kwoodman_a1_p2-1
TRANSCRIPT
From ‘True Blue’ to True Who: What is lost in Australian Pavilion Architecture? Kate Woodman Deakin University
Abstract
The Australian architectural community’s campaign for the construction of a
new pavilion at the site of the Venice Biennale has peaked at the same time
as Australian investment and global participation in World Expos. The latter
follows global patterns in the recognition of Expos nation branding potential.
Traditionally, Australia saw Expo and Biennale participation as an opportunity
to reflect on and announce shifts in national identity. For the past 20 years,
Australia has consistently represented itself at these events in two aesthetics;
the landform and the sail. While these aesthetics will always, to some extent,
be relevant to Australian identity, it is questionable as to whether they could
really be regarded as the most relevant images across this time period. The
winning proposal for the new Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale
grants this line of questioning further relevance in its total disregard for
cultural expression.
Changing national agendas certainly puts limitations on the themes that
architects can engage with when designing a pavilion. However, this thesis
proposes that the nature of Australian architectural practice makes it more
susceptible to producing cliché and apolitical designs. The evidence for this
lies in the retreat of architects from engaging in thorough critique and public
debate. Essentially, ‘critique has become uncritical’1 and architects are no
longer compelled to experiment and innovate with the themes that converge
in the public realm. Here lies a disconnection that may offer an explanation for
the recycling of themes for Australia’s national image. Having established the
Australian context as rooted in its wild and untamed landscape, Australian
architects have not been compelled to revisit it, and what’s more, their
critiques have not held them accountable. A comparison of nation pavilion
images with national identity will establish the severity and nature of these
discrepancies and in doing so identify what is lost in Australian pavilion
architecture.
Introduction
National pavilions provide an opportunity for its architect to reflect on nationhood and
national identity. Traditionally they have been proud statements of Australia‟s cultural
might, however recent examples show evidence of retreat towards easy clichés or total
disregard for cultural expression. Globalisation has seen increased participation in Expos
and the Venice Biennales, and with it a changing participation agenda2. Australia‟s
participation at these events has been conservative. The role of the thesis, as an
extension of this literature report, is to detail the nature of these shifts specific to
Australia. The literature report will establish the importance of this topic and provide an
analytical framework to support the subsequent analysis.
From True Blue to True Who: A Historical Context
Australian pavilions have traditionally been utilized to announce reformation in national
identity. Philip Goad‟s analysis of the history of Exposition and Expo architecture in
Projecting the Nation provides the basis of this historical context. Tjaco Walvis identifies
three key global stages in World Expo and Exposition history on a global scale. Australian
pavilion trends, described by Goad, generally abide to the global stages established by
Walvis. The first stage, that Walvis terms „industrial‟, spanned from 1900 until 1938.
During this time the agenda was to promote the technological inventions and
advancements of a nation3. Anthropologist, Burton Benedict would dispute this, instead
proposing that World Fairs and Expositions were initiated out of the need for Colonial
powers to promote the strength and cohesion of their colonies4. Early Australian pavilions
show evidence of both. While their exhibitions were focused on building trade partners
and promoting resources of timber and wool, their pavilion architecture depicted colonial
loyalties5.
The following period of „cultural exchange‟, focused on the significance of culture and
more Utopian themes of humankind6. For Australia it involved the establishment of an
identity that was not defined by the empire and instead recognised the potential for a
national image to be derived from modernism and international engagement7. Significant
pavilions during this period include; the 1939 New York World‟s Fair as the first of
Australia‟s pavilions to successfully create an engaging environment through
modernism8, 1940 New Zealand Centennial Exhibition where the goal was to “put it all
over the British”9 and 20 years later, the 1967 Montreal World Expo, which as Barnes and
Jackson describe, promoted modern innovation as key to facilitating the Australian high
quality of life10.
Australia‟s participation in the 1970 Osaka World Expo was perhaps premature in its
cultural diplomacy attempts in terms of the global context established by Walvis. As
Barnes and Jackson contextualize; as a result of World War 2, Australia was becoming
less politically and economically dependent on Britain and was opening up to regional
connections. The Osaka Expo was seen as an opportunity for Australia to enhance
Japanese perceptions of Australia as culturally understanding and technically advanced,
(rather than course and uncultured). This was achieved through a series of references to
Japanese culture11.
This recognition of World Expo as a platform to improve national image is what Walvis
describes in his „nation branding‟ stage12. Stretching from 1988 until now, enhancing
national image remains the predominant goal of current Expo participation13. In Australian
pavilions, this time period marks the emergence of two reccurring Australian aesthetics;
of the sail and of the land. The existing pavilion at the Venice Biennale, designed by
Philip Cox in 1988, has the same aesthetic as his white painted hotel near Uluru. Cox‟s
career ambition was to develop an Australian style that represented an „up-to-date and
open minded Australia‟14, appropriating a „sail‟ aesthetic of white fabric, stretched over
white steel to do so. This style was repeated in 1992 at the Seville World Expo15. In
contrast, the 1988 Brisbane World Expo Pavilion, depicted a giant corrugated Uluru16
theme much like the giant Core-Ten steel landform at the recent 2010 Shanghai World
Expo. Referring to the Brisbane World Expo, Goad states that “here landscape was
deployed as a highly marketable image of Australia”17. The 2000 Hannover World Expo
sees Australia amalgamating these two aesthetics with the stretched sails now coloured
in the deep red of the Australian desert18.
From boasting allegiance to the mother country to representing cultural coming of age
through modernism, Australia has utilized pavilion design to reflect pursuits in the
reformation of national identity. For most of the 20th century, Australia has attempted to
engage in international styles. Now the nation strives to differentiate itself globally. The
proposed design for the new Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale (Figure 1) is
perhaps an exception to this statement, posing a total departure from the role of pavilions
in representing culture, towards neutrality. Its architect, Barrie Marshall of DCM, boldly
states “the external and internal volumes have no connotations whatsoever of 'national
character', other than perhaps a refusal to acknowledge the giving of architectural form to
such a concept”19. This disregard parallels John Denton (also of DCM), Philip Goad and
Geoffrey London‟s comment on Australian cultures “perpetual scorn for theory and
ideas”20 (from which they do not elaborate).
Figure 1. Melbourne Architect‟s, DCM‟s winning submission for the Australia Council for the Arts closed competition for the new
Pavilion at the Venice Biennale.21
From True Blue to True Who: A Global Context
As one of the few remaining platforms for cultural differentiation pavilion architecture has
found increased relevance in the globalised world. This international phenomenon puts
pressure on architects to produce high impact designs, often derived from stereotypes22.
Walvis warns that „nation branding‟ that is poorly executed can lead to damaging
reinterpretations of a nation such as being nationalist, excluding cultural or ethnic groups
or by oversimplifying the nation‟s cultural signifiers.23 Bell and Lyall, through the analysis
of themes explored at the Hannover Expo 2000, question whether the marketing agendas
are sterilizing pavilion design. They identify nature as a common pavilion theme for its
ability to distinguish a nation in a manner that is relevant to all citizens while remaining
largely apolitical24. They provide some evidence of the relevance of nature to national
constructs. However, their overall tone is critical, labeling it as superficial and cliché;
“The nationalisms we see at Expos are the performative ones, the colourful,
apolitical, hygienic versions of nation that obliterate politics and proclaim
nation boundaries as unproblematic, uncontested, secure and timeless” 25.
Walvis‟ reflection on the trend is far more optimistic. He sees accountability associated
with the importance of honesty in marketing success. He believes that such agendas will
“promote diversity, rather than limit it”26 while ensuring national culture and identity
remains relevant despite globalization. The prevalence of marketing in Expo and
Biennale architecture has certainly put restrictions on the nature of their architectural
expression. However, negotiating the requirements of various stakeholders, while
maintaining architectural integrity, is hardly unfamiliar to architects.
From True Blue to True Who: A Local Context
Australian architects suffer greater vulnerability to global pressures because they are not
active in discussions of culture, identity and their ever changing nature. Andrew
Benjamin, illustrates that difficulty in obtaining public money for the construction of a new
Pavilion at the Venice Biennale is telling; “For the most part, these issues do not pertain
to the relative strength or weaknesses of Australian architecture, but rather the way in
which it defines itself”27. He encourages architects to acknowledge culture and embrace
its complexities28. Hogben and Fang condemn Australian architectural discourse for
becoming uncritical, particularly in terms of architects that derive inspiration from either
the land or engagement with indigenous people. They deny the authenticity of the
appropriation of these symbols of national identity saying;
“The repositioning of Aboriginal culture in mainstream media and cultural
institutions originates in a need to reinvent an ethnically mature cultural
identity for Australia for the global market.” 29
Their concern is that flippant discourse accommodates the perpetuation of architecture
that is unaware of its social and political impacts30. Carey Lyon, 10 years on from Hogben
and Fang‟s warning, identifies missed opportunities for Australian architects as a result of
their lack of presence in broader public debate. Using landscape as an example, although
multiculturalism and history are other topics he identifies, he notes significant national
developments that have not advanced architectural understandings of the land beyond it
being wild and untamed. As such, outdated responses are still abundant. Such
advancements include native title, understanding of indigenous spirituality and the fragility
of the landscape. Lyon clarifies that the architects‟ role is not necessarily in public
advocacy; however private engagement in these issues should result in architecture that
responds and contributes to this discussion.31 Consistently, there is a domestic request
for architects to engage in matters of national identity and culture. The lack of architects‟
participation in these national issues raises a concern that representations of Australian
identity have not been revisited and are therefore out of date.
Philip Goad denies that Australian architecture is not intellectual in its pursuits, but
instead finds evidence in the experimentation and production of architecture on site. “In
that respect, Australian architecture culture is traditionally conservative and suspicious of
polemic, but only insofar as the notion of production is predicated on opportunity.”32 In a
dynamic and diverse culture such as Australia, pavilions propose an invaluable medium
of constant experimentation and re-evaluation. He describes Australian culture more
generally as simultaneously seeking identity and defending difference. In the ambiguity of
these contradictions, he identifies freedom for architectural practise.33 Sandra Kaji-
O‟Grady and Julie Willis note the absence of Australians in „international‟ architectural
anthologies, explaining that as a geographic periphery it is overlooked, with works of the
center (US and Europe) assuming a voice for all34. Australian architects respond
defensively to these international theories; treating them “with a contradictory mix of
suspicion born of no-nonsense pragmatism and a desire to be seen as knowledgeable
and culturally hip”35. They describe Australian architects as „acutely self conscious‟ of
their location in the world but are positive of the architectural community‟s ability to
generate theory and transform architectural identity. They contribute recent changes in
the focus of architectural discourse in Australian to the specialisation of academia as a
discipline, resulting in the separation of theory from practise. They go on to defend
architects lack of speculation on culture and identity because as a result of the blurring of
national lines; “the concept of a nationally or regionally defined architecture now seems
highly problematic”. Deyan Sudjic, a rare international voice in these discussions,
analyses the Australian exhibition at the 2006 Venice Architectural Biennale. He
describes the exhibition‟s „defiantly unflashy‟ images of urban Australia that included
deserted mining towns and troubled suburbs, as showing Australia‟s “unusually reflective
architectural culture”36. There is a firm support of Australian architects‟ capabilities to
reflect. However, this potential is not mirrored in Australia‟s pavilion designs. The nature
of Australian architectural practice and its global position in intellectual pursuits may have
contributed to these opportunities being missed.
How buildings are read.
There are many ways in which buildings are imbued with meaning, not all of which will be
relevant to this analysis. Applying Umberto Eco‟s categorization to national pavilions,
both the „denoted‟ (primary) and the „connoted‟ (associated meanings) have symbolic
functions therefore both are relevant to this analysis37. Using the Australian pavilion at the
Shanghai Expo as an example, the imagery of Australia denotes primary function;
identifying its nation, however it is loaded with connotations about Australia‟s relationship
with China. Goodman‟s differentiation of „evocation‟ and „causation‟ from referential
meanings is valuable. It essentially distinguishes the methods employed by architects
from the meanings that come to be associated with a building as a result of its contextual
factors38. The temporary nature of pavilions limit their ability to develop meaning beyond
that which is intended (though exceptions exist). For the purposes of this analysis the
intentional references only are of relevance.
Conclusion
Australian pavilions have in the past responded to changes in national identity, however it
has become questionable as to whether current pavilion designs engage in such
reflection. The recycling of the same image of Australia for the last 20 years does not
mirror the dynamic nature and diversity of Australian culture and its context in a
globalizing world, nor does it embrace the potential for innovation that such changes can
bring. These issues may enlighten broader characteristics of Australian‟s relationship with
identity and thus is not unique to its architects. The concern is that pavilions that are
ignorant to their nation run the risk of representing nothing and no one.
Endnotes
1 Paul Hogben & Stanislaus Fang, „Landscape and Culture, Geography and Race; Some shifts in
Australian Architectural Commentary‟, Voices (1997), 12. 2 Tjaco Walvis, „Building Brand Locations‟, Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 4, (2003), 361.
3 Tjaco Walvis, „Three eras of World Expositions: 1851-present‟, in Tjaco Walvis (ed.)
Cosmopolite: Stardust World Expo & National Branding Newsletter, 5, 1, (2004), 1. 4 Burton Benedict, 'International exhibitions and national identity', in Jonathan Benthall (ed.),
Anthropology Today, 7, 3, (1991) 5-9 5 Philip Goad, 'Projecting the Nation' in Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia, (Melbourne:
Architecture Media) 98 (2010) 91. 6 Tjaco Walvis, „Three eras of World Expositions: 1851-present‟, 1.
7 Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 91.
8 Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92.
9 Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92.
10 Carolyn Barnes, Barbara Hall & Simon Jackson, „Relaxed and Comfortable: The Australian
Pavilion at Expo '67', Design Issues, 25, 1 (2009), 80-93. 11
Carolyn Barnes, Barbara Hall & Simon Jackson, 'Creature of Circumstance: Australia's Pavilion at Expo '70 and Changing International Relations' The Proceedings of the XXIVth International Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand (Adelaide: Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, 2007), 1-16. 12
Walvis, „Three eras of World Expositions: 1851-present, 1. 13
Walvis, „Building Brand Locations‟, 361. 14
Deyan Sudjic, „Beyond the Cringe: Australian Architecture and the Venice Biennale‟ The Monthly, 1, 17 (2006), 42. 15
Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92. 16
Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92. 17
Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92. 18
Goad, „Projecting the Nation, 92. 19
Barrie Marshall, „Denton Corker Marshall Entry‟, in Matt Ward, Anna Draffin, Stephen Mitchell (eds.), Venice Biennale New Australian Pavilion; Di Stasio Ideas Competition, (Melbourne: Di Stasio Ideas Competition Venice Biennale, 2008), 104. 20
John Denton, Philip Goad & Geoffrey London, 'Afterword', 2nd
rev., The Australian Ugliness, (Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2010), 271. 21
Australian Council for the Arts, „Denton Corker Marshall appointed architects for new Venice pavilion‟, The Australian Council for the Arts Website < http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/items/2012/venice-pavilion-redevelopment-architects-appointed> (2012). 22
Jian Wang & Shaojing Sun, Experiencing Nation Brands: A Comparative Analysis of Eight National Pavilions at Expo Shanghai 2010, (Los Angeles: Figueroa Press, 2012), 17-20. 23
Walvis, Tjaco, The Branding of Nations by Stardust New Ventures, (Amsterdam: Stardust New Ventures, 2001), 2. 24
Claudia Bell & John Lyall, 'Packaging Nations: Expo 2000, Hannover' from The Proceedings of TASA 2001 Conference, (The University of Sydney, 2001), 2. 25
Bell & Lyall, „'Packaging Nations: Expo 2000, Hannover', 5. 26
Walvis, The Branding of Nations by Stardust New Ventures, 3. 27
Andrew Benjamin, 'Architecture and Culture', Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia, (Melbourne: Architecture Media), 92, 3, (2003) 42. 28
Benjamin, 'Architecture and Culture', 42-44 29
Hogben & Fang, „Landscape and Culture, Geography and Race; Some shifts in Australian Architectural Commentary‟, 12. 30
Hogben & Fang, „Landscape and Culture, Geography and Race; Some shifts in Australian Architectural Commentary‟, 12. 31
Carey Lyon, 'Culture Wars – Missing in Action', Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia, (Melbourne: Architecture Media), 96, 1, (2007) 7. 32
Philip Goad, „Introduction‟, in Patrick Bingham-Hall (eds.), New directions in Australian Architecture,(Balmain: Pesaro Publishing, 2001), 10. 33
Goad, „Introduction‟, 10. 34
Sandra Kaji-O‟Grady & Julie Willis, „Conditions, Connections and Change: Reviewing Australian Architectural Theory 1880–2000,‟ Architectural Theory Review, 16, 2, (2003), 92.
35
Kaji-O‟Grady & Willis, „Conditions, Connections and Change: Reviewing Australian Architectural Theory 1880–2000,‟ 94. 36
Sudjic, „Beyond the Cringe: Australian Architecture and the Venice Biennale‟, 45. 37
Umberto Eco, „Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture‟, Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, Charles Jencks (eds.), Signs, Symbols and Architecture, (Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1980), 20-34. 38
Nelson Goodman, 'How Buildings Mean', Nelson Goodman, Catherine Z. Elgin, (eds.) Re conceptions in Philosophy and other Arts and Sciences, (London: Routledge,1988), 31-44. 39
Kaji-O‟Grady & Willis, „Conditions, Connections and Change: Reviewing Australian Architectural Theory 1880–2000,‟ 94-102. 40
Julie Willis & Philip Goad, „A Bigger Picture; Reframing Australian Architectural History‟, in Andrew Leach, Paul Walker (eds.), Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australian and New Zealand, 18, 1, (2008), 7-24.
Figure 2. Research Plan Diagram
Research Plan
(refer to Figure 2.)
Kaji-O‟Grady and Willis identify recurring factors impacting written Australian architectural
theory including; „cultural inheritance‟, „landscape and climate‟, „indigenous culture‟,
architectural practice and contextual complexity39. Similarly Julie Willis and Philip Goad
identify themes of national significance that contribute to the uniqueness of Australian
architecture and should influence the understanding of its history. These include;
„reconciling indigenous architecture‟, colonial context, urban situation, international
context and the documentation of its history40. As an extension of this literature report, the
thesis will analyse themes specific to Australian pavilions and compare them to themes in
national identity. The goal is to establish the correlation between Australian pavilion
architecture and Australian perceptions of identity and in doing so, identify „what is lost in
Australian pavilion architecture‟.
Pavilion data from three locations will be analysed;
Entries in the Di Stasio ideas competition for the Venice Biennale (a selection of
which has been collated into a published book).
The process run by the Arts Council of Australia for the proposed new Australian
pavilion at the Biennale (which has been discussed extensively in both
architecture and more general media).
Australia‟s pavilion buildings at recent World Expo‟s (discussed in Government
documents and academic journals).
This sample group provides a spectrum of government mitigation, from unrestricted and
no involvement in the Di Stasio ideas competition to the government run and regulated
World Expo entries. An analysis of Australia‟s architectural exhibitions at the Venice
Biennale will provide supplementary data to analyse shifts in Australian architects
engagement in discourse. Themes in national identity will be gathered from literature
such as Now & then: Australian history and identity in the 20th century written by Keith
Hallett and A bigger picture: Reframing Australian architectural history written by Julie
Willis and Philip Goad. This research is concerned with evidence from 1988 until now, as
this time period defines the shift in aesthetic of Australian pavilionsThe themes identified
in both research fields will be compared in order to define how closely they correlate, and
detail the areas they may not.
Bibliography
Benedict, B, 'International exhibitions and national identity', in Jonathan Benthall (ed.),
Anthropology Today, 7, 3, (1991) 5-9
Barnes, C, B Hall & S Jackson, „Relaxed and Comfortable: The Australian Pavilion at
Expo '67', Design Issues, 25, 1 (2009), 80-93.
Barnes, C, B Hall & S Jackson, 'Creature of Circumstance: Australia's Pavilion at Expo
'70 and Changing International Relations' The Proceedings of the XXIVth International
Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand
(Adelaide: Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, 2007), 1-16.
Bell, C & J Lyall, 'Packaging Nations: Expo 2000, Hannover' from The Proceedings of
TASA 2001 Conference, (The University of Sydney, 2001), 1-7.
Benjamin, A, 'Architecture and Culture', Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia,
(Melbourne: Architecture Media), 92, 3, (2003), 42-44.
Denton, J, P Goad & G London, 'Afterword', 2nd rev., The Australian Ugliness,
(Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2010), 268-273.
Eco, U, „Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture‟, Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard
Bunt, Charles Jencks (eds.), Signs, Symbols and Architecture, (Chichester, New York,
Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1980), 20-34.
Goad, P, „Introduction‟, in Patrick Bingham-Hall (eds.), New directions in Australian
Architecture,(Balmain: Pesaro Publishing, 2001), 10-11.
Goad, P, 'Projecting the Nation' in Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia, (Melbourne:
Architecture Media) 98 (2010), 91-92.
Goodman, N, 'How Buildings Mean', Nelson Goodman, Catherine Z. Elgin, (eds.) Re
conceptions in Philosophy and other Arts and Sciences, (London: Routledge,1988), 31-
44.
Hogben, P & S Fang, „Landscape and Culture, Geography and Race; Some shifts in
Australian Architectural Commentary‟, Voices (1997), 5-14.
Kaji-O‟Grady, S & J Willis, „Conditions, Connections and Change: Reviewing Australian
Architectural Theory 1880–2000,‟ Architectural Theory Review, 16, 2, (2003), 92-102.
Lyon, C, 'Culture Wars – Missing in Action', Justine Clark (ed.) Architecture Australia,
(Melbourne: Architecture Media), 96, 1, (2007) 7.
Sudjic, D, „Beyond the Cringe: Australian Architecture and the Venice Biennale‟ The
Monthly, 1, 17 (2006), 40-45.
Walvis, T, „Building Brand Locations‟, Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 4, (2003), 358-
366.
Walvis, T, „Three eras of World Expositions: 1851-present‟, in Tjaco Walvis (ed.)
Cosmopolite: Stardust World Expo & National Branding Newsletter, 5, 1, (2004), 1.
Wang, J, & S Sun, Experiencing Nation Brands: A Comparative Analysis of Eight National
Pavilions at Expo Shanghai 2010, (Los Angeles: Figueroa Press, 2012).
Ward, M, A Draffin, & S Mitchell (eds.), Venice Biennale New Australian Pavilion; Di
Stasio Ideas Competition, (Melbourne: Di Stasio Ideas Competition Venice Biennale,
2008).
Willis, J & P Goad, „A Bigger Picture; Reframing Australian Architectural History‟, in
Andrew Leach, Paul Walker (eds.), Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, Australian and New Zealand, 18, 1, (2008), 7-24.