This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
architecture and war
Some food for thought
In OMA/AMOs recently published book/magazine content, Eyal Weizmans essay The Evil Architects Do examines the points where the architecture and planing professions intersect with strategies of contemporary conflict and acts of organised violence. He examines this convergence within the context of the jurisdiction of the recently established International Criminal Court.
The essay outlines violation of human rights caused by the destruction of public facilities, the manipulation of infrastructure and the creation of structures of domination. He also looks at the growing role that architects, planners and civil engineers play in the worlds military operations, and raises the possibility that in future, individual architects and planners may be tried for violations of international law.
Urban space is often the physical embodiment of economic, political and military forces, and the relationship between the built environment and defensive or crowd control measures is not new. However the rapidly urbanising world, technological advances and the growing sophistication of military strategy result in spatial organisation and building fabric increasingly being used as weapons.
All this seems far removed from our daily life in Australia, however, for better or worse, our Age of Innocence is over we are no longer a decent but slightly censorious spectator on the sidelines of world events but a strange ambitious wannabe fancying himself a bit of a player. Australia is now party to actions which undermine human and civil rights, both locally and internationally.
It is important, I think, to be conscious of the moral and political implications of professional practice. Weizmans essay makes the point collaboration has always an alternative refusal!
I would go one step further it is easy to refuse to be involved in something which we may never be invited to participate in. I think it is important to keep informed and conscious and to encourage thought and debate within our professions, keeping in mind the words of Martin Luther King Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
what do you guys reckon?
eva
the above from http://www.architectsforpeace.org june newsletter
ref: Eyal Weizman, The Evil Architects Do in Content, Rem Koolhaas/Brendan McGetrick/AMO/OMA/&&&, Taschen, Koln, 2004. p60-63
Related websites:
OMA http://www.oma.nl/index_flash.htm
International Criminal Court http://www.iccnow.org/index.html
West Bank http://www.btselem.org/
In OMA/AMOs recently published book/magazine content, Eyal Weizmans essay The Evil Architects Do examines the points where the architecture and planing professions intersect with strategies of contemporary conflict and acts of organised violence. He examines this convergence within the context of the jurisdiction of the recently established International Criminal Court.
The essay outlines violation of human rights caused by the destruction of public facilities, the manipulation of infrastructure and the creation of structures of domination. He also looks at the growing role that architects, planners and civil engineers play in the worlds military operations, and raises the possibility that in future, individual architects and planners may be tried for violations of international law.
Urban space is often the physical embodiment of economic, political and military forces, and the relationship between the built environment and defensive or crowd control measures is not new. However the rapidly urbanising world, technological advances and the growing sophistication of military strategy result in spatial organisation and building fabric increasingly being used as weapons.
All this seems far removed from our daily life in Australia, however, for better or worse, our Age of Innocence is over we are no longer a decent but slightly censorious spectator on the sidelines of world events but a strange ambitious wannabe fancying himself a bit of a player. Australia is now party to actions which undermine human and civil rights, both locally and internationally.
It is important, I think, to be conscious of the moral and political implications of professional practice. Weizmans essay makes the point collaboration has always an alternative refusal!
I would go one step further it is easy to refuse to be involved in something which we may never be invited to participate in. I think it is important to keep informed and conscious and to encourage thought and debate within our professions, keeping in mind the words of Martin Luther King Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
what do you guys reckon?
eva
the above from http://www.architectsforpeace.org june newsletter
ref: Eyal Weizman, The Evil Architects Do in Content, Rem Koolhaas/Brendan McGetrick/AMO/OMA/&&&, Taschen, Koln, 2004. p60-63
Related websites:
OMA http://www.oma.nl/index_flash.htm
International Criminal Court http://www.iccnow.org/index.html
West Bank http://www.btselem.org/
Comments
-
I like your article Eva... and the punch line.
Great to find this site.
We've been building a website based around Christopher Alexanders ideas and have a number of forums there, one of which is also 'architecture and war'... you are most welcome to visit http://dhnotebook.asumendi.com/forums/topic_view/51/0
I have posted link to your article in our forum. -
thank you for your comments - and what a great site you've introduced me to! thank you for that as well. i don't agree with the statement you posted there that "nearly all building activity in this last century, in the West at least has been an act of war" but i am impressed by its boldness and it's definitely thought-provoking... thanks again. will get back to you on that one.
-
Hi Eva,
I found a very interesting article that deals with the issue of whether or not professionals should express an opinion on war. At first, the question appeared to me almost ludicrous. However, Eric Palson's thorough process is extremely worthwhile.
Eric Palson (AIA, 2004 President), perhaps a bit on the safe side, proposes important questions for the profession, the individual and for a person such as himself - caught between representing the membership and trying to discuss what is currently relevant - however your personal views. (By the way, he also quotes Architects for Peace and our stance on war).
He says: "It struck me that if you were to open up this newsletter in say, 1934, and found no mention of the Great Depression you would come to the conclusion that we were an elite profession, each one of us hopelessly out of touch. In terms of the war, maybe we are. Or maybe we are confined by the rules of polite conversation to keep our opinions to ourselves."
Palson also quotes this paragraph about engineers, architects and war, and their direct service to the occupation/demolition of infrastructure in the occupied Palestine.
"Israeli architects Eyal Weizman and Rafi Segal have consistently campaigned against the participation of architects in military action in the Middle East. In a statement issued last August they said:
( ) In our work, we have studied the effects of military occupation on the urban fabric of Palestinian towns. The Israeli Defense Forces employ an architect or engineer as part of the crew of every bulldozer, along with a driver and machine-gun operator, thus transforming the science of building into the science of destruction and oppression.
The complete article (Perspective) is located at the AIA Hampshire, the author, is Eric Palson, AIA, 2004.
Website: http://www.aianh.org/action/newsletter.shtml -
I have just found a letter to the UK Independent dated early 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq. It is en titled 'Architects against War'. It is signed by some of Britain and the States' most famous architects, including Gehry, Koolhaas, Hadid, Lord Rogers and SIr Farrell. It is an agitated letter that takes aim at the Blair government. Another signatory was the then RIBA president, Paul Hyett.
The first sentence:"We the undersigned believe that the case for war against Iraq has not been made, that it is immoral, and that it will very likely lead to an increase in international terrorism." http://www.charlesjencks.com/opinion.html
These are all architects who have had and will continue to have work with the governments they are criticising. These architects don't seem to doubt that architects should have a voice in the media on topics other than planning delays and... their buildings.
Did this attitude exist in Australia in 2003? A search finds almost no commentary at the time (except for AFP of course). The only prominent architect boat-rocker I could find was Kenneth Frampton, who happened to be visiting. The Sydney Morning Herald had a small article on architect Gordon Sloan, who "quit his job" to become a human shield.
I know a lot of Australian architects who were very pissed off about the war, but didn't hear from any of the Big Guys. Assuming that there were many local 'name' architects appalled by the war, why didn't we hear from them?
Were they quiet because of some constraint the famous foreigners shrugged off?
Did they have different thoughts about what you should do and say as an architect?
Perhaps the idea is stronger here that the professional (any professional) is, publically at least, impartial and politically neutral. While the RIBA had an antiwar petition for concerned architects, the local institute was more restrained. I'm sure they issued a media release at the time but all I can find on the RAIA site is an article with the title "US Defense Department Requests Proposals for Rebuilding Iraq." This isn't intended to be critical of the Institute - I'm just wondering about differences in what is relevant to the professional cultures in these two countries.
Maybe we might just be less keen here to support the idea of the 'celebrity architect'. Talking publically outside one's most immediate area of knowledge may be 'acting like a celebrity.'
Maybe we are more self-conscious about being 'professionals' and the associations of that word with elitism and privilege, and keep quiet.
Maybe we just don't think there isn't much to say about the built environment that will aid larger debates about war and the world. Do we have a narrower idea about what the 'built environment' is here?
Howdy, Stranger!