AIArchitect

Helpful blog, bookmarked the website with hopes to read more!

Not to be an a**hole, but :-p

v0lder9ztsuk560w

Two thoughts spring to mind upon reading “Serving Omnipotent Masters”: either the author is possessed of astonishing naivety, or is deliberately overlooking ethical conundrums for the sake of being provocative. Provocative seems more likely. The significance of Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid being willing to design buildings for overbearing (put politely) governments or a dictator is inherent in the phrase from the fortune cookie: “Stunningly Omnipotent Masters make minced meat of memory”. This is profoundly disturbing, because the architects seem to have latched on to the first part of the phrase, while disregarding the latter part. Of course these ‘masters’ make minced meat of memory. This is a primary strategy for the controllers to assert power over the controlled. By manipulating memory, controlling history and denying access to information they seek to define reality in whatever guise they wish. It is unfortunate that architecture can be used as another means to that end. This is reflected in the nature of the commissions offered by China and Azerbaijan: attempts to centralize control of information and to propagate myth. As an assertion of power, which in itself is one of many motivations (infrequently discussed) for the practice of architecture, many architects could not fail to be at least curious about the opportunity.
Omnipotent masters and sympathetic patrons of architecture are not so much different in kind as they are different in degree. This is another facet that many architects cannot bring themselves to ignore. It is precisely because the architect can deal with a small group of powerful individuals or a single decision maker that the commissions in question are so attractive. It increases the likelihood that the architect will be successful at implementing his or her particular vision, assuming the personalities can successfully work together. The opportunity to have the backing of powerful entities with the ability to pay for the intellectual output is hard to resist. This is put into even sharper relief when the architect knows they simply have to convince the few, rather than engage in the messy, protracted and transparent process required for a democratic review.
Tacit, mutual approval is inherent in the offer and the acceptance of such commissions. If the client was not seeking to sway public opinion on some level, outsiders would not be hired to design the buildings. Implicit in the choice is an acknowledgement by the client that their method of control or their reputation has negative connotations in some quarters. The client can point to the project and say “I/we must not be so bad if a liberal Westerner would agree to work for me/us.” The architect can say “I can help open up a dialogue, help create a transparent society”. Such an approach might be considered valid if it were not so condescending. If the architect was truly disturbed by the alleged and actual abuses committed by their patrons, the commission would not be sought, or accepted if offered. Telling themselves that “If I don’t do it, someone else will, and not as well” is a flimsy, arrogant attempt at rationalization to assuage any qualms of conscience.
Implying that architects should take such commissions as a way of opening a dialogue with the heavy-handed regimes in charge may not be cultural imperialism, but it certainly carries a whiff of chauvinism. This approach presumes that the individuals in the societies in question are truly represented by their leaders, and that the people are unable to achieve self-determinism on their own. Paternalism can often be mistaken for virtue if the offender is unable or unwilling to accept that their good works can be perceived as condescension.
In light of the nature of these commissions, it is not cultural imperialism for others to criticize an architect for complicity in creating ‘tools of oppression’. Refusing this type of commission is not an imposition of ‘Western-style’ (whatever that means) liberal democracy on an unwilling culture. Why? It is because no action has been taken against the recipient culture. Nothing has been imposed because nothing can be imposed by a non-action. Refusing such a commission on moral or ethical grounds is simply a statement that the architect does not agree with, nor wishes to perpetuate, a system which denies basic human rights to the citizens that the system presumes to represent. Design critique is not the point here. No assessments are being made as to the appropriateness or worthiness of the respective design solutions. What is more important is that the media center (which is really about information control, not dissemination) and the cultural center (a Lenin’s Tomb for the new world order?) are somewhat transparent attempts to put a benign gloss on some rather disturbing allegations. These projects are physical manifestations of the desire of those in control to maintain their power.
Evincing moral outrage by claiming the act of refusal is somehow an imposition of alien values on a different culture, or that refusal is moralization about the role of state-run media or the alleged virtues of a dead ‘president’, is missing the point. Such outrage ducks the issue of confronting alleged (and not so alleged) human rights violators, by mentally shrugging the shoulders and saying “Well, that is how things are done over there.” There is a huge gap between culture/tradition and oppression/brutality. Since when are institutionalized information control, criminalization of ideas and physical assault considered “cultural values”? Since when is beating people for refusing to profess government propaganda a “tradition”? It boggles the mind, and is insulting, to assume that people in any given society truly accept oppression and violence as a traditional way of life. This may be true for select individuals, but it does not appear to be a common trait amongst humanity. Making such an assumption implies that someone who does not share ones belief system is somehow more accepting of thought control and violence. How is that not a form of cultural imperialism? The desires to be left alone, to think ones thoughts, to not live in fear are universal traits. Refusal to participate in oppression, whether it be through designing buildings or perpetuating certain ideas, is not a matter of Western cultural imperialism. It is a matter of respect for basic human rights.
It may be true that nothing illegal has occurred here. There is nothing enforceable that would have prevented Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid or any architect from pursuing and executing either commission. As members of theoretically free societies, it is their prerogative to rationalize their choices however they wish. However, rationalization is not good enough here. The ethical responsibilities of an architect in selecting clients may only be limited by the law and by what the conscience of the architect will bear. The choices made reflect back on the chooser and architects (and individuals in general) will often be judged by the company they keep. One of the most attractive offerings of an open, democratic society is the right of individuals to make their decisions without coercion or penalties for failure to toe the party line. The flip side of that freedom is that the individual has to bear the consequences of their decisions. In situations like this, it is imperative for the architect to ask themselves this question: Do I want to be an accomplice to oppression or do I want to affirm fundamental freedom? Being a ‘tool’ in this manner may satisfy the ego and line the pocket; temptation enough for some. Declaring personal regard for basic human dignity is the right thing to do, because it is usually the more difficult thing to do.
Anyone who doubts the effects of buildings as symbols of power and aggrandizement should take another look at history. Despots and dictators may make the trains run on time, but ultimately cannot resist building these symbols. The questions posed by “Serving Omnipotent Masters” should be turned inside out: Who are these architects to use their status as famous designers to further the ambitions of those who would take away human rights, dictate what gets read, listened to or observed? Who are these sovereign entities to use power and status to appropriate, and ultimately subvert, the trappings of liberal societies in an attempt to conceal their true beliefs behind shiny masks?

Postscript: Recent events in Tibet only serve to highlight the issues at hand.

Human rights are by definition universal-- as the UN and others have declared for many years. Supporting someone's right to "life, liberty, and security of person" (or, rather, not supporting those who suppress those rights) is emphatically not "cultural imperialism." I would say this is a dangerous line of thinking.

See also http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html