pavilion at the Shanghai fair, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “It’s fine.” A half-hearted endorsement-most assessments were less sanguine. Corporate sponsorship and design-by-committee has resulted in uninspired architecture and mediocre exhibits.
Milan world exposition series#
world’s fair pavilions were outsourced.Ĭhow, an architect who teaches at the University of Southern California School of Architecture, convincingly demonstrates in her film that the result of this shortsighted decision has been a series of national embarrassments. Bush administration decided that world’s fair pavilions would be better off without federal funding-since international fairs benefited trade, American corporations should pony up. In 1998, a budget-conscious Congress abolished the United States Information Agency, which among other things oversaw American participation in foreign exhibitions, a responsibility that was transferred to the State Department. Federal funding for the Seville pavilion was drastically reduced at the last minute, leading to a makeshift solution. American participation in world’s fairs had been a propaganda tool in the Cold War, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, that war was over-we won. Starting with the Seville fair, that changed. These were a spirited representation of a country at the top of its game. put its best foot forward and built imaginative and evocative national pavilions filled with memorable exhibits. Briefly put, in Montreal and then Osaka three years later, the U.S. The answer is the subject of Mina Chow, AIA’s documentary film, Face of a Nation, which was screened in February at the National Building Museum’s Architecture and Design Film Festival.
0 kommentar(er)
