The creators of the new Olympic stadium in Beijing hope that their building will embody radical ideas such as freedom. Guardian
Apart from football, there is only one subject that raises their ire: Beijing. Or, more specifically, the decision of Steven Spielberg last month to pull out of directing the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games this summer, citing China's human-rights record and involvement in the Darfur tragedy in Sudan.
“It's very cheap and easy for architects and artists and film-makers to pull out or to make this kind of criticism,” Herzog says. “Everybody knows what happens in China. All work conditions in China are not what you'd desire. But you wear a pullover made in China. It's easy to criticise, being far away. I'm tempted almost to say the opposite...How great it was to work in China and how much I believe that doing the stadium [and] the process of opening will change radically, transform, the society. Engagement is the best way of moving in the right direction.”
“It would be arrogant not to engage,” de Meuron adds. “Otherwise no politicians could go there, no athletes. You would just close the borders.”
“Literally everybody in the Western world trades with China,” Herzog continues. “This is a fact. So why should an architect not?”
--
Herzog, the front man, the politician, with his shaven skull and sunken, unsmiling cheeks, looks as if he wouldn't suffer fools, though his gravitas is leavened occasionally with camp, gossipy asides. De Meuron, by contrast, doesn't like limelight. He looks like Beethoven: a bit tortured, introverted, with mad, wiry hair and a furrowed brow, as if he's the one always left to worry if they've ordered enough rivets for their latest stadium. They look as if they spend their evenings discussing Hegel, not American Idol. That they're rabid fans of FC Basel comes as a blessed relief.
15 Comments
I like their work, and they do have a point: that working with the Chinese government is not (much) worse than buying clothes made in what we can assume are less than fair-trade conditions. However, claiming that they might in someway be helping China is just silly and arrogant archispeak.
..excuse or not excuse, that is the real question..
I am not sure, ellas. I think their statement is 2 folds; one defending themselves from Spielberg's high profile withdraw from the Olympics of Hollywood stule politics. The other is that their project indeed will give China and its people external and internal influences for this summer's international event. That they in some way change China is right. They didn't say "all or absolutely good".
I can buy their argument until they dilute it with this line, which appears as simply a "We want a piece of the pie too" whine.
Outside of that misstatement, it does seem true that engagement on many economic levels - from buildings to novelty keychains - is the way to get into China, open things up, and push for change.
buying a sweater is the same as helping to glorify the greatness of the chinese regime through built monuments? absurd.
it is actually the same thing, because if everyone in the US owns at least one product made from China that is a customer base of 300 million and counting. The bird's nest is cheap in comparison.
I am glad that HdM got in on the act, with the exception of water cube much of the architecture for the Olympics would be forgetton as soon as they were built. This is good architectural hype.
Further these comments about China and its "problems" negatates the problems in Dubai, Russia and other boom cities, not to mention our own backyards. Be real people!
I do find it funny that the refer to Herzog as the front man/politician
i think it's a beautiful stadium;
i personally don't think the architecture of the stadium will do much to help change China - the olympics itself might indirectly help change China.
imho, the IOC made a mistake in placing the olympics in China at this time; too much economic growth right now for a symbolic "catalyst" for change;
when better to provoke change than when things are unstable and the status quo is status wha!?
the argument does not feel watered down to me. certainly it is a justification even rationalisation, and their impact on china as nation is small drop in bucket, but the holier than thou tude of critics is more absurd to me. unless you refuse to buy goods made in china you are directly supporting the regime.
this is not after all the equivalent of designing a slaughterhouse factory for the nazis. it is also not by any stretch of imagination a symbol for authoritarian power. to me it is more like eiffel tower, a picture of aspiration, of technological adroitness and a desire to be on the cutting edge of building culture...in spite of other failures those are pretty nice aspirations to have.
The article is not in the Guardian, it's in the Times, actually.
i appreciate what they are aspiring for ... i agree with jump and others.
people act as if because they decide not to deal with china IN the country, then they are relieved of the issues. the truth is that china owns 40% of the concrete industry in southeast asia. at their building pace they are the biggest client for concrete and steel worldwide. they own and operate major industrial areas in other countries. you can't get around not dealing with china. what you have to do is recognize the existing political, industrial, and environmental preconditions and learn how create a path to reconcile them in your medium- whether you are an architect or a filmmaker.
i hate this whole mentality "if you aren't with us you are against us"... haven't we had enough of that? haven't we learned anything??
i can see how getting something important built engages a wide range of issues and institutions, but i can't see how this single building will embody a radical idea, let alone freedom. it's an iconic building that spends more time circulating in the global market of images than commiting to anything local to china. i very much doubt hdem have the monopoly on interpretation that they suggest, since this slack is prolly what got it built in the first place - i mean when i think of bird's nest i think of a meal, not freedom.
it's funny that hdm suddenly have to shill the social aspects of architecture and engagement in china, "radically transform society" no less, when all along they've focussed on the phenomenonal senses of it.
First, you have to be there to check the quality of this project: usually the quality projects in China being realised is terrible, although they might have attracted a lot of media attention in the west, such as Commune under the Great Wall. Photos are deceptive.
Second, why Herzog had to be so defensive? If he wanted to do a project in China, to make some money, then just say it! Don't defend himself by attacking someone else because someone else had more moral values.
Third, even Hitler or Mosourini had their pet architects before, so why not China dictators???
I propose to officially discontinue the use of the word "engage." This implies something beyond the actual scope of work. Did architecture used to be more interesting? But hey, if everyone is doing it. . . intervene!
architecture tends to prop up governments, not tear them down. architecture is a symbol of power. If anything these buildings will discourage dissent by impressing the people as to the power of the Chinese government.
their comments are such bullshit. they are just justifying their work for a brutal regime in light of the conflict in Tibet.
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.