In this second post of a series about my visit to the Shanghai World Expo, I’m going to describe some of the stories presented in the national pavilions. The goal is to sell industrial services and manufactured goods, not to really imagine a better city, better life. But because it is the official theme of the Expo, each country tries to argument a connection between its own interests and the noble cause. The result is in many cases pathetic. It didn’t stop me enjoying the pavilions and the great architectures and multi-media installations; it was just not making any sense.
France had its ‘ville sensuelle’ pavilion. I know very well the story, it is always the same. You start with some poetic images, a self-proclaimed superior quality of life based on I don’t know what basis. You add some technological expertise and savoir-faire, and you end selling Louis Vuitton. It always works, Chinese people love it!
There is the theme of the vertical garden too. But except some nice 3D simulations of what a city could look like with more gardens, I haven’t heard of any big projects from France in that direction. In the meantime, they promote their cars in the pavilion.
The Japan pavilion had probably the most ridiculous story of all. You start with the glorious tradition of art in Japan. Then you are being told the story of a bird in extinction that was reintroduced in Japan thanks to cooperation between Japan and China. The happy end of the story is that you could take magnificent pictures of that bird with your Canon. You are then presented absolutely no-sense i-real cars by Toyota, and a robot of course, the trademark of Japan technology. The visit ends up with a poetic show featuring live traditional singers, very professional voices indeed. This would have been respectable if they didn’t start singing in again these ridiculous Toyota cars.
I liked the values displayed by the Netherlands pavilion, whether or not they truly represent the country. The many colours, the big spaces opened to the public, the many different houses all symbolized diversity, openness and difference. They still show things to buy in the houses, but you also have some nice contemporary art (ok, art is also ultimately for sale, even if it is not here), and at least I didn’t see a contradiction in the discourse.
The Canada pavilion had a more artistic atmosphere with its carefully curated videos and multimedia installations. You could see the promotion of Bombardier’s trains and other products but it didn’t contradict the overall message of the pavilion.
Denmark pavilion had at its centre the Little Mermaid. I remember when I saw it for the first time in Copenhagen. I was so impressed; it was very simply placed, even lost on the shore, but still beautiful. Now, the mermaid is trapped in a white prison, in the middle of the crowd.
The USA pavilion was very different from the other pavilions. I would say it was even refreshing. It is the only pavilion that I have visited where the president welcomes the visitors in video. This is rather appropriate for a national pavilion. It also shows videos of Americans saying hello in Chinese with more or less aptitude, which is not surprisingly very well received by the Chinese audience. It was the pavilion that promoted the more explicitly dialogue and (corporate) opportunities in the process of shaping a better city, better life. However, all this is pure PR campaign, a very well thought one indeed. The visit ends with a dubious American dream fairytale and an impressive list of well known American brands.
Africa seems from a westerner point of view so far from the Chinese mentality. But here they are, negotiating the price of their products, either not bothered by the Chinese crowd asking for their stamps, or cheerful, depending on their mood. This poster from the Malawi pavilion is one of the cheapest one I have seen in the all Expo, but it says basically the same thing than in any other pavilion.
Tags: art, culture, governance, marketing, semiotics, Shanghai, World Fair
