Richard Rogers, it was recently reported distanced himself from his active participation in Pro-Palestinian groups, and has been asked to renounce his previous comments supporting Palestinian terrorist groups, or risk losing the Jacob Javitz commission in NY, as it is against the law in NY to promote anti-israeli organizations. He has not yet retracted his comments, but resigned from his organization.
Change of Heart or another architect selling out to not lose a job?
According to the op-ed piece in the NY Daily News, U.S. laws "bar boycotts of Israel, a prohibition aimed at protecting that country from economic strangulation"
The reports I have just read say that Rogers allowed a Pro-Palestinian architects' group to meet in his office. And Rogers has flatly denied making comments which allege he supports 'targetted activities' against Israel.
So much for the 'Land of the Free'', eh?
Though it would not surprise me to hear of another Tony Blair supporter selling out some principles. Blair wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and slapped him around the face ;)
Ok guys, lets re-focus.... The issue is whether this is an architect selling out his principles (no matter if you are in agreement or not with them) to not lose a job. Are we no different than lawyers defending criminals and the innocent at the same time?
And I do think Rem and Zaha would do exactly the same.
Discerning whether Rogers himself is Jewish is not the point. (by the way, there are many, many, many Jews who are both Zionist and pro-Palestinian)
Architects sell out all the time. It's a matter of putting food on the table. Think of all the architects who design for corporations who have dubious business practices, or have the "wrong" politics. Or the projects that go forward thanks to money given by donors who might not have made their money ethically.
What was that line that Philip Johnson said about architects being whores?
This is a service profession. There is a point where you have to be what your clients want you to be. Most architects don't have the luxury of standing on principle.
The question here is do architects really care about the work they do, the clients they seek, to be a reflection of their beliefs. Or are we just tools looking for the next job? Would an architect with Pro life beliefs take on a Planned Parenthood commission?
I think the issue is, doesn't Rogers have enough work to be able to take a stand on this issue?
I think it's really troubling that just having an opinion on the Palestinian situation can keep you from getting work or get you labeled as an anti-Semite. I think it's a reflection of the idea that a lot of Israelis must know how ugly their treatment of the Palestinians looks to so many people that they are reduced to blacklisting people who dare to have an opinion.
everyone is a critic til its their ass on the line. blame should go to the people who prevent free speech and political actions. We should not punish those who try and fail! Although we would admire Rogers to take a firm stand who else is really doing it, besides the typical subjects? I think if you're angry you should write to the government officals who are really causing pain to people being political!
while i agree the powers that be who are curbing political voices should be reprimanded, you also have to blame the people themselves for not willing to stand up and be political enough. it's a double front. was Rogers being political and then got wacked by the NYC gang? doesnt look like it to me. it actually looks like he never intended to be political, just got caught up in some something (that he appears to have little real interest in) and then backpedaled to move his project forward. i dont sense any political fight in Rogers. so, in this case, yeah, blame the extortionists, but free speach is lost in architecture because people refuse to exercise their voices.
I still don't know how anyone could have a meeting in their office about a political topic and not be interested, especially when he "opened the meeting"--it looks that he didn't know he would lose a job(s) over this issue in the States. Sadly this is not an atypical situtation.
he supposedly left the meeting 10 minutes into it. he may even be more innocent, in the sense, of not really knowing where he stands, and just trying to understand the topic more, and if the case he could have at least admitted that, instead of adamantly stating, in the end: he supports the wall. couldnt he have navigated the extortion ring in NYC with more reflection, by stating something to the effect that the security wall is a huge debate for architects, that it is something they should consider more carefully rather than jumping to an immediate full on suport of, or a kneejerk boycott. you know where i stand, but instead of ultimately caving in, couldnt he have tredded more thoughtfully over it, as something suggested we should all be examining. why run from it, when he could have at least claimed it deserves our reflection. that way he wouldnt have had to take a definitive stand on the wall. but argued instead that he is open to at least hearing both sides. a middle fence aproach to be sure. but i would never be forced to say i supprt the wall when if in fact i didnt. that might be unconscionable.
If he said that, they just would have come down harder on him-it's their way or the highway-no reflection, consideration, examination allowed on Israel.
now. not in the first news articles. they stated that he started the meeting and was a member--now he's changed his tune! Well that doesn't add-up to what you and he are supposing. But we should take him at his word! He is a flip-flopper and a sellout, but then again he's been one for years and for the first time in a long time a sell-out changes into someone who wants change and gets slapped down by the powers that be! And you want to slap him again, instead of the powers that be.
I think that if we focused our energy on those powers we would be more successful than cursing someone who isn't strong enough to take a stand. so take the stand with me and send a letter to Silver and anyone else who uses politics as a tool to silence critique!
sure. again, i think its a double front. you need to be attacking it at both ends, from the inside and at the institutional level. i dont think you will defeat the problem by focussing on either one, or using one to make excuses for the other. if he boycotted the javits, what message would that have sent to the NYC authorities? to architects? to Israel? instead, what message has he sent as it has turned out. sell-out. that message hurts the cause more than the state it was in before. absolutely focus attacks on the powers that be, but dont let that be a surrogate for standing up in your own time of calling.
oldirty: you may be right. but thats ridiculous. it would have been the mature response, b/c any thinking individual knows it requires a shit load of contemplation to figure out the Isr/Pal situation, and where the wall fits into the future. it would have been an a-political stance. instead, saying, let's look at it, objectively (if possible), instead of putting on our collars and following the extrmeist viewpoints. i dont know. t least encourage a healthy dialogue around, which is what we need to bring people to the table. right now, it is war.
there are no excuses. I think you're missing the point. We hope people will stand up and when they crumble you continue their position for them and show your own strength and perhaps they will come back to support you and that idea, position, or action in the future. The people we should be attacking are the people who are completely and throughly apolitical, who prey on oppuritunity, and have no ethics!
"The people we should be attacking are the people who are completely and throughly apolitical, who prey on oppuritunity, and have no ethics!"
well, given Rogers maneuverings here to keep this project, i might mistake him in that category. and of course, i understand what you are saying, it just sounds like you have used your argument to exonerate Rogers some, as if what he has done is acceptable, b/c he was "forced into it." of course, attack the institution which facilitates this type of extortion, how could i be opposed to that? how could i not want to rewrite the terms of project development that way? but how do yo do that? how do you unravel that power structure which sacrifices free speech? sure, write your protest letters, but ultimately it is unraveled in the very practice decisions architects make, the projects they take, the terms they go on accepting. the sell-outs they continue being. i dont know, i see your points and obviously agree with you. it's just that we need top dogs fighting for us on the inside, too. Rogers had a chance, but backed down. the infrastructure of NYC development extortion sinks its teeth in deepr to the future history of these types of negotiations and issues. they won this one, big. its prostitution at the highest level. and doesnt that seem as damaging as the NYC forces throwing around their power?
its never been more systematic as far as i am concerned. free speech is at war, in this country, and losing badly. b/c ppl dont get upset, dnt get active, ppl dont do shit! not even when they are called upon. whatever. i think you and i agree about the state of affairs in this country, regarding the hostile climate threatening our civil rights at its most sacred and political level. when you have an opportunity to take a big stand, you do it. and fight all the lil fights too along the way.
Mar 7, 06 3:26 pm ·
·
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.
Richard Rogers: Change of Heart Or Sellout?
Richard Rogers, it was recently reported distanced himself from his active participation in Pro-Palestinian groups, and has been asked to renounce his previous comments supporting Palestinian terrorist groups, or risk losing the Jacob Javitz commission in NY, as it is against the law in NY to promote anti-israeli organizations. He has not yet retracted his comments, but resigned from his organization.
Change of Heart or another architect selling out to not lose a job?
How can it be against the law in NY to promote anti-Israeli organizations? Wouldn't that be a very blatant violation of the 1st amendment?
According to the op-ed piece in the NY Daily News, U.S. laws "bar boycotts of Israel, a prohibition aimed at protecting that country from economic strangulation"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/396240p-335873c.html
The reports I have just read say that Rogers allowed a Pro-Palestinian architects' group to meet in his office. And Rogers has flatly denied making comments which allege he supports 'targetted activities' against Israel.
So much for the 'Land of the Free'', eh?
Though it would not surprise me to hear of another Tony Blair supporter selling out some principles. Blair wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and slapped him around the face ;)
i am pro palestine, israel, jewish.
i am anti separation wall, jewish settlements and "how dare you criticize israel".
fact sheet
yes. roge is a sell out. imo.i wonder what zaha would do under similar situation.
zaha would say,
go fuck yourselves.
rem too.
rem, zaha, roger..haha..
Richard Rogers should get in touch with the ACLU, or actually he is right, the US does not deserve to have a person like him working for it.
Why is criticizing israel 'against the law' Maestro??? If criticisizing Isral or the Jews is, then any criticism should be against the law.
isnt richard rogers a jew himself ?
sorry..richard meier, not richard rogers
Ok guys, lets re-focus.... The issue is whether this is an architect selling out his principles (no matter if you are in agreement or not with them) to not lose a job. Are we no different than lawyers defending criminals and the innocent at the same time?
And I do think Rem and Zaha would do exactly the same.
This article summarizes some of the issues. Clearly he is backpedaling to save two important commissions.
Maestro..who cares what rogers or Rem or zaha or whosever does or WOULD do.
care about ethics..YOU dont sellout.ever. simple !
richard rogers father was jewish according to a recent NYSUN article
So he's not, technically. But whatever, why can't he be pro palestinian and be jewish at the same time?
he'll never build in dubai..
haha, again..
i hope n. chomsky totally ignores him..
my jewish friends are all pro palestinian.
Discerning whether Rogers himself is Jewish is not the point. (by the way, there are many, many, many Jews who are both Zionist and pro-Palestinian)
Architects sell out all the time. It's a matter of putting food on the table. Think of all the architects who design for corporations who have dubious business practices, or have the "wrong" politics. Or the projects that go forward thanks to money given by donors who might not have made their money ethically.
What was that line that Philip Johnson said about architects being whores?
This is a service profession. There is a point where you have to be what your clients want you to be. Most architects don't have the luxury of standing on principle.
The question here is do architects really care about the work they do, the clients they seek, to be a reflection of their beliefs. Or are we just tools looking for the next job? Would an architect with Pro life beliefs take on a Planned Parenthood commission?
I think the issue is, doesn't Rogers have enough work to be able to take a stand on this issue?
I think it's really troubling that just having an opinion on the Palestinian situation can keep you from getting work or get you labeled as an anti-Semite. I think it's a reflection of the idea that a lot of Israelis must know how ugly their treatment of the Palestinians looks to so many people that they are reduced to blacklisting people who dare to have an opinion.
everyone is a critic til its their ass on the line. blame should go to the people who prevent free speech and political actions. We should not punish those who try and fail! Although we would admire Rogers to take a firm stand who else is really doing it, besides the typical subjects? I think if you're angry you should write to the government officals who are really causing pain to people being political!
while i agree the powers that be who are curbing political voices should be reprimanded, you also have to blame the people themselves for not willing to stand up and be political enough. it's a double front. was Rogers being political and then got wacked by the NYC gang? doesnt look like it to me. it actually looks like he never intended to be political, just got caught up in some something (that he appears to have little real interest in) and then backpedaled to move his project forward. i dont sense any political fight in Rogers. so, in this case, yeah, blame the extortionists, but free speach is lost in architecture because people refuse to exercise their voices.
I still don't know how anyone could have a meeting in their office about a political topic and not be interested, especially when he "opened the meeting"--it looks that he didn't know he would lose a job(s) over this issue in the States. Sadly this is not an atypical situtation.
in a country where you can lose your job for what you believe in!
he supposedly left the meeting 10 minutes into it. he may even be more innocent, in the sense, of not really knowing where he stands, and just trying to understand the topic more, and if the case he could have at least admitted that, instead of adamantly stating, in the end: he supports the wall. couldnt he have navigated the extortion ring in NYC with more reflection, by stating something to the effect that the security wall is a huge debate for architects, that it is something they should consider more carefully rather than jumping to an immediate full on suport of, or a kneejerk boycott. you know where i stand, but instead of ultimately caving in, couldnt he have tredded more thoughtfully over it, as something suggested we should all be examining. why run from it, when he could have at least claimed it deserves our reflection. that way he wouldnt have had to take a definitive stand on the wall. but argued instead that he is open to at least hearing both sides. a middle fence aproach to be sure. but i would never be forced to say i supprt the wall when if in fact i didnt. that might be unconscionable.
If he said that, they just would have come down harder on him-it's their way or the highway-no reflection, consideration, examination allowed on Israel.
now. not in the first news articles. they stated that he started the meeting and was a member--now he's changed his tune! Well that doesn't add-up to what you and he are supposing. But we should take him at his word! He is a flip-flopper and a sellout, but then again he's been one for years and for the first time in a long time a sell-out changes into someone who wants change and gets slapped down by the powers that be! And you want to slap him again, instead of the powers that be.
I think that if we focused our energy on those powers we would be more successful than cursing someone who isn't strong enough to take a stand. so take the stand with me and send a letter to Silver and anyone else who uses politics as a tool to silence critique!
sure. again, i think its a double front. you need to be attacking it at both ends, from the inside and at the institutional level. i dont think you will defeat the problem by focussing on either one, or using one to make excuses for the other. if he boycotted the javits, what message would that have sent to the NYC authorities? to architects? to Israel? instead, what message has he sent as it has turned out. sell-out. that message hurts the cause more than the state it was in before. absolutely focus attacks on the powers that be, but dont let that be a surrogate for standing up in your own time of calling.
oldirty: you may be right. but thats ridiculous. it would have been the mature response, b/c any thinking individual knows it requires a shit load of contemplation to figure out the Isr/Pal situation, and where the wall fits into the future. it would have been an a-political stance. instead, saying, let's look at it, objectively (if possible), instead of putting on our collars and following the extrmeist viewpoints. i dont know. t least encourage a healthy dialogue around, which is what we need to bring people to the table. right now, it is war.
if you're going to burn your candle at both ends you should start with the top. Frank Gehry! Now there is a target.
there are no excuses. I think you're missing the point. We hope people will stand up and when they crumble you continue their position for them and show your own strength and perhaps they will come back to support you and that idea, position, or action in the future. The people we should be attacking are the people who are completely and throughly apolitical, who prey on oppuritunity, and have no ethics!
"The people we should be attacking are the people who are completely and throughly apolitical, who prey on oppuritunity, and have no ethics!"
well, given Rogers maneuverings here to keep this project, i might mistake him in that category. and of course, i understand what you are saying, it just sounds like you have used your argument to exonerate Rogers some, as if what he has done is acceptable, b/c he was "forced into it." of course, attack the institution which facilitates this type of extortion, how could i be opposed to that? how could i not want to rewrite the terms of project development that way? but how do yo do that? how do you unravel that power structure which sacrifices free speech? sure, write your protest letters, but ultimately it is unraveled in the very practice decisions architects make, the projects they take, the terms they go on accepting. the sell-outs they continue being. i dont know, i see your points and obviously agree with you. it's just that we need top dogs fighting for us on the inside, too. Rogers had a chance, but backed down. the infrastructure of NYC development extortion sinks its teeth in deepr to the future history of these types of negotiations and issues. they won this one, big. its prostitution at the highest level. and doesnt that seem as damaging as the NYC forces throwing around their power?
well then I wasn't clear. you know that they just recently stopped a play about Rachel Corrie in NYC also. so its systemic in my opinion.
its never been more systematic as far as i am concerned. free speech is at war, in this country, and losing badly. b/c ppl dont get upset, dnt get active, ppl dont do shit! not even when they are called upon. whatever. i think you and i agree about the state of affairs in this country, regarding the hostile climate threatening our civil rights at its most sacred and political level. when you have an opportunity to take a big stand, you do it. and fight all the lil fights too along the way.
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.