appeared on this newsroll in the past week, reviewing the the so-called Abu Dhabi cultural district. I hadn't taken the time to read this N.O. article until it came in my Sunday paper. Normally I don't revisit these things... but did anyone catch what Nicolai actually said?
Quote:
Some will dismiss this kingdom of culture as a mere tourist development in which art, history and regional identity are reduced to marketing commodities. But those who view it as an exercise in global branding or as a feel-good story about an Arab country willing to embrace the values of Western modernity are missing the point.
With once-proud cities like Beirut and Baghdad ripped apart by political conflict bordering on civil war, Abu Dhabi offers the hope of a major realignment, a chance to plant the seeds for a fertile new cultural model in the Middle East. (NYT)
Baghdad ripped apart by political conflict and civil war? Fuck. Way to elide into oblivion the American protagonist role in that very conflict. This quote is no mere slip up on the part of the New York Times critic. Ouroussoff is himself putting into practice the very obscurantist colonialism that he dismisses initially as "global branding" and which rewrites its own history. This reeks. But rather than actually succeeding at disabusing the pernicious monumentality of the project that just helps to make more invisible the American violence in the region, Ouroussoff only reveals himself as a pawn to the disappearing act. In which ways is this cultural model being "planted" in the Arab world and who is planting it? Are the American bombs and the cosmopolitan designs entirely divorced from one another and if they are in effect antagonistic spheres, then why the euphemistic language that legitimates this project? The American press has for these past years been complicit with Bush operations like the "invisible coffins" of dead soldiers that the White House won't show and Ouroussoff falls squarely into that complicity.
At another moment:
The old cosmopolitan models — the avant-garde Modernism of mid-century Beirut, the intermingling of Muslims, Jews and Christians in Baghdad or Basra in Iraq — are unraveling. Once considered great tapestries of human experience, those cities are either riven by internal conflict or, like their Western counterparts, risk being transformed into sanitized theme parks.
Since when is Basra or Baghdad having an "internal" conflict? This is so Bushist it hurts. It is as if "Western culture" and these Western architects (yes, including Hadid) are now going to swoop down and save these barbarians from themselves. Send in more troops! Once they are educated, they can take the helms of these museum.
The politics of vision weave through the embedded reporters, the media-baiting White House and among many other things, this bit of cultural reporting. My point, finally, is not about the architects and their projects but about who holds them accountable and questions their politics. Ouroussoff seems to be taking a page right out of the Judith Miller playbook.
58 Comments
to answer your question, no, i didn't catch these implications at first read, or 2nd for that matter. glance vs. gaze., i suppose...perhaps he was counting on this sort of disinterest - allows him to feign superficial criticism while burying his true complicity.
Nicky 'genius' Ouroussoff. NgO.
i can make more associations but 'i' am not a politician's pastry, or, he might see it as an unraveling internal conflict.
NO as cosmopolitan tigris whore..
"Given the difficulties Muslims have encountered traveling to and doing business in the United States and Europe since 9/11, the project can also be read as an attempt to recreate the experience of the West in a secure zone for Arabs, a kind of mini-Switzerland of the Middle East."
Is this pragmatic or cynical?
I kind of did catch the weird politics on the first read, but they seem even weirder now that you point them out, Javier.
Keep in mind though, this isn't simple colonialism, no one's 'planting' this development anywhere. The Guggenheim was invited by the sheik to create a cultural district and they've done so with an international team of architects. It's tough to even call it a 'western' team, given the architects from the Middle East, Russia, and Japan participating.
765: I am not saying that it's simple colonialism... maybe more like the colonialism brand that can even be appropriated by the sheik, but the hardcore colonialism is inherent to Nicolai's discourse and by extension, the New York Times which then feeds into the larger cultural colonialism. I can't begin to even summarize the feedback loop but then it is that cultural colonialism in which Nicolai is but a link that down the line reproduces the colonial brand which I started this comment with.
Right on, Javier. I too was a bit shocked by the article. It is interesting how NO portrays Abu Dhabi as some sort of island of peace and high-culture in a sea of war and mayhem - when in fact the prosperity in the Emirates is so inextricably linked to the surrounding chaos.
And in response to sevensixfive: you're right, this is not colonialism in the traditional sense. It's globalization. Or rather, the dark side of globalization, what some would call Empire. We have to be careful not to discount the Guggenheim's arrival in Abu Dhabi as an innocent "invitation" by the Sheik...
no, it's definitely colonialism... the same kind of colonialism euro powers used before whenever they assign a local leader to "govern" the population... not without caveats, mates... there's nothing new added to any of these colonies except for another gated [economic? cultural?] community & perhaps another higher echelon on their government's hierarchy [perhaps a new Ministry of Foreign Cultures Clashing With Ours]. by the way, does it matter whether the designers are american, russian, chinese, japanese? i don't think that just because the designers are from different locations around the world that it automatically categorises their actions as a consequence of the larger "globalization" umbrella... no one could afford to be that naive anymore, i hope... oh yeah, can someone define globalization? i get mixed signals whenever i talk to designers about what they think it is...
Just to play devil's advocate here, if a Minnesota non-profit invites an architectural team from Iran to design their new museum space... is the US being colonized by Islam?
In other words, there are many moments in which multiculturalism and colonization are not the same thing. Peter the Great invited the west into Russia, for instance, yet we tend not to look at that as an era of Western imperial annexation.
(I am referring to what's happening in Abu Dhabi, obviously, not to the invasion of Iraq! I'm also not addressing the NYTimes piece; I'm just putting pressure on the idea that the westernization of Abu Dhabi is de facto colonization. If you reverse the argument, for instance, you get people claiming that England is being "culturally colonized" by Pakistanis, which is blatant xenophobia. But to be sure: you're absolutely right, eliding the invasion of Iraq by referring to it as an "internal conflict" is morally questionable at best and I don't disagree with you at all.)
Yeah, I agree with a definition of globalization that sees ideas, products, people, culture flowing every which way, all at once. Or rather, flowing whichever way is most economically expedient. Those Sheiks are not American puppets in the mode of the Shah of Iran. They've got Dutch hydraulic engineers, laborers from west Asia, and architects from just about everywhere.
If this masterplan gets executed (and that's a pretty big 'if'), I'll bet you dinars to drachmas that most of the art that ends up inside that new Gehry Guggenheim will be from China, India, and Japan.
And of course, to forget the American (and British!) role in fomenting Middle Eastern conflict is pretty naive, but you've gotta give it to him for raising the issue of global markets and politics in the first place. He's pretty on point elsewhere in the article:
"Ideally those museum positions will one day be filled by trained Arab graduates. Otherwise we are simply pushing around pretty cultural commodities — and reinforcing the cultural rifts we claim to be dismantling."
That kind of thing raises the whole discussion above the level of 'ohh, shiny' or 'starchitects suck!' in a way that's really productive.
I want to address this because questioning the work or Western architects in the Islamic world should not be confused with xenophobia. Part of the issue at hand (not to be confused with Nicolai's elision), is what kinds of processes of "othering" the cultures of Islam does this Xanadu continue to perpetuate. Just to clarify, it's not whether or not these architects should be working there but the much more political questions about what they're doing there. It's not a direct reversal from privileged architects in the East to Pakistani migrants in London. To say that somehow minimizes the plight of the Pakistani that finds work in London. Let's not figure that Pakistani migrants are in London by choice so much as by need. Now are these architects working there by choice or by need and what is the nature of their work?
Actually 765...that whole part of the article where Nicolai hopes that some day the Arab graduates will be staffing the museums is, to me, one of the most offensive. It's not too dissimilar from the whole attitude of 'we'll train their soldiers and then (only then...) they can take care of themselves.'
is precise definition a must here?
seems like the meaning 'is' contained in the article.
is NO hershey's PayDay man? snack.
you're right, geoff... there are many instances where multiculturalism cannot [& should not] be confused w/ colonialism... however, you're example with the minnesota firm does not address the macroevent happening in that region. I guess islam isn't trying to colonize the US with your example, but on the flip side, truth be told, you can't say that about what is really going on in the middle east... sadly. think blackwater security making sure gehry, inc. won't be the next kidnapping victim [bad example, i know, but the whole oil story needs no re-emphasising]
i guess what i want to address here is the audacity of even proposing such a place anywhere in the middle east when the most basic issues are circumvented... do you think they'll make a designer-made podium for public executions in abu dhabi? when should builders address the cultural difference between where they're building & who they're building for? after all, to address that is to be conscious of the real definition of multiculturalism... just because there's Architecture Park in Abu Dhabi doesn't mean it's a more attractive place to go to...
You're totally right, I just reread that and it's pretty bad.
I'd say that those architects are in Abu Dhabi for the same type of reasons that Pakistani migrants are in London. They're performing a service that no one in the destination country is willing or able to provide, and they're performing it for a price that no one in their country of origin is willing to pay.
It's interesting that a lot of the places that can afford this kind of signature architecture happen to be rapidly developing, repressive, psuedo-democracies. Few other places have the combined cash-on-hand, access to cheap labor, and a desire to look good in an international arena like the ones who are hiring signature architects lately: Korea, Singapore, China, UAE ...
he is fucking paid by guggenheim. can't some of you guys see that?
To jump back in real quick, I just feel like the presence of Western architects in Abu Dhabi is not in and of itself proof of colonization. If I meet someone from Abu Dhabi here in Los Angeles, and he or she is both phenomenally wealthy and phenomenally interested in Marcel Duchamp, and he or she then moves back to Abu Dhabi to build a Marcel Duchamp Museum designed by Jean Nouvel, the project would apparently be considered an act of western colonization?
The implicit logic here seems to be: "Act your ethnicity!" Or: "You're not being Muslim enough!" Or even: "You have no right to be interested in French art!"
It's this Disneyworld version of what Abu Dhabi is supposed to be - Real Authentic Islam™ - that is, in my opinion, actually guilty of "othering" the Islamic world. The logic seems to be: the Muslim world is completely "other" than our world, and thus any Western presence at all is a form of colonial aggression. I just simply don't think this is the case.
There is colonialism, and there is aggression - obviously - but if a sheik from Abu Dhabi likes Watteau or Fragonard...? And so we slap him on the wrist and tell him he's being colonized?
It's like that scene in Crash where Terrence Howard is scolded by his TV producers for not acting "black enough" - I think that's the truly Orientalist viewpoint here. "Go back to being Arabs! Put away your Picassos!"
Let me just be absolutely clear, though, that I am referring to the presence of European art museums in Abu Dhabi - not to the presence of US troops in Iraq.
I intended the terminology shift from "colonization" to "globalization" to be a critical one. In other words - it's no longer about the "West" coming in and colonizing the "East." Rather, there's an emerging global order in which fuzzy multi-national power regimes (that have no real connection to any particular nation per se) come to dictate global politics. And certainly Abu Dhabi - with it's oil wealth symptomatic of such a global power regime - is part of this phenomenon.
As for the architects - well, not to be too paranoid, but maybe they're just pawns in the game? Even if this is the case - the work shown nevertheless fails to propose any critical re-interpretation of the bizarre context. (In contrast, perhaps, to Koolhaas's approach in China. At least he tries?)
The architects are definitely pawns.
abu dhabi doesn't represent the islamic realm at all. it is just another loaded region that is easy to make big money, whether by building museums, casinos or silk g-strings.
new york times is there to support guggenheim ventures and nicolai is to ornament that support. as simple as that.
there is an element of oriantalist positioning in here that is the poorest side of the writer.
...And that is not my argument, I just want to point that out. I agree with your basic point there, Geoff: "the presence of Western architects in Abu Dhabi is not in and of itself proof of colonization." But I don't think the whole act ends with a peaceful contemplation of art whose outcome is a benevolent exchange of cultures. I don't pretend like these architects can at all resolve the political conflicts and until they are resolved, they shouldn't work in the Arab world. It is not all a peaceful exchange given the added layer of how an American (N.O.) has chosen to interpret this. And btw, this was on the cover page of the Arts & Leisure section.
(that last comment of mine was meant to go after Geoff's at 1:54pm)
Agreed - I would only add that this is due to extra-architectural forces (i.e. religious fundamentalism colliding with western oil wars), not due to contradictions inherent in the globalization of architecture.
In other words - it's no longer about the "West" coming in and colonizing the "East." Rather, there's an emerging global order in which fuzzy multi-national power regimes (that have no real connection to any particular nation per se) come to dictate global politics. Agreed in every way.
new york times is there to support guggenheim ventures and nicolai is to ornament that support. Agreed there, as well.
On an only slightly related note, I am truly amazed that the Guggenheim is still trying to franchise itself, even after such failures as Guggenheim Las Vegas - or Guggenheim Soho, for that matter. Obsessively trying to recreate the "Bilbao effect" in almost every city on the planet is like witnessing repetition compulsion at its most frightening extreme.
Finally, I also agree with this: They're performing a service that no one in the destination country is willing or able to provide, and they're performing it for a price that no one in their country of origin is willing to pay.
first off, no one should be slapped or told to go back where they came from... whether it be a type of architecture or the designer attached to it's coattails...
i suppose someone could argue that to forment change in any society, there needs to be a catalyst for such a change. i agree that perhaps such catalysts could be architectural masterpieces... & plenty of them... all at once... in one city. perhaps everyone would be more comfortable visiting such a city & result in an increase in tourism & it's overall economy... now, again, maybe one of the other consequences are jobs for the indigenous populations... after all, such buildings are going to need laborers to build it, janitors to maintain it, chambermaids to clean... or, perhaps such projects would help redistribute the displaced immigrant populations in temporary housing & give them a pseudo-stable situation versus what they face now.
i still fail to see, under these "favorable" conditions, how building an architectural park in this part of the world where many other pertinent issues need to be addressed, is justified for the sake of such vague idioms like "multiculturalism" and "diversity." how can UAE citizens really appreciate such a concept if architects bottle the rest of the world for them in a piece of the desert?
i suppose you can't slap the sheik for those shortcomings...
Javier: i agree that no one from the West who professes to be a builder, architect, whatever, should be Working where they Shit.
javier:
thanks for this one.
i feel compelled to drop a couple of comments on this, because it is sooo tasty.
the NO article blew my mind as well- and it isn't the outlandish scale of this proposal either. i spent 3rd and 4th grade in dubai and seven years in growing up in saudi arabia- they'll build some outlandish shit at the drop of a hat.
but the comment about foreign architects doing work that locals aren't willing to do- or can't- i think its somewhat symptomatic of the elision you brought up.
first off, i think its disingenuous to talk about the UAE as a "country" or to look at what happens in abu dhabi as divorced from what happens regionally. the fact is you can't seperate something like this from the regional context.
so the elision is just a weak attempt at hiding the obvious. this isn't really about architecture- this is the cultural component of the new american effort to create an 'axis of moderation' in the middle east- we are outfitting the normative sunni regimes in the ME with aid, weapons, logistics, support and now, museums and useless, overpriced, 'cultural facilities'.
im really not surprised that NO and the NYT shill for this, im just wondering why more people aren't calling the architects out.
at the end of the day, im not sure that what is being proposed here is really very different from what deyan sudjic talks about the shah doing in 'the edifice complex'.
or any different, for that matter, from what conrad describes the belgians doing in the congo.
and, finally, he's the emir not the sheikh.
foo
Like killing 10 million people in 40 years? Or, if we read this "powerful indictment of the Belgian regime," we find "castrations, the severing of hands and feet, the suspension of 'renegade' workers by their hands for days in the baking sun without food or water, the burning of villages."
Thank god they weren't asked to look at bad architecture...
Surely your comparison between museum construction in Abu Dhabi and mass industrial enslavement in the Belgian Congo is a bit overblown? (Or are you referring to Iraq?)
So I have two questions: if anyone from Abu Dhabi expresses interest in western art & architecture, have they been colonized? And under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a western architect to work in Abu Dhabi?
I think it's interesting that the main platforms for British imperialism are now the main starting points for the new ubiquitous global capital. places like dubai, singapore, kuwait, hong kong, lagos, (israel?) etc.
now to geoff this would probably seem like pure coincidence or a fabulous bit of irony. However, I think it's remarkable that lightning in this case always strikes the same place twice. the real question isn't is it an extension of the previous imperial project, but rather how will the "new" system operate as it manifests itself.
I don't think it's irony or coincidence, I think it's geology: oil.
All I'm trying to say is that, before we accuse the Gulf States of collaborating with evil simply because they like French art - and before we accuse western architects of being imperialists simply because they've accepted commissions in a country that isn't their own - we should be rigorous with our accusations.
For instance, if it is universally unacceptable for western architects to work in places like Abu Dhabi, then we are not confronting leftist anti-globalization, we are confronting racism; but if it is only unacceptable for western architects to work in places like Abu Dhabi during the "war on terror" or in the midst of a larger, regional occupation, then that is at least an argument - provided that's the actual argument at work here.
I just think it is important to understand why a French art museum is being constructed in Abu Dhabi. It seems so predictable, and so intellectually unsatisfying, to say that this is all some imperalist intrusion into local culture - because I stand by my earlier point: what if the client is genuinely interested in European art...? "This is our art, not yours!" people seem to be shouting. "Go back to being my other!"
However, I'm just raising the point. I ultimately agree with Javier here: at the end of the day, it's not like we're going to see some idyllic art-utopia built on the shores on the Gulf. Rather, we'll see rich investors trying to profit from the market in second-hand Damien Hirsts, auctioning off Van Goghs to each other and sipping glasses of brandy while Baghdad burns.
I'm just raising the larger point that it is not - in and of itself - imperialist for Middle Eastern nations to turn to the west.
thanks, you guys. i did see the article and, like AP, just sort of gave it a 'huh'. i forget sometimes to read critically and think through the implications of what i'm reading. between you, geoff and javier, you've dug up some things that i'll have to chew on for a while before i understand what i think.
geology does NOT explain the development of what I was proposing. geology explains the positioning of forces and the realignment of US military power, but it does not explain the historical context of why places where British power was at its most complete--why these places are now the sites of this new emergence of what could be called global capital hubs.
I think here is where Javier's critique is most powerful because it reveals the inner kernel of what is really going on and not the simple idea of OIL.
It's the ports, for one thing. At least in Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong. Singapore controls the entrance to the Straits of Malacca, the gateway to the South China Sea. Hong Kong and Shanghai are located at key waterways leading to inland China.
The UAE is right there at the Straits of Hormuz, the only way in or out of the Persian Gulf. Call it geography as well as geology. These places were strategically located 200 years ago and their key positions haven't changed since.
yes, but their strategic positions have evolved past geography in some ways.
I think you'd have to cite an example to convince me of that, John.
Kind of an aside: ever wonder where Dubai gets all that fill to build its artificial islands? It's generated by the dredging necessary to keep the Persian Gulf shipping channels open.
I state this because the ports are no longer strategic in the realm of global capital. the ports themselves are fixed in someways, but the capital that runs them can go anywhere and be any where. I think what is going on more and more is an attempt to fix these points for this future. to develop places where global capital will hold residence in this increasing abstract anti-geographic context.
maybe the statement above is suggesting the obvious but there is a nice unity of opposites within this paradigm of fixed-nonfixed
No, I see what you're saying, and I kinda think you're right, I just can't think of a good example, either.
well I think dubia and singapore are great examples of this trend. if you can call it that...
If, sometime in the future, Dubai were to become so culturally sophisticated and Westernized (globalized?) that it influenced the culture of the traditional West - similar to the US vis-à-vis Europe, or Japan with the West - then would that be the point where Dubai's colonization was complete/over?
Something else I wonder, that some of you have touched on a bit: Dubai is indeed seeking out this culture, perhaps less because they're being forced to than because they've been encouraged to. Not so much "gunboat culture" (a sibling of "gunboat democracy"), but through the perpetuated idea that Western culture is eminently desirable, for various reasons. I think this condition upsets a lot of critics of globalized culture as much as would forced culture since suggestion is often more effective than coercion.
(For a moment that made me think that urging other countries to adopt democratic forms of government while criticizing the attraction to Western culture, as many of us lefties do, is hypocritical, but then again culture and politics are not so easy to compare - or are they?)
geoff:
hmmm...i guess it would be hard to compare the belgian congo to the UAE.
yes, obviously i meant iraq.
again i think its important to first begin by not disassociating this from the larger regional context. the UAE isn't really a nation state in the same way that france is a nation state. the UAE is an emirate- a group of tribespeople and traders, pirates and pearl fishermen that has, for the moment, taken the outward form of a nation state.
so do these tribal connections stop at the border to qatar- of course not. it just like saying that the sunni tribes of saudi arabia have nothing to do with the tribes in iraq.
the argument is as you've identified it. while the emarati's sip cappuccino at the guggenheim, baghdad burns. and nary a protest from the architectural community.
the $27 billion is $7billion more than was promised for iraqi reconstruction (most of which was never spent as intended by congress).
its an embarassment that people like ando are signing on for this.
why isn't the emir sponsoring a regional peace initiative instead of the bankrolling another bad idea from the guggenheim?
why aren't more people pointing out, as javier is, the moral bankruptcy of this kind of proposal?
This is an excellent question, and I entirely agree with you here. I do stand by my earlier queries, however, simply because I think it is important to warn against blanket dismissals of foreign influence in the emirates.
But if the "foreign influence" I appear to be defending simply takes the form of market speculation, privatized infrastructure, and/or outright military invasion, then I would, very obviously, agree with your entire argument.
It's the exceptions that bother me. For instance, if an entrepreneur in Abu Dhabi opens up a bookshop to sell Romantic poetry, and the storefront is designed by SOM, then I think we need to understand the precise motivations behind such a project before dismissing it as an act of cultural imperalism. If a non-European chooses to read Wordsworth, he or she has not, by necessity, been brainwashed. On the contrary, he or she might be culturally open-minded - as would a white Christian from central Illinois who reads Mahmoud Darwish. Neither person has been "colonized," in any sense of the word that I recognize.
For instance, in the eyes of my fake client, above, a poetry bookshop might actually be his or her own small, optimistic contribution toward a "regional peace initiative." Would that be naive? Yes, quite possibly. But would that also make it imperialist (because it sells British writers)? I genuinely don't think so.
It's like when families in North Carolina panicked because UNC-Chapel Hill assigned passages from the Koran as required summer reading - they claimed it was an act of attempted conversion (!), which is absurd. We should be wary of mobilizing a similar argument when we say that European art museums have no place in the Middle East.
"Foreigners out!" is simply not a slogan I would ever like to hear myself say.
But, again: why isn't the emir sponsoring a regional peace initiative instead of the bankrolling another bad idea from the guggenheim?
I agree with this in every way.
Sorry, two more things - I just can't stop thinking about hypothetical situations here:
1) A Pakistani family opens up a Muslim art center ten minutes' walk from Ground Zero, less than a month after 9/11. The project is instantly denounced on Fox News because of what just happened "in the region." Nevermind that the book will primarily sell books on Muslim pacificism - they are guilty by association. The project is stopped by city planners. Whose side do you take here?
2) A Saudi architect is hired to construct an Iranian Cultural Institute in the heart of Tel Aviv - but the project is denounced because of what's happening "in the region" (i.e. Ahmedinijad and the bomb). This would appear to be blatant xenophobia, and a rejection of what could be the start of cultural diplomacy, simply on the basis of what newspapers call "imperialism" on behalf of Iran... The Center is thus not built. Again, who's side do you take here?
Because if Jean Nouvel builds a European art museum in the same region as the American occupation of Iraq - surely we're still talking about guilt by association?
Or no?
I'm going to try to take this one case at a time. Here's my take on the neo-imperial smell test.
We begin with the entrepreneur from Abu-Dhabi who just loves Keats. I'm assuming it's all been translated into Arabic right?
OK, so was SOM competing with local, or regional, design shops (Dar-Al-Handassah? Bernard Khoury?) or was it a 'no-bid' contract? Is the fee they bill to the Emarati entrepreneur comparable to what they bill here? Is it lower than what the local was looking to bill? Who is running the local SOM office? Does he speak the language, understand the customs- is he an Arab? Is he an Emarati?
How many local guys aren't getting a break because every developer in Abu Dhabi can't get over the idea that every new storefront has to be designed by Yanks or Europeans?
Are the emerging talents in the middle east being supported by the emirs of Dubai and Abu Dhabi? Are the offices of Bernard Khoury, Dar-Al-Handassah, Senan AbdelQader getting large portions of this new 'cultural city'?
Not according to Ouroussoff.
I'm not sure of the applicability of the Pakistani story to this. Imperialism and Xenophobia aren't quite the same issue...
But I'll answer you with another story:
The UAE is looking to outsource the operation and management of its international airport to a large American management company- a company which is managing many such facilities all over the world, including Iraq. The local press and tribal leaders get wind of this and shut the project down because of what his happening 'in the region'. Never mind that the manager of the company was an Arab. The concern voiced is that entrusting a facility of such symbolic and real importance. . .
See where I'm going with that one?
Political leaders in this country on both sides of the aisle had no problem denouncing such a move by a Dubai company to take over the U.S. Ports operators as contrary to the national interest in light of 'all thats happened' since September 11. Never mind the details.
In a healthy body politic, for better or worse, a project like this would be also be scrutinized in the Emirates. But these projects are not- in fact, it is the ruling elites, not private enterprise that are responsible for pushing these projects forward.
Why isn't the Emir sponsoring a peace initiative? Because he is one of the few beneficiaries of the status quo. In the same way that empires have always sought to co-opt local elites in consolidating power, you can look at the ruling tribes of the emirates, like the Al-Saud, to be the minority beneficiaries of western imperialism in the region, if you look at the region in totality and not as a collection of autonomous nation states.
Let me just go back to the ports world thing for a second. It's vital part of the U.S. Economy. But, the city of culture is not a piece of infrastructure, it's just a cultural facility isn't it?
To be sure, but consider this. For all the din and cry, the ports world deal was valued at $7 Billion. The U.S. GDP is $2.49 Trillion.
Now consider what is being proposed in this city of culture: a $27 billion project in Abu Dhabi- where GDP is optimistically estimated at $99 billion.
finally, for Saudi Arabia and or Iranian nationals to even be able to set foot in Israel, their respective governments would have to formally recognize the government of Israel, which they do not- hence all the rhetoric about the 'zionist entity'.
I dare say if we even get close to the point that we are able to talk about your last example as a realistic possibility, then we would probably not even need to be having this debate.
I was thinking semaphore, actually.
Are the emerging talents in the middle east being supported by the emirs of Dubai and Abu Dhabi?
No - and I think we agree on that point. I also think we agree on the political significance of the projects under discussion here.
Where I don't think we agree, however, is on the inherent value of local loyalty. "Gunboat cosmopolitanism" is clearly not the answer (flying in Frank Gehry under US military escort); but building walls against foreign influence isn't an acceptable alternative.
Anyway, thanks for coming back and continuing this; it's been interesting to go through it all. That's to everyone, especially Javier for bringing it up.
thanks for all the comments...
I think maybe I should clarify that I am not saying that the work of these architects over there is inherently colonial or morally bankrupt or anything like that... but back to the Times article, Nicolai only feeds into the suspicion just as he tries to allay doubts. It's funny and pathetic at the same time.
thank you both.
its definitely given me a lot to think about.
i agree that you can't describe the work as inherently colonial. after all, the architects didn't commission themselves.
i guess the larger question has to do with with the autonomy of architecture. does the architect bear any responsibility for the sins of the patron?
much to think about
thanks again.
I think this may be my final comment on this matter on this thread, but it might be a recurring converastion with this large project moving forward and others in the region. I may or may not write a paper about it this semester...
I have been thinking more about Geoff's line of argument here...and largely I have been drawing attention back to the original N.O. opinion. What spurred me to finally blurt out this comment was an email from Orhan this morning. So here is what I said...with minor new edits:
I have not meant to be silent on Geoff's implied defense of what I would call a benign colonialism.... It's just that I have been swamped with work and I haven't been able to think about it more. In a way, it would be unfair to just say outright these projects are blatant colonialism without having the time to at least read what they posted on archnewsnow. Geoff makes a very modernist point... 'Beauty is absolute and it is universal and it is benign, and if the emirs want beauty let them have beauty...'
But beauty is or can be just as colonial in "our" cities as much as in "theirs" when it only serves the interests of the rich. A building is not a painting, after all. It's also space and it is public. The big problem is that when you take architects that already are in a sense inherently colonial--and themselves colonized--and displace their market objects to a region torn by violence, it is much more charged symbolically and mostly in ways that the architects won't think about and won't own up to. I don't necessarialy think that these savvy architects are as naive as Nicolai Ouroussoff, but Ouroussoff gave us a window into how this work is in the end not only about (perhaps) colonizing the Middle East but about colonizing our minds back West as well...
Well, I have to chip in here again, because I don't want to see my views misrepresented. Let me make it absolutely clear what I've been saying in this thread.
I am not asking: "What's wrong with a little colonialism...?"
I am asking: "Are we sure this is colonialism?"
Those are two vastly different questions, with two totally different motivations. Jav's most recent comment implies that I have been asking question #1; I have, in fact, been asking question #2.
If the Abu Dhabi project is a form of colonialism, then I will join everyone in their critique of it. But if this project is not a form of colonialism - if we have mistaken one thing for something else - then we should be very careful that we don't over-use the term "colonialism" to the point that we have neutralized its political effectiveness.
To use a wildly hyperbolic example here, it's like the build-up to the Iraq War. Those who questioned whether or not Iraq was the right target - let alone whether a military invasion was the appropriate strategy - were accused of "defending Saddam," of being "pro-Saddam." They were, rather, hoping to make absolutely sure that the US was doing the right thing to the right people at the right time. The war critics weren't "defending" the "enemy," or "siding with terrorism."
Similarly, all I have been asking is: are you attacking the right people for the right reasons in the right way at the right moment? This is an important question to answer before we congratulate ourselves on being heroes of political outrage.
I have been neither advocating nor defending "benign colonialism" - I've simply been asking if this is really colonialism.
And I hope I am not so patronizing that I would ever say: "Beauty is absolute and it is universal and it is benign, and if the emirs want beauty let them have beauty..." Despite the fact that you made it sound like you were quoting me - thankfully, you were not.
We both have problems with colonialism, Jav.
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.