 

architects or architecture? You make the slippage between the two yourself! Just a point relating to garrulousness versus verbosity. The former is not particularly negative in meaning, whereas the latter is. I guess it again depends on the author's meaning as to which is more appropriate. Fabio!!! Are you receiving us????

16:05 Mar 18, 2011 

angesichts“ refers both times to the „Ernst der religiösen Frage“:
Angesichts visueller Sprachlosigkeit im Hinblick auf den Ernst der religiösen Frage, aber auch angesichts der Geschwätzigkeit im Hinblick auf den Ernst der religiösen Frage. And the persons accused of being „sprachlos“ or „geschwätzig“ are the architects! (IMO)

Judging from the piece of text we are presented with ( please note the caveat!), the author compares the particular church he describes with other religious buildings whose architecture either does not convey any spiritual striving at all ( muteness) or whose architecture is so busy that it detracts from the spiritual experience (garrulous).
That's my simplified reading ...just got up here at the west coast...

Now we just need to put it all in English words of arresting beauty :-)

15:48 Mar 18, 2011 

Any building conveys messages in its visual and architectural language, as I am sure you will agree. Therefore any religious building by default says something about the religious experience, even if it says something negative (I well remember a church being built that looked like an out-of-town DIY shed and people wondering about that particular message!!). Only Fabio can tell us what the author can possibly mean here about architecture (if that is what is meant) having no voice/language when faced with this question. Maybe you have gone off to ask the author what is meant, or maybe it is evident in your context, Fabio, but we are still left in the dark trying to help you. What is your view of this or your best guess, please?

15:16 Mar 18, 2011 

We have Fabio's comment - This text is about church architecture that has the ability to show "religiousness" at the same time to both religious and atheist people. - Hence I suggested: an attempt to find a balance (avoid the risk) between two extremes, muteness/silence/nothing to say (and here comes the important part) - regarding the seriousness of the religious question - versus garrulousness (too much to say (to express), esp. nothing of value/nothing earnest to an atheist, therefore hoping to attract believers and atheists alike. Believers won't be impressed if it says nothing about God (being silent/mute regarding the seriousness of the religious question) just as atheists won't be impressed if they are overwhelmed with traditional religious discourse (visually or verbally). By not addressing the serious religious question, "religiousness" is supposed to be conveyed to both? Atheists are supposed to "just" get a glimpse of religious awe/fervor?
It is not clear however who's silence/muteness or verbosity/garullousness this text really refers to. (The word "angesichts" is of no big help either.) Only Fabio can tell us (if that is indeed mentioned in your text).

13:09 Mar 18, 2011 

I was gratefully surprised by the many comments and the lively discussion of this topic. Seems like there is an important intertext here.

13:07 Mar 18, 2011 

Yes, and which frames of reference he is using.

13:05 Mar 18, 2011 

I guess it comes down to whose silence/verbosity, doesn't it? When the vantagepoint is clear, we can translate the intent appropriately.

13:01 Mar 18, 2011 

No room to leave you a message in the response boxes. We understand this in fundamentally different ways. I hope Fabio will now give us some clarification.

12:59 Mar 18, 2011 

on who is silent; the structure or the viewer?

12:50 Mar 18, 2011 

struck silent - as in awe? Or visually overwhelmed (into silence)?

11:50 Mar 18, 2011 

My 'dumming down' refers only to the distinction between contemporary (post-modern) architecture and its modern precedent. However, until Fabio comes back to us, I don't know if this is any part of the distinction that the author is trying to make.

11:13 Mar 18, 2011 

Actually I realise it is very difficult to express what I understand it to mean in more than one sentence! So can I add to my previous comment that I think the point is that there is a danger that the "architectural message" may overshadow the religious one (the dumming down that Helen mentioned?) because the architecture, whilst capable of speaking on an architectural level (Geschwätzigkeit - perhaps even refering to a temptation on the part of the architect to say too much/overdo it) cannot fully express the serious religious message (Sprachlosigkeit). The architect has had to find a form which remains sufficiently serious and reverent to please Christians, but which retains sufficient architectural interest to earn the respect of non-Christians.

10:41 Mar 18, 2011 

I think you have hit the nail pretty much on the head. As Helen says there is a visual language to architecture, it speaks to us, but it is "struck dumb" when it comes to dealing with the true depths of religion/ religious questions. The architect has had to balance this inability of architecture to express what is most important here with the volumes it speaks in other respects and find a form that will satisfy Christians and non-Christians alike. That is my reading of it anyway, but as for expressing that in one sentence...

10:13 Mar 18, 2011 

I wonder if you could give us a bit more context here in terms of the points of reference. Are any of us getting to the essence of the article you are translating?

10:11 Mar 18, 2011 

We have to be very careful here since architects and architectural theoreticians speak a great deal about visual language, so it won't make much sense to say that the visual has NO language. This was why I stressed the lack of VERBAL language. Horst's idea about the inadequacy of its language might be what is meant. Perhaps the author is not talking about all architecture throught the ages, but contemporary religious architecture. I see the Geschwätzigkeit as a reference to post-modern architecture and the eclecticism of references, which often results in a sense of dumming down, lack of seriousness and a feeling of inauthenticity in comparison, specifically, with the modern, or, indeed, medieval (where materials and honesty were also all).

09:27 Mar 18, 2011 

as I see it, the idea is that church architecture "speaks" (through its appearance, so visually) of the greatness of God (cf. the idea of medieval cathedral-builders that the grandeur of their buildings was a reflection of the grandeur of God) - but at the same time the sheer enormity of God renders it speechless (again, the idea of there simply being no words to express the greatness of God is a not uncommon idea in religious circles). Presumably (although I'm less certain), the Geschwätzigkeit is simply the opposite idea - that to some people the architecture will "say" all sorts of things. And yes, I take the Gestalt to be the form of the building this architect has created. (Are we perhaps talking about the form of this architect's buildings in general - his style - rather than about one particular building?)

08:43 Mar 18, 2011 

whose Sprachlosigkeit/Geschwätzigkeit it is, and what is the significance of "visuell". How can "Sprachlosigkeit (something to do with speaking, i.e. a sound) be "visual"?
Also what is the "Gestalt"? A piece of architecture?
Without this information I couldn't even try to find a translation.

07:24 Mar 18, 2011 

as opposed to verbosity. Feels most natural. guess I'll just go ahead and post it!

03:26 Mar 18, 2011 

"Geschwätz" (and "Gerede") are also part of "Heideggerese". Now we need a native anglophone conversant with that shade of theology ...

03:04 Mar 18, 2011 

is a juxtaposition frequently used in contemporary German theology. The author probably (?) relies on the reader's familiarity with these 'conditions'; maybe this info helps native speakers find a sufficiently natural, but moderately strange sounding English equivalent:-)

02:44 Mar 18, 2011 

Heidegger, gives us just "silence" for his own "Sprachlosigkeit" and this caption: "Einfach sprachlos but not simply speechless". More anon.

02:38 Mar 18, 2011 

are so called, because they as yet lack speech. "Inarticulateness", according to Roget, is "imperfect speech", "aphonia" was his word. "Sprachlosigkeit" is a Heidegger kind of word, "speechless" cannot take on such connotations. "Verbosity" is in a field with "wortreich", "babbling" comes without noun, "garrulousness", or "talkativeness" read awkwardly and are hard to associate with architecture. "Angesichts" is a bad fit with an absence of the acoustic. Some more searching is needed...

01:55 Mar 18, 2011 

Not polished but I read it this way: In view of the visual's lack of verbal language in matters relating to the seriousness of the religious question, but also in view of (the risks associated with) verbosity, he succeeded in finding a form .... But would need refining, of course.