Architecture and Politics
Two semesters ago Fonna Forman from Estudio Teddy Cruz + Forman gave a lecture on the US-Mexico Border. I was particularly interested given my background, yet I was very thrilled with their work... but mostly I was VERY dissapointed on the way she presented it. Her facts were twist, her ideas were twisted, her whole rhetoric was twisted. Having lived in both countries, in both the border and not, I couldn't believe that she was using the Architecture flag to present politically driven work without all the facts.
Architecture has the power to advance a political rhetoric. That's fine, and I think it is one of the biggest influences we have as Architects. But I also think that this "power" should be used in an ethical, respectful and truthful matter.
Their work was focused in urban problems and informal settlements (they created) on the Mexican side of the boarder. There were things that totally clicked with me since I have seen them or lived them and there were others that in my view were completely misrepresented and wrong. Even so, some of the things she started to say that I agreed with, she then twisted them to fit her rhetoric. To give you an idea, she used the word "citizenship" to us (and I mean not only Mexico but Latin America) the word citizenship DOES NOT have the same meaning that it does for you. In the US citizenship means you are part of the country. You can be a citizen of the city as well but it has a larger meaning. If you were to translate it to Spanish "ciudadano" to us means you belong to a certain place. For example, you are a citizen of Clemson, of South Carolina maaaaybe but we DO NOT understand it as part of our country. You can say it but I bet you that 99.9% of the people would correct you to "nationality" you are a "national of Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, you pick". Mi nacionalidad es Mexicana <-- that's what we would say before even thinking about saying "Soy ciudadadano de Mexico" that does not make that much sense to use. We use the word differently and the fact that her whole rhetoric was based on how they were "helping people" feel the same way you do about it just didn't cut it for me. The problem here is that people don't know, we get easily fooled if another languages comes into play and you can easily fool anyone when knowledge isn't there. But what bother me the most is that Ted Cruz is from Guatemala and HE KNOWS this is not the case but he didn't bother to come out and say it because it advances their cause. I personally think that deceiving people (and yes I am aware that politics does that) is wrong. (Guessing why I don't really want to be one?) I think that if we are going to use Architecture as a flag for politics, left or right, we should give people the truth and not some twisted rhetoric that only benefits us or our work.
I have a lot to say about this lecture, specially about the informal settlements but that's probably an essay to write.
Architecture has the power to advance a political rhetoric. That's fine, and I think it is one of the biggest influences we have as Architects. But I also think that this "power" should be used in an ethical, respectful and truthful matter.
 |
| Cruz and Forman proposed propping up the informal settlements growing around the U.S. border in Tijuana with industrial materials. |
Their work was focused in urban problems and informal settlements (they created) on the Mexican side of the boarder. There were things that totally clicked with me since I have seen them or lived them and there were others that in my view were completely misrepresented and wrong. Even so, some of the things she started to say that I agreed with, she then twisted them to fit her rhetoric. To give you an idea, she used the word "citizenship" to us (and I mean not only Mexico but Latin America) the word citizenship DOES NOT have the same meaning that it does for you. In the US citizenship means you are part of the country. You can be a citizen of the city as well but it has a larger meaning. If you were to translate it to Spanish "ciudadano" to us means you belong to a certain place. For example, you are a citizen of Clemson, of South Carolina maaaaybe but we DO NOT understand it as part of our country. You can say it but I bet you that 99.9% of the people would correct you to "nationality" you are a "national of Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, you pick". Mi nacionalidad es Mexicana <-- that's what we would say before even thinking about saying "Soy ciudadadano de Mexico" that does not make that much sense to use. We use the word differently and the fact that her whole rhetoric was based on how they were "helping people" feel the same way you do about it just didn't cut it for me. The problem here is that people don't know, we get easily fooled if another languages comes into play and you can easily fool anyone when knowledge isn't there. But what bother me the most is that Ted Cruz is from Guatemala and HE KNOWS this is not the case but he didn't bother to come out and say it because it advances their cause. I personally think that deceiving people (and yes I am aware that politics does that) is wrong. (Guessing why I don't really want to be one?) I think that if we are going to use Architecture as a flag for politics, left or right, we should give people the truth and not some twisted rhetoric that only benefits us or our work.
I have a lot to say about this lecture, specially about the informal settlements but that's probably an essay to write.
First of all - thank you)
ReplyDeleteElisa, please, write the essay, write a book!
I was were interested in the work of "Estudio Teddy Cruz + Forman", I am in general interested in the multidisciplinary architectural practices. When it comes to social/political contexts and problems I even more intrigued. And yes, I was apparently misled! For me, the narrative of the presentation was convening. Facts are words and words are the most powerful but flexible weapon - without real knowledge and experience you just cannot be sure, you cannot form your opinion based on secondary sources (probably somebody purposefully or unintentionally is twisting the truth). The more I travel, the more people/cultures I know (at least I am trying), the better I understand that whatever I had learned before was incorrect or not fully true. But how can I judge, what is that "truth" we should give to the people? There so many of them. Never gets irrelevant and old, unfortunately: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - Orwell
Thanks Ksenia! I think I am going to write my essay on this. I agree with you when you say "what is that "truth" we should give the people?". It's hard to know really given that everyone perceives things differently. My perspective is based on my experience in this case and what enraged me is that I know that Teddy Cruz probably had a similar experience than I did growing up and by denying that he leaves the door open for others to manipulate some of that truth. I believe that trying to get to that "truth" should be our goal in politics, architecture and things that we do because if we don't, if we don't try to see as much as the picture as we can we can fall into wrong conclusions that could end up affecting others when we in truth wanted to help. So thanks! I really appreciate your comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ksenia. You should definitely write about this topic. I would love to hear more of what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteElisa, this was a great post to read... albeit I'm a little tardy to the party, I think it's a great paper to write that I would personally be interested in reading. I can vividly recall my own skepticism during this lecture... primarily because I felt it incredibly ignorant to establish unlawful communities... perhaps this is a case where the policy and politics should be considered before the architecture takes place.
ReplyDelete