Defending the USA Pavilion

And no, the Shanghai World Expo is not just a trade show.

BY JOSE H. VILLARREAL | APRIL 2, 2010

Contrary to what reporter Adam Minter wrote recently in his article, "A Sorry Spectacle: The Uninspiring Saga of the United States' World Expo Pavilion in Shanghai," the design and execution of the USA Pavilion has been not only impressive but inspiring.

The USA Pavilion, which will open its doors on May 1 as part of the first-ever World's Fair hosted in China, will showcase American values, ideas, and culture to an international audience eager for knowledge about the United States and the world.

An estimated 70 million people are expected to attend what is officially known as Expo 2010 Shanghai, where more than 240 countries and international organizations will be represented. According to a recent poll conducted by Millward Brown ACSR and Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, the USA Pavilion, currently in the final construction phase, is likely to be among the most popular foreign exhibits for Chinese Expo-goers.

This pavilion's anticipated success is a testament to the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a group of citizens who think that the world's top economic power and democratic beacon must take every opportunity to nurture the ever-important U.S.-China relationship.

World's Fairs are about forging the ties that bind. The Shanghai event will knit a stronger relationship between the United States and China, and better relations in turn will help two proud countries cooperatively address vital global issues, from trade to climate change to security.

Thanks in large part to Clinton's Office for the Global Partnership Initiative, we've managed to raise virtually all the funds necessary to build the pavilion, drawing support from a cross section of U.S. companies, municipalities, and states that recognize the value in reaching out to one of the United States' most important trading partners and to the world.

The Office for the Global Partnership Initiative is focused on coordinating with like-minded countries and organizations on issues of common interest.

In particular, the pavilion's planning and construction is an example of the Obama administration's pursuit of more public-private partnerships -- in which government works in tandem with the private sector in pursuit of mutually beneficial goals, such as increasing mutual understanding between the American and Chinese peoples, underscoring support for environmental protection, and boosting interest in American products and services that can help both citizens and government officials envision and build  a "Better City, Better Life" -- the overarching theme of the Expo.

This USA Pavilion will give the American people a public presence at the Expo, while raising the profile of American corporations and organizations in the Chinese market.

Moreover, the pavilion will feature a diverse array of American musicians performing on stages throughout the massive Expo site -- introducing international audiences to musical styles ranging from bluegrass to hip-hop to jazz. American jazz legend Herbie Hancock is just one of the Grammy Award-winning performers who is scheduled to perform.

I am particularly proud that Chinese and foreign guests will be greeted by 160 Mandarin-speaking American college students working as "Pavilion Student Ambassadors." Drawn from across the United States, from schools small and large, they will add a friendly human touch to America's representation at the Expo. I am also proud of our efforts to highlight the achievements of the Chinese in the United States and through their experience to celebrate America's immigrant heritage and commitment to diversity.

Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, all of whom have donated or provided in-kind assistance to the pavilion effort, see their involvement as linked to their own corporate social responsibility missions. Other major U.S. companies donating or providing in-kind assistance include: Amway, American Airlines, Boeing, Dell, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, DuPont, FedEx, Harman International, Honeywell, Intel, Marriott, Mars, Microsoft, Panasonic Integrated Systems, Qualcomm, Visa, Yum! Brands, and Wal-Mart.

Yet, it would be a disservice to characterize the Expo as a mere trade show. Far from it. The USA Pavilion is an opportunity to project American ideals onto a grand stage. Toward that end, the pavilion will include displays about the freedoms and values that play such an important role in the lives of Americans.

A highlight for many of our guests will be the feature film in the pavilion's main theater. The story is simple and compelling. The Garden tells an inspirational story of a little girl who dreams that a vacant urban lot visible from her window can become a garden; she wants to make her corner of the city a better place. A strong sense of optimism, community spirit, and perseverance in the face of challenge runs through this story -- traits that run deep within the American character. Through its ethnically diverse cast of Americans, the presentation can be seen as a universal story reflective of how different countries must work together to achieve common goals, collectively forging a better world.

The USA Pavilion will open its doors despite the well-documented obstacles that have stood in its way, such as legislative limitations prohibiting the use of appropriated funding for an American presence at World's Fairs unless expressly authorized by Congress. Practically speaking, this means that the money had to be raised from private donations. In good economic times, this provision presents formidable challenges, but during the Great Recession, this had the blocking force of the Hoover Dam.

In the end, however, we overcame the odds. The result: In Shanghai the United States. will have a world-class presence at the largest ever World's Fair. The USA Pavilion, with its stirring design, cultural performances, student ambassadors, and memorable theater experiences, will draw millions of people eager for a glimpse of what makes America great. They'll be inspired.

Getty Images/AFP

 SUBJECTS:
 

Jose H. Villarreal is the U.S. commissioner general to Expo 2010 Shanghai.

TEX

7:22 PM ET

April 2, 2010

Amway

Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.

Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.

As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.

Read about it on this website: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.

 

AMSTED

9:05 PM ET

April 2, 2010

This is a rebuttal?

How can this be characterized as a rebuttal of Minter's piece? It's a list of talking points in favor of the pavilion.

Nowhere in this piece does Villarreal address the allegations made in Minter's piece, including serious charges of nepotism in the awarding of the pavilion, potential violations of law by State Department personnel, potential contracting fraud, loans received by the USA pavilion by the Chinese government, etc etc etc.

Are we to take it, then, that in Villarreal's opinion all of those allegations are true?

 

AMERICANINSHANGHAI

11:00 PM ET

April 2, 2010

Missing the Point

It seems to me that there are people who continue to focus on the wrong elements of this Expo project, the goal of which is to create goodwill among nations and people. What on earth does ranting about Amway have to do with the article above? As a diplomat, Villarreal is to focus on the role of the US Pavilion in the greater Expo context. Addressing allegations that are completely misinformed and and misguided (and ill-natured) would only perpetuate a poisonous conversation that does not add any value to a fruitful dialogue about the the true spirit of the World's Fair and the US's involvement in this monumental event.

I am an American expat living in Shanghai for several years now and I am genuinely looking forward to visiting the US pavilion along with many other nation's pavilions. I can honestly say that my very international group of friends here feel the same way. One can feel the excitement and buzz surrounding the Expo building as the inauguration day approaches.

Brava to the USA pavilion team for putting together what is sure to be a great US pavilion under incredibly difficult circumstances.

 

BOB JACOBSON

1:14 AM ET

April 3, 2010

Yes, Jose, but....

Your "defense" is a mark of your loyalty to the cause and to the US having a good presence at the Shanghai Expo. All Americans would applaud your dedication as Commissioner General.

However, I do not see in your article any rebuttals to Adam Minter's piece, particularly his fact-based recounting of the problematic fashion in which the US Pavilion was awarded to the current team or the quality of the work that has subsequently ensued. It disturbs me that you, as Commissioner General, choose to ignore these facts and outcomes because it is the role of Commissioner General, as I understand it, not to be a cheerleader for the US Pavilion but rather its overseer in the name of the American people. Anything less could be construed as a conflict of interest.

As the first Commissioner General of a serious US Pavilion effort in 20 years, your standards must be the highest. Your evaluation of how the US is represented at the Shanghai Expo and the factors that led to the issues Adam so well addressed will determine the success or failure of US Pavilion efforts at Yeosu, Korea, in 2012 and at the 2015 Milan's Universal Expo -- on a par with Shanghai, but much closer to home and critical to US public diplomacy,

Two of your statements, taken together, are especially confusing and troubling. You first state,

"Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, all of whom have donated or provided in-kind assistance to the pavilion effort, see their involvement as linked to their own corporate social responsibility missions. Other major U.S. companies donating or providing in-kind assistance include: Amway, American Airlines, Boeing, Dell, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, DuPont, FedEx, Harman International, Honeywell, Intel, Marriott, Mars, Microsoft, Panasonic Integrated Systems, Qualcomm, Visa, Yum! Brands, and Wal-Mart."

You then state,

"Yet, it would be a disservice to characterize the Expo as a mere trade show. Far from it. The USA Pavilion is an opportunity to project American ideals onto a grand stage. Toward that end, the pavilion will include displays about the freedoms and values that play such an important role in the lives of Americans."

That seems to be a contradiction on the face of it, because nowhere do you indicate there was or will be any involvement of the American people in the US Pavilion's operation. Or did I miss something?

As for AmericaninShanghai's comment: it's meaningless. This anonymous person states,

"Addressing allegations that are completely misinformed and and misguided (and ill-natured) would only perpetuate a poisonous conversation that does not add any value to a fruitful dialogue about the the true spirit of the World's Fair and the US's involvement in this monumental event."

Which allegations are you speaking of? Adam Minter's? No other journalist has invested as much time or energy in trying to understand why there are so many misgivings about the US Pavilion effort, not just among Americans (including the majority of informed expats in Shangha) but behind the scene, also among the Expo hosts. Adam came to his conclusions -- I know, because he interviewed me most critically -- without preconceptions about the effort or its outcomes. He is one of the most even-handed, conscientious journalists I've met in the course of my own three-year involvement with the Expo. AmericaninShanghai's criticism of Adam is unwarranted, ignorant, and defensive, pointless boosterism.

Jose Villarreal's job as Commissioner General correctly is "to focus on the role of the US Pavilion in the greater Expo context." That does not mean being its chief cheerleader. It means to inform the President, the Secretary of State, the Congress, and above all the American people how best they can be represented in Shanghai and even more at future Expos and to counsel in Shanghai how this can be done. This article is unfortunate in that context.

 

RUGGER

8:47 PM ET

April 11, 2010

The Best Pavillion Congress Won't Fund

Jacobson (and Minter for that matter) seem fascinated by the early history of the US Pavillion, when the project was on life support due to the Bush administration's approach. So be it. If there were ethical lapses or (as they sometimes imply) violations of law, there will be plenty of time to investigate those possibilities. Now is not the time for that.

Villarreal was not appointed special prosecutor, rather he was named Commissioner General in order to get the US Pavillion built for a trade expo that is of utmost concern to the Chinese government. Had that effort failed, it is likely that relations with China would have been harmed. It would have been viewed by China like the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics--in that case, relations with the USSR were harmed, whether it was the right decision or not. (For what it's worth, I happen to think it was the right decision.) When a country as wealthy and powerful as the US does not attend, it is viewed as an intentional snub, whatever excuses are offered.

Villarreal seems to have succeeded marvellously at what must have been the administration's first goal: avoid harm to an important relationship by mounting a pavillion.

The next set of criticisms are of the as-yet-unopened pavillion itself--that it is not attractive enough, that it looks like a movie theater, and that it focuses too much on the business interests that provided its funding (shocking!). Well, we can all agree that any Pavillion would likely be subject to criticism of some kind, and that's expected. But no pavillion is going to be all it can be, so long as Congress chooses not to fund the project. You are not going to get the beautiful Frank Gehry building on a mail-order-house budget. If you want US pavillion to be superb in a way that few countries are capable of creating, then you need to criticize the dysfunctional structure that Congress created, not criticizing the people who are trying to build a successful product despite that structure.

For those looking forward to pavillions in Italy and Korea I would ask: If it was this difficult to attract sufficient business support and to execute on a pavillion in an important market like China, how do you evaluate the prospects for doing that in less important markets, regardless of whether they are "closer to home"? (In today's wired global economy, I would suggest physical locations of the upcoming expos are scarcely relevant.) And where will you be find another capable person like Jose Villarreal who is willing to carry the load and weather the second-guessing that starts well before the doors open?

 

TECHMAN

9:52 AM ET

April 3, 2010

Jose Villarreal's job

Mr Jacobson seems to have a different idea of Commissioner General Villarreal's mission and purpose than everybody else. Villarreal was appointed to raise the money to build the USA Pavilion. It was essentially an emergency appointment because the prior administration's people whiffed. According to the State Dept website Mr Villarreal is responsible for oversight of the U.S. Pavilion and serves as the official U.S. government representative to the Government of China on issues relating to World Expo Shanghai 2010.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125540.htm

I'd say he has done his job rather well!

I cannot wait for my trip to Shanghai! It is going to be fun.

 

BOB JACOBSON

11:05 AM ET

April 3, 2010

Wrong on all counts.

Again, "oversight" -- the term used by the State Dept. and you -- does not mean cheerleading. Here's what the law says about the Commissioner General:

US CODE: TITLE 22,2452B. INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITIONS

The Commissioner General of a United States pavilion or other major exhibit at any international exposition or world’s fair registered by the Bureau of International Expositions shall submit to the Secretary of State and the appropriate congressional committees a report concerning activities relating to such pavilion or exhibit every 180 days while serving as Commissioner General and shall submit a final report summarizing all such activities not later than 1 year after the closure of the pavilion or exhibit.

Mr. Villarreal is the public's overseer, not the pavilion producers' spokesperson or defender. Note that the law requires a report to be filed every 180 days. Mr. Villarreal was appointed on July 1, 2009. Therefore, one report is overdue and another is due in a few months. What will they contain? More puffery?

You are correct that the prior Administration should have appointed a Commissioner General when it issued its RFP, but it made this a condition of funds being on the table by a successful applicant -- an impossibility, since no applicant could fulfill the requirement. (This necessitated the private, out of public sight outsourcing of the US Pavilion to Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., in March 2008.)

However, the Obama Administration too didn't appoint a Commissioner General when it should have, with the appointment of the Secretary of State in February 2009. The out of control situation in China was related to all members of the State Department leadership as soon as it took office. Instead, the Secretary waited until after she had conducted the majority of her fundraising in behalf of Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., the pavilion producers.

That puts the Commissioner General in an awkward position, having to evaluate the actions of two prior Secretaries of State -- one who appointed him -- and still maintain an objective point of view. Obviously, it's difficult to do.

Let's get to the nub of this: an institution endowed with the public imprimatur has been given over to a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation, unaccountable to anyone but its officers, to sell them space in the US Pavilion that the Chinese earlier located -- as an act of honor, not a commercial lease -- at the crossroads of an Expo that 70 million Chinese will attend. 42 corporations, mostly large and many in conflict in one way or another with the Expo's theme of sustainability and good living, buy into the US Pavilion and set up shop. The US Pavilion has become a total corporate trade show garnished with a few token expressions of "American" culture -- treacly stuff, hardly the genuine American experience -- but its producers haven't the integrity to say so.

In return, the corporations that in effect "own" the US Pavilion are granted tax deductions, probably future political favors, and in many cases, the opportunity to make a lot of money via their retail operations in and around the US Pavilion. A hundred odd students are employed as guides; some VIPs, chosen exclusively by the Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., come to give lectures and some perform music. Otherwise, there is no other public participation.

Private control and funding of a US Pavilion is totally at odds with the entire history of US Pavilions at International Expositions. If the US was still a member of the Bureau of International Expositions that manages Expos by treaty, the US would, like all other signatories (i.e., every major nation in the world), publicly fund its pavilion. Because we are not (a legacy of the Clinton Administration), we can play cowboys and do it the Wild West way: put it up for sale! The Bushies tried this in 2005 at the Aichi Expo and it was a thematic and experiential disappointment. It is, however, the model for what we have now. Good luck.

A deserving US Pavilion would have been fundable by Congressional appropriation -- every one in the past was -- and completed last year, well in time for the Expo and with many more features to boot. The American public could have been involved in a dozen ways: kids in schools; small businesses via local chambers of commerce; speeches, lectures, and seminars at home; and participation in the real thing. As it is, hardly anyone in the US even knows the Expo is happening, let alone has budgeted or made plans to visit.

That neither the Bush nor the Obama Administrations saw fit to do so, to request a few tens of millions of dollars from the Congress to represent us honorably before our major trading partner and the world assembled, while asking Congress for trillions to fight wars and bail out banks, is an embarrassment. No sugar-coating is going to make the mutant outcome of this failed policy look better than it is.

 

AMSTED

10:15 AM ET

April 3, 2010

Jose Villarreal's Two Step

Techman is right about two things: a) Villarreal was appointed to raise the money to build the pavilion, and b) the prior administration's appointees whiffed. Actually, "whiffed" is too kind. They totally blew it. Villarreal and Clinton raised 95% of this thing.

What Techman doesn't say, and what Villarreal doesn't say, is that Mr. Villarreal and the State Department are both doing all they can to distance themselves from the prior administration's appointees (Ellen Eliasoph and Nicholas Winslow) out of sincere hope that their misconduct and the prior administration's mis-conduct don't tarnish them and the pavilion. Good luck with that. By law, the non-profit formed by the prior administration's appointees actually own the pavilion and State rents it from them. Yes, that's right. Villarreal has been raising money for a pavilion owned by people given what looks like an illicit appointment by State. This is only going to get worse.

 

BOB JACOBSON

3:54 PM ET

April 3, 2010

Is the US Pavilion a gift?

If the policy stated in the 2006 State Department RFP still holds,

"The U.S. Pavilion shall be considered on loan to the U.S. Government, and the successful applicant shall be solely responsible for the disposition of the U.S. Pavilion at the conclusion of the World Expo 2010 Shanghai China. The aforementioned loan shall be treated as a gift to the U.S. Government."

It depends on whether the engagement was awarded based on the RFP, which went dormant without having selected a pavilion producer, or under new and special rules. As there is no public record how this took place, we can only speculate.

In practical terms, Amsted, you're right: it appears that the terms of the RFP have been turned on its head and the US Pavilion ultimately became a gift of the U.S. Government to the pavilion producers and sponsors.

 

TECHMAN

10:37 AM ET

April 3, 2010

The Present

We can agree that Mr Villarreal should examine the process and recommend improvements but for now I would urge all Americans to focus on making America proud. The Pavilion opens soon!

 

NORMS

11:22 AM ET

April 3, 2010

US Pavilion Architect

Not mentioned very often is that the US Pavilion was designed by a Canadian architect...nothing against Canada or Clive Grout (both honorable parties)..

It is a travesty that the organizers did not understand that with unemployment in the US architecture field approaching astronomical levels how misguided it was to not utilize US talent...

I am surprised that the AIA has not been more vocal about it...

 

BOB JACOBSON

4:06 PM ET

April 3, 2010

Design policy discussions elsewhere on the web

William Bostwick published an article and slideshow, "Exporting Architecture: The Rise and Fall of U.S. World Expo Pavilions," on FAST COMPANY, Feb 24, 2010:

http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/exporting-architecture-rise-and-fall-us-world-expo-pavilions#0

The well-regarded online journal ARCHINECT features a lively and lengthy discussion that began on Jan 3, 2010, regarding the strange odyssey of the US Pavilion's design, construction, and programming:

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=94929_0_24_0_C

One hopes that the $61 million reportedly being raised provides for the deconstruction of the US Pavilion including recycling its components as well as for building the shell and producing the filmic content. As I noted earlier, there are no reports available to the public.

 

BBISHOP

11:05 PM ET

April 3, 2010

where are the companies that represent the best of US in 21st C?

Each country pavilion at the World Expo should show off what is great about that country. What better message could the USA send to the world than to have the three standard bearers of 21st century American innovation, creativity and opportunity–Google, Facebook and Twitter–as prime sponsors of America’s presence in Shanghai?
http://digicha.com/?p=60

My understanding the the organizers pissed off some of the major US tech companies. Why I don't know, but probably because of their incompetence. The US should be showing a much better face to China and the World.

 

BOB JACOBSON

7:20 AM ET

April 4, 2010

Adam Minter's Rebuttal to Jose Villarreal's Rebuttal

Google reports that Adam Minter has posted a rebuttal to Jose Villarreal on his Shanghai Scrap blog:

http://shanghaiscrap.com/?p=4760 "An Even Sorrier Spectacle: 'Defending' the USA Pavilion," Shanghai Scrap blog, April 4, 2010

At some point the wagons have to be uncircled and the authorities -- if there are any -- will have to address the issues Adam (and others) have raised. There's just no getting around it lest these become political issues which is the last thing that the US pavilion and Expo processes need.

Or are they already?

 

GOINTOTHEEXPO

10:15 PM ET

April 7, 2010

Why judge the Pavilion before it opens?

It seems Adam Minter is too quick to judge the US Pavilion. It should not be judged solely on it's architectural desin as the building is only a venue in which to present the content that will represent the vast cultural contribution America has made to the world. It is only after experiencing the building in the context of the content which it presents that one should judge the success of the US efforts at the Expo.

With that said, it is an amazing accomplishment for Commissioner General Jose Villarreal to have raised the necessary funds, and the entire Expo team to have constructed the facility in less than one year. We should be applauding their efforts!

 

DICK ARMY

12:34 PM ET

April 13, 2010

The US pavilion is an

The US pavilion is an absolute disgrace, an embarrassment, and ultimately, unworthy of defending. No matter what effort or sleepless nights went into this project what is left is utter crap, shameful, disgraceful, uninspired, aesthetically so off the mark as to be painful--the USA should have rather sat this one out. One could excuse a up and coming nation like Iraq, for example, to build something this hollow--for they have other worries on their mind. But the United States of America? Is architecture, and in this case, reputation so meaningless and banal as to be reduced to paltry starbuck architecture which one can find on any street corner of any bland american city really the best america has to offer? are those in control really that clueless? look to england--whose pavilion shouts out, " we are so much cooler and hip and with it than you dork american overweight geeks!" "we know what is up, we support modern contemporary art and architecture, and know that it represents our country well--through its beautiful design it says we are forward thinking and contemporary, we are intelligent and embrace and support our design culture." Imagine them having to have to defend their designs--they dont have to because they dont suck like the USA's--they are inspiring and jaw-dropping. Swizerland, Austria, Germany, Poland, Spain, France, Findland, Russia---miles upon miles upon miles better than the US's--they inspire, they represent the positive forward-thinking ways of the citizens of their countries--they represent their countries well and do them honor, and make their people proud. The US pavilion? that piece of scrap, off the shelf, un-inspired hunk of nothingness might represent the USA in its present state of affairs truly enough--rush limbaugh vs the liberals, etc--but it certainly does not represent anything that anyone can get behind, is completely banal, boring, commercial crap, that if anything, is only an embarrassment. Weak and in no way shape or form worthy of your so-called "defense."

 

DICK ARMY

4:11 AM ET

April 14, 2010

The uninspiring saga of the United States' World Expo pavilion

Whereas most European countries still control and fund their WorldExpo presence--viewing it not only as a platform to showcase the newest and the best it has to offer [SOFTWARE], but also as a very important way to further their country's brand identity through the look of its pavilion design [HARDWARE]--the United States, conversely, reveals to the world in Shanghai, the sorry state of affairs--most significantly in terms of architectural design--when left to the boardrooms of Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, and others. The balance of inside and outside, software AND hardware, are a very crucial metric and one which the United States has completely mis-judged in this instance. It is beyond defense, a huge lost opportunity, and in my opinion, the Abu Ghraib of United States architecture--an instance, from which, as an american, one can only wince in shame and hope that those in control are let go.

Believe me, this is one book definitely judged by its cover. The Pavilion is a product--a piece of design like an iphone or an imac--which performs a function--to showcase technology inside, and to make a statement outside. This is where supporters get it wrong. VILLARREAL himself talks only of what is shown inside..."wait till you see what is waiting for you inside...." Imagine an ugly iphone that nobody wants--with steve jobs begging customers to check out this or that software feature which the ugly phone supposedly does well. We all know this wouldn't happen. Any average Joe consumer could tell you that If it looks ugly--nobody's gonna buy it. Its like having a Pinto or some ugly car at an Auto show--in LA or Detroit--obviously a lemon, ugly as puc, trying to convince skeptical customers who have long since walked past, that the GPS or some other random interior feature like the seating color--makes up for it exterior ugly-duckiness. Somehow when it comes to architecture, it seems americans just don't get what the europeans do: looks matter, design matters, architecture matters. If it don't look right, your potential customers are gonna walk right on by...

I find it very telling that for this article in defense of the US pavilion, the art director of this website or maybe even VILLARREAL himself, chose artwork--that is a picture--not of the US pavilion which would make sense (even in an incomplete state), but of different pavilion architecture which actually looks good. The art director knew that he wouldn't win any readers--read customers--with a shot of the bland, limp, boring US design.

Minter writes in his piece "A Sorry Spectacle," how "World Expos, despite the quaint and archaic image they evoke for many Americans, remain for much of the world major events, considered third only to the Olympics and World Cups for viewer interest and as marketing opportunities. They are highly sought-after events, viewed -- like the Olympics -- as nation-branding exercises for both hosts and guests. And from their origins, pavilion architecture has been the favored means of presenting a country's technology, wealth, and ingenuity..." Europe came with its dream team to this Olympics, the United States, with its T-ball team. Whereas Spain, Austria, England, Switzerland, and France to name just five, brought Porsches, Ferraris, Range Rovers to the event, the US pulls up in a Gremlin. Yes, it looks that bad.

Poland kicked our ass--big time. Doesn't that hurt? Holland took what we supposedly do best--entertainment architecture--and make it their own in a much happier-go-lucky, intelligent way. Even Russia, who in things taste normally are pompous and Saddam Hussein-like Palatial, went balls-out and learned its lesson, delivering a whimsical, interesting, contemporary piece. Countries bite-size in comparison to the US, showed us how to do it right--Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden all make our lemon pathetic in comparison. Is the US pavilion that ugly, that bad and uninspired? Yes, yes, and more YES! This is not a criticism of architectural design alone. Oh it certainly makes a statement--a very telling one indeed--the US pavilion says to the world we do not care about culture, we love ugly we love big business, we hate cool design when it comes to buildings, but a nice iphone we can understand...
watered down, corporate sponsership Saving taxpayer dollars here, while throwing them to the wind in Afghanistan and Iraq, is not only a lost opportunity to positively influence the world

 

RUGGER

11:29 AM ET

April 16, 2010

" . . . the Abu Ghraib of

" . . . the Abu Ghraib of United States architecture . . . "

*credibility evaporates*

 

DUCERA

6:15 PM ET

April 25, 2010

This is an important pavilion

No matter which way you slice it, the fact that the United States is having it's first real attempt at a world's fair pavilion in so many years is significant. At Expo 2000, you may remember, there were 155 countries participating. The United States was not among them. The private-public relationship though does create tension, as is evidenced by all the comments above. That's Obama's style though. He recently scrapped Nasa's constellation program which would take people to the moon by 2020 in favor of more private incorporation into Nasa's work. But that's for a different forum.

At the very least, we can hope that the United States pavilion at Shanghai this year signals a new age of American involvement in world's fairs. Remember, our last hosted fair was way back in 1984. The current gap of no American fair is the longest since our first fair in New York in 1853. But between 1853 and 1984, the United States hosted far more world's fairs than any other country- over 30. That still stands today. It's time that the United States host a world's fair again.

Help make it happen. Take 30 seconds and sign the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/los-angeles-expo-2020