Bjarke Ingels is one of the most famous and most celebrated architects of today, producing distinctive contemporary buildings focused on utilising space and light in novel ways. Over the last fifteen years the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), has grown from designing ambitious residential blocks shaped as mountains or large figures of eight around Copenhagen, to a much sought after designer for the likes of Google’s new headquarters in California and the new World Trade Centre development in New York City.
His work is undeniably striking, at times almost futuristic, embodying his desire to create “something that is pure fiction”. He claims that his work embodies a sort of hedonistic sustainability whereby architecture responds to and utilises the specific climate in which it is situated without sacrificing the design of a building.
As increasingly prominent organisations and figures commission the work of BIG, Ingels has found himself facing significant criticism for his involvement with his most recent prospective client: Jair Bolsonaro. Earlier this month Ingels was photographed proudly alongside Brazilian President Bolsonaro and Minister of Tourism Marcelo Álvaro Antônio.
Climate-change denier Bolsonaro drew swathes of media attention during last year’s unprecedented forest fires scorching the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. His dismissal of the extent of the fires and the lacklustre response has been a prominent symbol of his year in power. Having claimed that a member of Brazilian Congress was not even worthy of rape and that he would rather his son die than be gay, Bolsonaro seems like an unlikely pair for the liberal and progressive Ingels. However, this collaboration has not drawn media attention for its unlikelihood, but for its deplorable nature.
The project proposed is an eco-conscious tourism development along Brazil’s North-East coast, aiming to promote sustainable tourism. These are the same officials who have vowed to double the number of foreign visitors to Brazil in the next two years, and the very same Bolsonaro who fretted about the prospect of Brazil becoming a ‘gay tourism paradise’. It doesn’t require much thought to see through Bolsonaro’s supposedly well-intentioned eco-development. However, regardless of whether this eco-friendly project is fundamentally contradictory with Bolsonaro’s destructive environmental attitude, it seems that partnering oneself with such far Right regimes evokes a sense of tacit compliance with an aggressive reign on the verge of authoritarianism.
Architecture has a distinctive power and prominence in the history of regimes. The frantic scramble to construct a physical presence in one’s country that definitively marks the country’s landscape is symptomatic of the construction of ideological legacy. Bolsonaro’s eco-tourism project can be read as an attempt to preserve a memorial of his reign, virtue-signalling to a benevolent programme that is simultaneously the antithesis of the mark he has left on his nation through his neglect of the crisis in the Amazon. Whilst Ingels’ intentions alone may be pure and optimistic about the change he can invoke, he is nevertheless complicit in the message of a threatening regime.
Jacques Herzog, another renowned architect, faced similar criticism for his work with China when he designed the Bird’s Nest stadium for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. He argued that his work in creating a new symbol of Chinese architecture was not, in fact, an endorsement of a regime known for its human rights violations but the creation of a subversive space free from official surveillance. Herzog and Ingels both share the overly optimistic stance that they are able to, through the creative licence afforded them, affect “positive change” for the citizens of the country without endorsing the regime commissioning their work.
The Bird’s Nest and the sustainable tourist scheme will generate positive outcomes for China and Brazil respectively, but what remains long past the reigns of Hu Jintao and Jair Bolsonaro is a legacy of their rule. We are not captivated by the vision of supposedly benevolent architects when we see emblematic buildings built under the command of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. We are reminded of their reigns and the legacies they leave. Ingels is naïve to believe he is leaving his creative stamp alone, independent of Bolsonaro’s physical and ideological mark on Brazil.
Image: Creative Commons Zero via Piqsels
Related
Should architects work for repressive regimes?
Bjarke Ingels is one of the most famous and most celebrated architects of today, producing distinctive contemporary buildings focused on utilising space and light in novel ways. Over the last fifteen years the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), has grown from designing ambitious residential blocks shaped as mountains or large figures of eight around Copenhagen, to a much sought after designer for the likes of Google’s new headquarters in California and the new World Trade Centre development in New York City.
His work is undeniably striking, at times almost futuristic, embodying his desire to create “something that is pure fiction”. He claims that his work embodies a sort of hedonistic sustainability whereby architecture responds to and utilises the specific climate in which it is situated without sacrificing the design of a building.
As increasingly prominent organisations and figures commission the work of BIG, Ingels has found himself facing significant criticism for his involvement with his most recent prospective client: Jair Bolsonaro. Earlier this month Ingels was photographed proudly alongside Brazilian President Bolsonaro and Minister of Tourism Marcelo Álvaro Antônio.
Climate-change denier Bolsonaro drew swathes of media attention during last year’s unprecedented forest fires scorching the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. His dismissal of the extent of the fires and the lacklustre response has been a prominent symbol of his year in power. Having claimed that a member of Brazilian Congress was not even worthy of rape and that he would rather his son die than be gay, Bolsonaro seems like an unlikely pair for the liberal and progressive Ingels. However, this collaboration has not drawn media attention for its unlikelihood, but for its deplorable nature.
The project proposed is an eco-conscious tourism development along Brazil’s North-East coast, aiming to promote sustainable tourism. These are the same officials who have vowed to double the number of foreign visitors to Brazil in the next two years, and the very same Bolsonaro who fretted about the prospect of Brazil becoming a ‘gay tourism paradise’. It doesn’t require much thought to see through Bolsonaro’s supposedly well-intentioned eco-development. However, regardless of whether this eco-friendly project is fundamentally contradictory with Bolsonaro’s destructive environmental attitude, it seems that partnering oneself with such far Right regimes evokes a sense of tacit compliance with an aggressive reign on the verge of authoritarianism.
Architecture has a distinctive power and prominence in the history of regimes. The frantic scramble to construct a physical presence in one’s country that definitively marks the country’s landscape is symptomatic of the construction of ideological legacy. Bolsonaro’s eco-tourism project can be read as an attempt to preserve a memorial of his reign, virtue-signalling to a benevolent programme that is simultaneously the antithesis of the mark he has left on his nation through his neglect of the crisis in the Amazon. Whilst Ingels’ intentions alone may be pure and optimistic about the change he can invoke, he is nevertheless complicit in the message of a threatening regime.
Jacques Herzog, another renowned architect, faced similar criticism for his work with China when he designed the Bird’s Nest stadium for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. He argued that his work in creating a new symbol of Chinese architecture was not, in fact, an endorsement of a regime known for its human rights violations but the creation of a subversive space free from official surveillance. Herzog and Ingels both share the overly optimistic stance that they are able to, through the creative licence afforded them, affect “positive change” for the citizens of the country without endorsing the regime commissioning their work.
The Bird’s Nest and the sustainable tourist scheme will generate positive outcomes for China and Brazil respectively, but what remains long past the reigns of Hu Jintao and Jair Bolsonaro is a legacy of their rule. We are not captivated by the vision of supposedly benevolent architects when we see emblematic buildings built under the command of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. We are reminded of their reigns and the legacies they leave. Ingels is naïve to believe he is leaving his creative stamp alone, independent of Bolsonaro’s physical and ideological mark on Brazil.
Image: Creative Commons Zero via Piqsels
Share this:
Like this:
Related