26 January, 2008
Ms Amanda Bailleu
Editor, Building Design
Dear Ms Bailleu:
SHARKS LURK IN ETHICAL WATERS
Building Design editorial 25th January, 2008
Your editorial about British protests about Israeli architects and Zaha Hadid’s project in Azerbaijan only shovels more mud into the waters.
Now that construction industry recession, architects’ lay-offs and a downturn for BD all seem likely, you choose to re-invent Zaha Hadid as architecture’s Amy Winehouse: fabulous but flawed! How tabloid. But how does this connect to British protests about Israeli architects?
Ms Hadid / Ms Winehouse
First: Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine [APJP] has simply campaigned against Israeli exploitation of territory that is not Israel’s. There are no muddy waters to dip your toe in here. It is a matter determined by the UN, and endorsed by George W Bush only a couple of weeks ago: ‘Swiss cheese won’t work!’
Second: the only architect who will take your proposition that we must draw a line between artistic freedom and human rights is Paul Kersey, hero of Death Wish. Everyone else believes they defend both simultaneously. Philip Johnson did that too, but then he knew his press. They may have raised an eyebrow at his ATT tower, but his jaunts with the Wermacht as they invaded Poland were secrets as well kept as Anthony Blunt being a communist spy.
Philip Johnson / Anthony Blunt
If your editorial signals you are raising the bar on architects’ hypocrisy, great news. But you can’t change BD from fanzine to Private Eye if your position on Israel and Palestine remains out of step with international events.
Phil Gusack
Amanda Baillieu
Artistic freedom, at a profit, can be a powerful pull over principles on human rights. Where do you draw the line?
SHARKS LURK IN ETHICAL WATERS
Building Design editorial 25th January, 2008
Dipping a toe into the muddied waters of architects’ ethics means you run the risk of having your toe bitten off. When UK architects attacked their colleagues in Israel for working in that country’s disputed territories, they were quite rightly reprimanded, not simply by Israel but by many architects here.
The point, made in BD’s letters page at the time, is that while Israel is seen as fair game by some in the profession, such humanity rarely extends to regimes such as China, Russia or Saudi Arabia, where human rights abuses are well documented.
This is because all the above are not only a source of work for international practices, but are so on a scale unimaginable here. But should architects take a line on such matters when making a decision where to work?
This week, we report on Zaha Hadid’s commission from Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, for a cultural centre named after his father, who ruled the country with something of an iron fist for over 30 years. His human rights record — he was a KGB general — and democratic credentials are described by one academic as “pretty poor”. And while Aliyev’s son may be trying to reinvent the country, he came to power after the electoral system was “reformed” to let him succeed his father.
Alain de Botton suggests architects enjoy working for “dictatorial types” because they get things done. He is right. Look at China, which architects talk about in rapturous tones for the simple reason that airports, stadiums, museums, even whole towns can be approved and then built at the snap of a finger.
Architects are constantly confronted by ethical issues — from professional questions to more philosophical ones — and ultimately it is for individuals to decide where they want to work. Some may take Philip Johnson’s line, who famously said: “I’m out to work for the Devil himself if he’s building”. Others may decide that the risk to one’s reputation is too great.
“Philip Johnson famously said: “I’m out to work for the Devil himself if he’s building””
Hadid’s decision to lend her name to this project throws architects’ ethical dilemmas into sharp relief.
DOWNLOAD PDF HERE