+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

Date post: 24-Oct-2014
Category:
Upload: kwoo8810
View: 39 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
13
From True Blueto 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.
Transcript
Page 1: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 2: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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

Page 3: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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

Page 4: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 5: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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‟

Page 6: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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

Page 7: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 8: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 9: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 10: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

Figure 2. Research Plan Diagram

Page 11: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 12: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.

Page 13: Kwoodman_A1_P2-1

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.


Recommended