’s boycott of work in China on ethical grounds has been slammed as a “publicity stunt” by leading Dutch architect Erick van Egeraat. “Ideologising architecture is wrong; you overestimate its power.” BD | previously | related
i don't know where i stand on this, but it seems suspiscious that architecture is 'ideologised' and 'overestimated' when in the service of disagreeable regimes, chinese or otherwise, yet free of similar problems when working as competitive iconic spectacle for neoliberal states - capacity is suddenly questioned because of intent. am happy to accept that intent is complicated by a state in conflict, that architects' need to interrogate their commissions, but to suddenly turn around and play down power and ideology is bullshit.
that's its coward (no pun) it is self righteous. He did a project in Germany, and had one listed in Sierra Leone as well. How and where does he draw the line?
another architect who ignored politics was Albert Speer;
Hitlers Architect.
Yes, Ethics has to have a place in architecture, and building a building for the Chinese ministry of propaganda (CTV), should be condemned (I'm looking at you OMA) , expecially considering what is going on in tibet right now, and how they have simply refused to report the news in mainland china.
Libeskind was right on this one. Sure you can split hairs, but at some point you have to draw a line and say I'm not going to directly support an oppressive regime. It seems like many architects simply don't care, and getting a big commission is more important.
Well fuck that.
I am with Libeskind and xcarix on this one..
Sure you can split hairs, but it is just that.
Building for a repressive government is something that you should not be dong imho.
There was an article a while back about how architects tend to work for dictatorial type regimes because it is easier to get stuff done...
Booo...It is called the democratic process bitches!
the point is Hong Kong is part of China, though a special autonomous economic development zone. what exactly does he mean when he is NOT working in China? no jobs with the government? would he take a commission for a jewish memorial in China?
back to Cameron's fine post--lets get to the meat of things, where and when do ethics begin and end?
B.S. Wait until you've been in this business a few more years...GET THE $$$. That's like saying as an attorney, you should not be representing criminals. If you wanna do good, join a food co-op.
Every decision we make has moral an ethical consequences, period. Every professional has to agree to a minimum standard of ethical behavior. If that is your base ethical standard then you effectively have no personal ethics.
Every one draws a line, not acknowledging this fact is simply a means for you to deny where you may have drawn your particular line.
Finally, an individuals moral behavior is not defined by the amount of power they wield, I can’t even begin to address the folly of that logic. We are all responsible for our decisions no matter how we might try and rationalize to the contrary.
I’m pleased to see that Libeskind has raised the point. It would not have been nearly as likely to be newsworthy had it been some lesser architectural light. The question has been thrown out there. Lots of them, in fact. There are first the questions concerning principles and, then, if we can answer them, those of how those principles can be best applied.
Principles: Why is China being singled out here? Is it only the timing? Olympics, the current unrest in Tibet? If participation and ownership of land are the central principles involved here then most projects, clients and countries would have to be boycotted. Does a ‘public hearing’ constitute ample participation? Are the state’s expropriation powers used legitimately? (see, for example, Kelo v. New London). Instead of countries, perhaps we should be boycotting building types. This is the approach taken by ADPSR in its boycott of the design of prisons (http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/). Extending the principles ADPSR applied suggests that there are many other building types that deserve attention. Shopping malls? Should we really be designing temples to conspicuous consumption on the one hand and railing on about climate change and higher environmental standards on the other?
Application: Is a boycott the most effective approach? Perhaps for high profile architects that can help. How effective has the ADPSR boycott been? There are other approaches that might be considered. One that we are looking at now is the use of the front end of contracts to raise standards for human rights. Many architects have applied this method to raise environmental standards for their work. There is no reason this can’t be done in the arena of rights. This applies not only to conditions for labourers and their families living on site and in construction camps of international projects (a point raised by Cameron). It also applies to the rights of those affected by projects. The Three Gorges Dam certainly raised those issues for more than a million people, even if it failed to raise them for the engineers conducting the CIDA-supported feasibility study for the Chinese government.
Graeme Bristol
Centre for Architecture and Human Rights
I'm sorry, but is this the same Daniel Libeskind who happily provided a competition entry for the Gaz-most-evil-corperation-prom headquarters in democratic Russia? Please, give me a break
Building for Chinese Communist government or for Chinese civilians can be and should be discerned, no? Libeskind raised a point, but he intentionally left it blurry to exploit from a potential backlash. Or worse, he is actually unsophisticated about the global politics in its rudimentary sense. In any way, it's a cheap stupid d shot. He might as well add that he supports Tibetan independence, but of course he doesn't care or know that far, does he?
Even if the client is the Chinese Communist Party, architecture as a service needs only to reflect upon its true intention. Hell, the sun shines on "good regime" and "bad regime" and regimes come and go. A good designer can certainly provide a good service for a questionable character, because, it's just about offering a good idea, you know. It's not an architect's job to judge (whenever they do, they often fail badly), but to serve as a designer and builder.
First, i don't think the issue is about doing work in China. For me it is very clearly about doing work in any government in any country that oppresses it people...
Sure the argument could be made then what about the GAO in America...But i think we should try and avoid semantic games..
Architects indeed any profession should be aware of who and what their clients represent..
By that logic every architect should be condemned. There is a different between working with expensive materials and being complicit with larger political machinations.
This is an interesting debate! It will probably be a more useful one if people don't use it as a soapbox to slag Libeskind.
17 Comments
i don't know where i stand on this, but it seems suspiscious that architecture is 'ideologised' and 'overestimated' when in the service of disagreeable regimes, chinese or otherwise, yet free of similar problems when working as competitive iconic spectacle for neoliberal states - capacity is suddenly questioned because of intent. am happy to accept that intent is complicated by a state in conflict, that architects' need to interrogate their commissions, but to suddenly turn around and play down power and ideology is bullshit.
I kind of went on a rant on this one..... http://www.cameronsinclair.com/index.php?q=node/17
strangely enough Studio Libeskind lists a project in Hong Kong. kind of a fine hair to split when you're being self-righteous.
nice rant cameron.
that's its coward (no pun) it is self righteous. He did a project in Germany, and had one listed in Sierra Leone as well. How and where does he draw the line?
working in the entire country or just with the government?
another architect who ignored politics was Albert Speer;
Hitlers Architect.
Yes, Ethics has to have a place in architecture, and building a building for the Chinese ministry of propaganda (CTV), should be condemned (I'm looking at you OMA) , expecially considering what is going on in tibet right now, and how they have simply refused to report the news in mainland china.
Libeskind was right on this one. Sure you can split hairs, but at some point you have to draw a line and say I'm not going to directly support an oppressive regime. It seems like many architects simply don't care, and getting a big commission is more important.
Well fuck that.
I am with Libeskind and xcarix on this one..
Sure you can split hairs, but it is just that.
Building for a repressive government is something that you should not be dong imho.
There was an article a while back about how architects tend to work for dictatorial type regimes because it is easier to get stuff done...
Booo...It is called the democratic process bitches!
the point is Hong Kong is part of China, though a special autonomous economic development zone. what exactly does he mean when he is NOT working in China? no jobs with the government? would he take a commission for a jewish memorial in China?
back to Cameron's fine post--lets get to the meat of things, where and when do ethics begin and end?
B.S. Wait until you've been in this business a few more years...GET THE $$$. That's like saying as an attorney, you should not be representing criminals. If you wanna do good, join a food co-op.
Ho's gotta eat, too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPwt4W5-bO0
Every decision we make has moral an ethical consequences, period. Every professional has to agree to a minimum standard of ethical behavior. If that is your base ethical standard then you effectively have no personal ethics.
Every one draws a line, not acknowledging this fact is simply a means for you to deny where you may have drawn your particular line.
Finally, an individuals moral behavior is not defined by the amount of power they wield, I can’t even begin to address the folly of that logic. We are all responsible for our decisions no matter how we might try and rationalize to the contrary.
I’m pleased to see that Libeskind has raised the point. It would not have been nearly as likely to be newsworthy had it been some lesser architectural light. The question has been thrown out there. Lots of them, in fact. There are first the questions concerning principles and, then, if we can answer them, those of how those principles can be best applied.
Principles: Why is China being singled out here? Is it only the timing? Olympics, the current unrest in Tibet? If participation and ownership of land are the central principles involved here then most projects, clients and countries would have to be boycotted. Does a ‘public hearing’ constitute ample participation? Are the state’s expropriation powers used legitimately? (see, for example, Kelo v. New London). Instead of countries, perhaps we should be boycotting building types. This is the approach taken by ADPSR in its boycott of the design of prisons (http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/). Extending the principles ADPSR applied suggests that there are many other building types that deserve attention. Shopping malls? Should we really be designing temples to conspicuous consumption on the one hand and railing on about climate change and higher environmental standards on the other?
Application: Is a boycott the most effective approach? Perhaps for high profile architects that can help. How effective has the ADPSR boycott been? There are other approaches that might be considered. One that we are looking at now is the use of the front end of contracts to raise standards for human rights. Many architects have applied this method to raise environmental standards for their work. There is no reason this can’t be done in the arena of rights. This applies not only to conditions for labourers and their families living on site and in construction camps of international projects (a point raised by Cameron). It also applies to the rights of those affected by projects. The Three Gorges Dam certainly raised those issues for more than a million people, even if it failed to raise them for the engineers conducting the CIDA-supported feasibility study for the Chinese government.
Graeme Bristol
Centre for Architecture and Human Rights
I'm sorry, but is this the same Daniel Libeskind who happily provided a competition entry for the Gaz-most-evil-corperation-prom headquarters in democratic Russia? Please, give me a break
Building for Chinese Communist government or for Chinese civilians can be and should be discerned, no? Libeskind raised a point, but he intentionally left it blurry to exploit from a potential backlash. Or worse, he is actually unsophisticated about the global politics in its rudimentary sense. In any way, it's a cheap stupid d shot. He might as well add that he supports Tibetan independence, but of course he doesn't care or know that far, does he?
Even if the client is the Chinese Communist Party, architecture as a service needs only to reflect upon its true intention. Hell, the sun shines on "good regime" and "bad regime" and regimes come and go. A good designer can certainly provide a good service for a questionable character, because, it's just about offering a good idea, you know. It's not an architect's job to judge (whenever they do, they often fail badly), but to serve as a designer and builder.
First, i don't think the issue is about doing work in China. For me it is very clearly about doing work in any government in any country that oppresses it people...
Sure the argument could be made then what about the GAO in America...But i think we should try and avoid semantic games..
Architects indeed any profession should be aware of who and what their clients represent..
is this the same dude who designed a $12,000 chair??? How many starving Chineese children could be fed with each of those chairs?
^^
By that logic every architect should be condemned. There is a different between working with expensive materials and being complicit with larger political machinations.
This is an interesting debate! It will probably be a more useful one if people don't use it as a soapbox to slag Libeskind.
Greg...Agreed!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.