Hadid, who was born in Baghdad and is now a British citizen, claimed that Filler falsely implied she was indifferent to the alleged difficult working conditions of migrant workers on high-profile construction projects in the Middle East, including her own.
She also claimed Filler used large portions of his June 5 review of Rowan Moore's "Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture" to question her success and fault her personality, although she was not a prominent character in the book.
— whtc.com
74 Comments
Tammuz,
It shouldn't have anything to do with her personally. And yet it does. And like I said, AECOM is the other firm on the job. Why are they not being mentioned or asked about this issue? I think its a failure of journalism that we do not know the names of others who are shaping this project, or more precisely, the ones responsible for worker safety.
But how are you missing the personal jabs in what is being written? Read the comments here, or on Dezeen. Follow the tweets of architecture critics and professors and the comments that follow those. Here is a tip, the personal is usually in the comments that do not address the actual architecture of Zaha Hadid Architects.
They're not all as blatant as "I HATE HER MORE AND MORE" or "Fuck her and the camel she rode into town on. " but there is a lot of commentary on her character, her talent, her appearance, her ethnicity, her gender, her weight etc. And remember, Zaha Hadid Architects is a company and not even the only company on the Qatar project.
Fred, I think davvid was referring to the conceptual foundations of the work/output (architectonic, aesthetic) and not the conceptual foundations of the practice. Hence my objection.
I agree, however, that the perception of one's practice determines one's stance. And that's so obvious it almost warrants being tautological. Yes, I too had Schumacher in mind.
And, to widen the circle , I think this falls into the general spirit of "opportunism" that marked several architects who rose in antipathy to "criticality". Even being humane, if standing against profit and financial enumeration, is to be frowned upon and is to be portrayed cynically as "political correctness"...a term used by many to perversely shed disingenuity on expressions of tangible concerns.
This of course is baloney. Hadid and Schumacher have the ultimate choice to proceed under certain conditions or not to proceed. That they deem it more important to deem under these conditions marks them as regressive and conservative on those terms ...while appearing progressive and avant garde (to many people) on the aesthetic and work-output front.
davvid, I see your point. But I'm relying on what the critic said and on valiant points irrelevant to her person. This is solely where I'm coming from. And I see that many people here are not really making personal jabs (although some may/are). From that point of view, there is nothing personal.
However, I agree that many times, people have amalgamated real concerns with racist associations, as well as with how she looks like. I totally agree with you. Sometimes, they've also amalgamated fictitious concerns with these same associations as well. Its worth pointing this out so I totally agree with you here. But this does not "let her off the hook" apropos whats being discussed here (separate from all racist or person-centric comments).
David, of course it should have to do with her personally. She is a person. Everything is personal. As a famous person, Her architecture is tightly associated with Zaha the person. I understand that It's easier to demonize bad practice when we have a single individual to blame as opposed to a face-less corporation. That's just the risk one takes when they make themselves so public/famous. She seems to relish in fame when it is positive. This is the other side of the coin that all famous people have to deal with. public figures do not have the same claim to libel as the rest of us.
And yes, clearly her (and shumachers) a-political stance is the main reason for their involvement. Does this stance=death? No and yes. Its sort of like a famous chef who buys his/her products from farms that use slave labor or child labor. That chefs character would of course come into question. Why is this different?
And yeah it may not be fair to blame her totally and let Aecom slide but this is not reason to lower the flame on her but rather to raise the flame on AECOM.
My friends father had over 600 workers buikding a 700 km highway from Riyadh to the border of Yemen. No deaths.
Zaha should not stop building her shit. After all it provides employment to so many graduates. Oh wait she does not pay that much! Guess that apartment she lives in costs a lot in rent.
Fred thank you for the link. You also pin-pointed I think the whole issue, which jla-X further explains why and how it is an issue for a single person versus massive and faceless AECOM.
"Patrik Schumacher's polemical post from facebook is in the same vein: "STOP political correctness in architecture. But also: STOP confusing architecture and art. Architects are in charge of the FORM of the built environment, not its content."
So why are the critics picking on Zaha then, because Patrik is her main man?
Someone said her lawsuit is bullying, I disagree, its self-defense against bullying by critics.
and just Maybe the lawsuit will "raise the flame" on everyone involved.
Architects are in charge of the FORM of the built environment, not its content.
I think Schumaker is quoting Albert Speer.
Amana Qatar Contracting Company (http://www.amanabuildings.com) employs the migrant workers working on the Al Wakrah stadium, according to this article in this Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jul/29/qatar-world-cup-stadium-workers-earn-45p-hour
Chebel Bsaibes is the CEO and President of Amana.
Here are the rest of company's the Board of directors:
http://www.amanabuildings.com/about-us/leadership/board-of-directors/
Here is the company's management team:
http://www.amanabuildings.com/about-us/leadership/management/
We should all sue Zaha for giving us mental stress
I finally read the original Martin Filler article. This lawsuit seems completely flimsy.
Too bad Zaha isn't as incensed about the slave labor and worker deaths on her project.
Of course the lawsuit is flimsy. It is just a big "fuck you" to critics from Zaha.
I'm with Donna on this one.
But also singling her out as being The One, as Olaf does, is also histrionically exaggerated.
Yes, AECOM are also to blame. As is the Contractor. As is the client and as is, most of all the government.
Its just that because she's famous yada yada (per my previous posts).
I'm not sure which is worse really: speaking your mind, telling people that the labourer issue is not your responsibility and acting that way OR thinking it but not saying it and still acting that way.
Martin Filler issues a retraction regarding his "mistake" in his critique of Zaha Hadid
Great. By pointing out factual error and minutae, the big issue gets forgotten.
That is a huge error. If no one has died on her project then why ask her a question like that? Well that wasn't really the question and her response that I qoute here is not the one being posted on the internet everywhere like a virus. ........................................from the Guardian Asked if she was concerned, Hadid added: "Yes, but I'm more concerned about the deaths in Iraq as well, so what do I do about that? I'm not taking it lightly but I think it's for the government to look to take care of. It's not my duty as an architect to look at it. "I cannot do anything about it because I have no power to do anything about it. I think it's a problem anywhere in the world. But, as I said, I think there are discrepancies all over the world." this would only further support the theory that critics have it out for her and are willing to cross any line to prove an agenda - so you get sued.....
Tammuz your sentence should read "But also singling her out as being The One, as Olaf is noting the media has done here in this case, is also historically exaggerated." Please retract your previous sentence structure and word arrangement - its misleading.
It is a huge error, I agree. And Zaha might be easier to "hate on" as davvid suggests...and this might well have to do with her not being a " white man" and because she was (and I don't know if she still is) a visionary. She has had more than her share of prejudice that surfaced quite dramatically for her from the days of her Cardiff opera project.
However, having said that, sameolddoctor also has a very pertinent point here in that the larger picture does not alter: the acquiescence to work within the framework that led to the deaths on site underlined by her still blatantly callous comment...all these do not change.
Criticism that bears fundamental prejudices irrelevant to the issue will be obvious to the one who reads it. But so will an uncritical absolution based on equally murky assumptions: for instance, the histrionic generalizing claim that "critics have it out for her".
Olaf, I never said "historically". Kindly review my previous post prior to (mis)quoting me.
...or else I'll sue you.
whoops, my bad...hysterical
but since you were misleading others, I believe I am allowed to misquote you historonically? that's a new word, just made that one up....
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.