by Jon Lackman | 15 December 2008 | Architecture
We belatedly take note of an interesting article published in July on Signandsight.com:
The German feuilletons spent the spring debating the relationship between architecture and morality … De Meuron told an interviewer that it would be stupid and cowardly not to build for China on the grounds that it has no democracy. Albert Speer, the son of Hitler’s architect, who has years of experience building for China … took an apolitical stance in the TV magazine Kulturzeit on 24.05.07: “I think of architects in general and our office is particular as service providers. (…) Ideology shouldn’t enter into things.” In an interview with die Welt, he was more affirmative: “I have made it my business to make sure the Chinese start thinking about the environment, energy provision and energy saving” …
In a brief interview with the German Vanity Fair of 19.02.2008, Daniel Libeskind stated: “I do not build for totalitarian rulers. I see architecture as a commitment to democracy and this means ethical responsibility.” But Libeskind also builds in Hongkong … Hanno Rauterberg asked, in die Zeit on 27.03.2008, why people would expect architects to reflect on their business with autocrats … “[Architecture] not only provides a state with the necessary rooms and spaces, but also with images and metaphors. It becomes a foundation, a support, a pillar of the system” …
Rem Kohlhaas … found it “rather fatuous that the west is always only critical. The west is critical, nothing but critical. This form of uninterrupted criticism only leads up a blind alley. (…) We simply have to recognise that the right of the individual, which we hold so holy, has no tradition in countries like China” … When questioned about the migrant workers and their working conditions, and the general issue of architecture and responsibility, Kohlhaas explained: “I think we have to be pragmatic.” In Kohlhaas’ eyes, the only way to change the world is to build in China. “CCTV is currently discussing whether to divide the state television into a traditional and a modern part, which would be strongly BBC-oriented. And the modern, enlightened TV people would then move into our building. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, as I see it, the building is a symbol of change.”
