Launched digitally in 2020 and now housed in the Station Master's Building at the National Museum, the ILFR is an independent fashion library based on a large donation from the late fashion theorist Steven Mark Klein. The library, directed by Elise By Olsen, extends on two levels with a study space occupying about 1,600 square feet on the upper level and a 8,100-square-foot exhibition space on the ground level.
While at the moment the ILFR is specialized in contemporary fashion publications, the centre hopes to develop curatorial and editorial projects and launch collaborations with a wider range of professionals including architects, fiction writers, contemporary artists and other professionals not directly linked with the fashion industry.
In the meantime, the library's collection is fast-growing: since it was launched, it accepted significant donations, such as materials from global fashion houses, publishers and practitioners, including the French fashion house Hermès, the international magazine distributor KD Presse, the Japanese fashion house Comme des Garçons, and the design agency M / M (Paris). At the moment some of these documents are part of the opening exhibition, "For Immediate Release: The Art of the Press Release," that also includes Maison Martin Margiela, Alessandro Michele, Prada, Virgil Abloh and Angelo Figus and that focuses on the language of the modern press release.
The library will function as a free and accessible resource for fashion professionals, researchers, students, enthusiasts and general visitors, so if you're ever in Oslo and visiting the National Museum (which is worth checking as it is the largest art museum in the Nordics and boasts a collection of 400,000 objects ranging from the antiquity to the present day, but also textiles, furniture and architectural models), you can stop by and browse through the shelves, or even prepare your visit in advance setting an appointment and requesting the librarians to prepare the materials you want (check out this link to request objects from their permanent collection to consult in the physical library space in Oslo).
Last but not least, there's also a fashion and design twist in the actual library space: while the interior was developed with architect and professor Vesma McQuillan and students at Kristiania University College, the shelf system was created by the Italian design duo Formafantasma for Hem and the curtain textiles come from Kvadrat Textiles. Sustainability also has a role in the interior design: the tables are custom-built with recycled MDF, and the display cases are reused from the National Museum.
Image credits for this post
1, 2 and 4 International Library of Fashion Research (ILFR), The National Museum, Oslo, Norway. Photo by Ina Wesenberg, courtesy of The National Museum, Oslo.
3. Elise by Olsen, International Library of Fashion Research (ILFR), The National Museum, Oslo, Norway. Photo by Ina Wesenberg, courtesy of The National Museum, Oslo.
Balenciaga is no stranger to legal disputes and copyright infringement lawsuits, but, in the last few days, it ended up in the eye of a storm that turned into a blame game and ended up with a legal suit.
Last week Balenciaga unveiled a campaign for its Gift Collection featuring six children, including some holding BDSM style teddy bear bags from the fashion house's S/S 23 collection. The campaign was shot in Paris by Italian documentary photographer Gabriele Galimberti, better known for his work on the National Geographic.
Galimberti was called to shoot the campaign, but didn't chose the models and objects on display and didn't come up with the concept, even though the fashion company based the images on the artist's series "Toy Stories", showing children from all over the world surrounded by their toys. Balenciaga's team arranged indeed around the children a variety of products, including homeware, pet wear, perfumes and limited-edition collectibles and bespoke furniture.
When people complained on social media about the bondage bears paired with children, Balenciaga pulled the ads from all platforms and apologized on social media for any offense the holiday campaign may have caused.
Yet, controversy continued when somebody spotted in a separate S/S 23 campaign shot in a Manhattan skyscraper office setting, a Balenciaga/Adidas bag on some legal documents.
A blown-up image revealed that the documents referred to the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, "United States v. Williams," which upheld a federal child pornography law known as the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), finding it was not in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (right to free speech or expression).
Now, while the campaigns were produced at different times of the year, they were released almost together and both showed a sort of pattern pointing at child pornography and sexual references.
Once again Balenciaga apologized on social media, stating in an Instagram Story: "We apologize for displaying unsettling documents in our campaign. We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot. We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children safety and well-being."
According to the explanation provided, the image shot by photographer Chris Maggio, was supposed to feature a fake document, but the documents turned out to be real legal papers probably from the filming of a television drama.
Last Friday, after a blame game that lasted for a few days, during which it was thought that the fashion house may have taken legal action against Maggio, Balenciaga eventually filed a $25 million lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the independent production company that created this photoshoot, North Six Inc., as well as set designer Nicholas Des Jardins and his eponymous brand (let's highlight that North Six logistically managed the campaign in the office setting, but it was not involved with the campaign featuring the questionable teddy bears).
The court papers (Download Balenciaga-sas-v-north-six-inc-notice-and-summons-11-25-2022) state that Balenciaga didn't know nor it had authorized the inclusion of the court decision. "As a result of Defendants' misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision. Defendants are liable to Balenciaga for all harm resulting from this false association," the court papers charge.
As confusion ensued over the two campaigns and the two stories were combined into one in some reports, Galimberti started receiving life threatening messages accusing him of being a pervert and a pedophile. On top of that, the photographer claimed he lost some assignments and jobs because of the online debates. For these reasons the phtographer announced he was thinking of taking a legal action against a few other major news outlets (more fuel was added to the fire when Kim Kardashion stated on social media that she was shaken by the disturbing images and announced she wanted to re-evaluating her relationship with the brand...).
Now, while in Galimberti's defence one could state that this was his first foray into fashion so he may not have been aware of the subtleties of the industry, he may have still questioned the concept and the final styling, especially considering that it was inspired by his own "Toy Stories" series (suprisingly there was no written agreement between the fashion house and Galimberti stating he agreed to get the concept behind his own series applied to a commercial image; so that while Galimberti may have not come up with the concept of the products, the display of the objects is directly inspired to his series).
Then again, the blame of it all shouldn't be on the photographers and the production companies/set designers as in these cases the client approves the final images of the advertising campaigns and surely these images went through different assessment levels at the fashion house. So you get the impression that teams at Balenciaga were trying to be subtly cool and radically provocative, but things horrifically backlashed.
So what does this story teach us? Well, first of all learn to take your responsibilities: Balenciaga's teams were at the shoots and must have edited and approved the images, and, while the fashion house apologized, maybe there should have been an internal investigation first to assess who approved what.
Then, if you are hired as a freelancer to work on an advertising campaign, always get as many information as possible about the concept, set and setting, to check if there are issues you don't feel comfortable with or if an image implies a double entendre. Last but not least, this story teaches us that it is useless to look for a job in fashion design when there are more jobs in fashion law as lawfare is definitely trending.
Sometimes, when you hear stories about law, litigation and trademark issues in the fashion industry, you seriously wonder if, at some point, the longest ones will ever get their own series on Netflix. Off-White could be a great inspiration, especially for its trademark sagas that, in some cases, are still going.
In October 2020, for example, the brand, claiming that its use of quotation marks acted as an indicator of source and could therefore be considered as a trademark, lodged with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") a trademark application for the words "For Walking" in quotation marks for use on footwear. The request followed the one done in 2019 by the company for the words "Product Bag" for use on "tops as clothing; bottoms as clothing".
Yet, early in 2021, Shaunia Carlyle, an examining attorney for the USPTO refused to allow Off-White's application to move forward. In that case, Carlyle explained that the words "For Walking" on the footwear indicated indeed "a feature and purpose". The examining attorney stated that a mark becomes descriptive of the goods or services cited in the application "if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant's goods and/or services". Indicating a purpose of the goods (boots or sneakers are made for walking), the words "For Walking" weren't therefore considered as worthy of a trademark.
Carlyle also highlighted that "Adding punctuation marks to a descriptive term will not ordinarily change the term into a non-descriptive one".
When a brand is refused a trademark on these grounds, it can reapply later on, claiming it has acquired distinctiveness (in which case the brand in question has to submit evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant's goods, meaning that the applicant's extensive use and promotion of the mark has allowed consumers to associate the mark with the applicant as the source of the goods.
Off-White did so, but in September this year, was again rejected. In a newly filed response, the brand reapplied insisting on the quotation marks, considered as highly relevant to the perception of the brand, but also as something ironic. Off-White produced examples of articles that mentioned its use of quotation marks as something distinctive, highlighting that "the use of written quotation marks is a widely understood and recognized grammatical device for indicating irony and sarcasm."
Yet, while for Off-White's founder, the late designer Virgil Abloh, quotation marks may have been a sign of distinction and an ironic gesture that elevated the words to trademark, the examining attorney already explained when the USPTO first rejected the application that adding punctuation marks to a descriptive term does not ordinarily change the term into a non-descriptive one.
There is a precise reason why the USPTO keeps on rejecting the trademark application of words in quotation marks: if Off-White insists on the power of quotation marks to be turned into trademarks and eventually gets the required trademark, then it will start claiming rights in its use of quotation marks regardless of what words appear in between them. For the time being, the saga continues, so we will have to wait and see if the USPTO will deem that these boots are made for walking or "For Walking".
As for the USPTO examining attorneys, they will have to be very patient, as Off-White is extremely persistent when it comes to trademark applications. In March 2022, after a four-year battle with the USPTO, Off-White officially secured a trademark for its red zip tie (the red plastic seal that looks like a product tag) found across the brand’s shoes, apparel, bags, and other accessories, a trademark that was originally rejected and considered as a "decorative or ornamental feature of the goods" and therefore not functioning as a trademark "to indicate the source of applicant's goods and to identify and distinguish them from others."
Yesterday morning, over coffee with a Milan-based artist, a dilemma came up - what to do with the aleXsandro Palombo Vs Cardi B legal brawl?
Let's analyse the case chronologically: in 2013 Italian artist aleXsandro Palombo did a parody series showing Marge Simpson dressed up in a selection of iconic Haute Couture designs, including the Versace safety pin dress made famous by Elizabeth Hurley, Madonna's infamous Jean Paul Gaultier bustier, Givenchy's little black dress as donned by Audrey Hepburn's "Breakfast In Tiffany's" and Thierry Mugler's iconic butt-bearing dress from his A/W 1995 collection. In Palombo's works, Marge stood in front of a brightly coloured wall with a framed image of the original celebrity wearing the dress that inspired the parody hanging behind her.
The gallery Palombo created was published on vogue.co.uk's site, but it wasn't authorized by The Simpsons' creator Matt Groening or by any fashion house involved. If, in that case, a fashion house or Groening would have thought Palombo was infringing in any way their copyright, the artist may have stated this was a parody, getting away with it (even though, at the same time, the image may have been deemed as misleading for consumers who may have thought this was an official collaboration...).
Now fast forward to Halloween 2022: rapper Cardi B, a well-known Mugler fan, posted on her social media a picture of her recreating the image of Marge in the Mugler's dress as parodied by Palombo. Her image was part of a slideshow that included Palombo's artwork and Mugler's picture. In the description the rapper just stated: "Mugler inspired".
The same slideshow was shared by the photographer Jora Frantzis, and Cardi B's stylist Kollin Carter. None of them mentioned the connection with Palombo.
The artist wrote to everybody involved asking to be credited in a remedial post and to include a link to his Instagram page. Frantzis stated she wasn't aware of the source of the Simpsons' image, but that he would be happy to add the credits, but the others remained silent. Left without receiving any further notifications, Palombo turned to a lawyer that stated Cardi B had misappropriated the artist's work for her October 31 post without adding the proper credit.
In a post on his Instagram page, Palombo added: "The original artwork with Marge Simpson wearing a Thierry Mugler dress that Cardi B published without credits, is a creation of artist aleXsandro Palombo and is part of the 'Marge Simpson Style Icon' series that the Italian artist created in 2013, with the intention of transforming Marge in a style icon; a work of reflection on women's emancipation and gender equality through the most iconic moments of the last 100 years in fashion costume. (sic) Cardi B and her collaborators have used my artwork without any authorization, debasing its original meaning and only to amplify their image with a clear commercial purpose that has nothing to do with that path of social awareness that has always characterized my works. (Extra)ordinary people are welcome to use my artworks images for personal and non-commercial purposes. To everyone else: Stop Stealing to Artists (sic)"
Now, while it may be legitimate from Palombo's point of view to be credited in Cardi B's post, it is actually his image that poses quite a few questions and more copyright infringements than Cardi B's reinterpretation.
Palombo may have indeed originally infringed three copyrights – Matt Groening's, the fashion houses' that created the dresses and, above all, the copyright of the photographers that took the pics inserted in the frame behind Marge (in the case of Mugler's design we have model Violetta Sanchez as photographed by Patrice Stable). If he had been sued by all of them, as stated above, he may have got away with it in the first two cases stating this was a parody, yet the copyright infringement of the photographer couldn't have been justified with a parody.
Cardi B may defend herself saying she was not aware of the fact that Marge's image wasn't made or approved by The Simpsons' creators/producers (in the post she says: "Mugler inspired"), this hypothesis opens another Pandora's box. If she indeed believed in good faith that this was an original Simpsons moment and that she was creating a parody of the famous animated series and not a parody of a parody (yes, this is getting twisted and complicated...), Palombo's image may be deemed capable of generating confusion in consumers who may think this was a fully authorized collaboration (after all, Balenciaga did an official collaboration with The Simpsons) rather than a parody.
The artist's lawyer, Claudio Volpi, who specializes in intellectual property law, issued a statement saying that Cardi B had "illegitimately appropriated the work of aleXsandro Palombo for mere business purposes in defiance of the most elementary rules on copyright and Instagram policies, with the consequent serious risks, both of compensation and of discredit for her public image."
Unfortunately for Palombo, Cardi B has just scored a win in court for copyright infringements: in October, the rapper won a lawsuit in which she was accused of using a man's tattoos for her album cover.
Five years ago Kevin Brophy Jr. of Los Angeles, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Cardi B for $5m, claimining his back tattoo (by artist Tim Hendricks) representing a tiger and a snake had been superimposed onto a male model performing oral sex on the cover of "Gangsta Bitch Music Vol 1".
The lawsuit went before a jury in an Orange County courtroom last month and it was revealed that, while looking for a tattoo to replace the one on the back of the model (that originally showed a cartoon animal with his finger in his mouth), the graphic designer found Brody's. A section of his tattoo was then overimposed on the Black model photographed on the album cover.
Brody stated in court that he found the cover "misleading, offensive, humiliating and provocatively sexual way." But Cardi B's lawyer pointed out that the man on the album cover is Black and with a full head of black hair, while Brody is a white man with a shaven head, so the cover couldn't be deemed as misleading. Besides, according to the rapper's lawyer, Brophy became linked to the cover only after he filed the lawsuit that was extensively covered by the media, and not before that. The embarrassment that the cover generated was therefore self-inflicted. At the end of the 4-day trial the jury ruled that Cardi B's mixtape album cover did not cast Kevin Brophy in a false light or constituted a misappropriation of his likeness.
In conclusion, there are cases such as Palombo's in which it is better to turn your luck around maybe complimenting the star that stole from you (without crediting you) what you stole from others. Lawfare may be a trendy word for 2022, as stated by the Collins Dictionary, but save your money to pay the bills rather than to start a legal procedure you may lose and that may attract the attention of powerful giants as well (in Palombo's case, the artist may have unwillingly attracted the attention of 20th Century Fox TV, producer of The Simpsons and owned by Disney, to his Simpsons parodies).
A few weeks after the war in Ukraine started, an image known as "Saint Javelin", depicting the Virgin Mary cradling a US-made FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile launcher, went viral (View this photo). Originally developed by Canadian marketer and former journalist Christian Borys (who freelanced in Ukraine from 2014 to 2018 reporting about Donbas) to raise money for the relief efforts in Ukraine, the rocket-armed saint in dark green robes, a reference to combat uniforms and army fatigues, and with a blue and yellow halo hinting at the national colours of Ukraine, was created by Ukrainian graphic designer Evgeniy Shalashov.
The image was adapted from the "Madonna Kalashnikov", a 2012 painting by US artist Chris Shaw, depicting a Madonna holding a gold-plated AK-47.
The Javelin is seen by many Ukrainians as an invaluable tool to slow the advance of Russian ground forces, this is why Saint Javelin soon turned into a 'meme of resistance' for Ukrainians.
The meme inspired Julia Krahn's "St. Javelin" project: the latter consists in a series of photographs portraying women who left Ukraine when the war started, leaving their families and friends behind.
The images, printed on flags, are currently on display outside the loggia of the Museo Novecento in Florence, Italy, to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (today, 25th November), a day for combating all forms of discrimination and violence against women.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Krahn started thinking about ways to look at the war and at its impact on people in her practice, and eventually decided to offer a visual message of resistance and peace through her portraits of Ukrainian women.
None of the women in the portraits is actually holding a Javelin, but all of them stand solemn and noble, clad in blue and yellow, wearing at times attires reminiscent of those donned by religious icons.
All the women stare directly at the camera and therefore at the viewers, almost to engage in a personal dialogue; only a young child, Kira, turns away from the camera, temporarily distracted by the simple joys that a balloon can offer.
Behind each image there is a symbolism: Aleksandra wears a crown of mimosa, a flower representing the feminine world as it is delicate, but actually very strong and able to grow in hostile lands; Juliana wears a crown of ears of wheat and holds the typical Ukrainian bread, the "palianytsia", references to the fact that Ukraine is one of the world's largest wheat exporters and that the war caused a global food crisis.
Lesya, whose 18-year-old son joined the army, offers viewers a crown of bullets, almost asking them if they would fight for their freedom and country; Marina holds her 6-month-old daughter in her arms; Gaika's spade is an invitation to reconstruction, but it is also a dark symbol, reminding us about mass graves and death.
The importance of various means of communications is also explored in the series: Sasha's emanating crown represents radio frequencies; newspaper cuttings form a crown and a shield in the portrait of Olena, whose yellow mobile phone symbolises her connection with her husband in Ukraine.
Olga, an elderly woman, impersonating Kyiv's Virgin Orans ("orans" in Greek means "praying"), raises her hands to bless the world (the Virgin Orans is called "the Unbreakable Wall"; from ancient times it is believed that as long as the image of the Virgin Orans is in St. Sophia, so long stands the city of Kyiv). Karina is instead the Madonna of the Apocalypse, with the stars of the European flag forming a halo around her head and her foot crushing a sickle, a Soviet symbol.
Julia Krahn also added a self-portrait in which she emerges with the upper part of her body painted in blue from bags filled with sands, recreating the iconic landmark statues in the city of Odesa, covered in sand bags to protect them from missiles and bombs.
On each flag there is a QR code that points to the stories of these women who talk about the early days of the war from their perspective, and the fear and anxiety they felt for their dear ones left behind (you can also read their stories at this link).
All of the women involved in the project recounted to Krahn their nightmarish experiences when the war started and how they managed to reach Italy often after travelling for days under Russian fire. All of the women who posed in the picture warn us in their interviews about the perils of ignoring what we have and the importance of cherishing all sorts of moments we have with our dear ones and our friends.
As Aleksandra states in her interview: "Everyone should understand that war deeply affects each of our lives. In an instant, everything can change. One's plans or ambitions or dreams for the future are put on hold (…) Instead everyone should be able to have faith in tomorrow (...) it is necessary to reconsider the values in our lives, wherever we live. Because in today's world we don't pay enough attention to what, in extreme moments like war, becomes fundamental. Love, attention, and sensitivity to others, to those around us."
All images in this post courtesy and copyright Julia Krahn
The concept of identity is complex yet fluid. Examined from different perspectives, but mainly in social and developmental psychology and in philosophical and cultural studies, identity is considered as something deeply ingrained in the individual or linked with the individual construction of the self, but it also refers to other categorizations, going from national identity to gender identity.
In films, while screenwriters create highly polished characters, actors give them life on the screen, but costumes and accessories are quintessential to achieve credibility and help viewers to willingly suspend their disbelief and immerse themselves in the story. Cinema fans and costume design students who are intrigued by the creation of credible identities on the big screen, may be happy to hear that there is a new addition at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles - an Identity Gallery.
The largest museum in the United States devoted to the arts, sciences, and artists of moviemaking, the Academy Museum features 50,000 square feet of exhibition spaces, two state-of-the-art theaters and the Shirley Temple Education Studio.
Part of the ever-evolving "Stories of Cinema" core exhibition that constantly changes to include more movies, artists, eras and genres, the "Identity" gallery features original costumes, wigs, concept art, and other materials to explore the creation of characters.
The "Makeup and Hairstyling" section explores the science of hair and makeup as well as the creators behind some of the most memorable looks in cinema history. Visitors get a glimpse of working tools and materials, including plaster life casts, prosthetics, wigs and makeup kits like the one used by makeup artist William Tuttle.
The gallery also includes the tattoo work of make-up artist Ken Diaz on movies such as "Red Dragon" (2002) and "Black Panther" (2018), wigs by hair stylist Yolanda Toussieng from "Beetlejuice" (1988) and "Mrs. Doubtfire" (1993), and wigs and makeup by Nadia Stacey for "The Favourite" (2018).
The gallery offers in-depth case studies of sketches from a variety of films, plus forty costumes donned by Elizabeth Taylor in "A Place in the Sun" (1951) designed by Edith Head; Richard Pryor as Charlie Snow in "The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings" (1973), designed by Bernard Johnson, and David Bowie in "Labyrinth" (1986), designed by Brian Froud and Ellis Flyte.
The event includes also more recent designs, like the costumes worn by Julia Roberts in "Mirror Mirror" (2012), designed by Eiko Ishioka; Olivia Coleman as Queen Anne in "The Favourite" (2018), designed by Sandy Powell; Tilda Swinton as Madame Blanc in "Suspiria" (2018) designed by Giulia Piersanti; Taron Egerton, as Elton John, in the film "Rocketman" (2019), plus the floral explosion donned by actress Florence Pugh in "Midsommar" (2019), and costumes by designer Ann Roth from "Mamma Mia!" (2008) and "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" (2020).
One of the absolute highlights of the gallery is the headdress worn by Greta Garbo and designed by Adrian in "Mata Hari" (1931), the MGM film directed by George Fitzmaurice.
In the Orientalist Art Deco movie, Garbo as Mata Hari performs an exotic dance wearing a long sequinned gown and a jeweled headdress, topped with a multitiered spiked ornament and with large pendant resting on her forehead. Garbo wasn't actually that graceful in this scene that looks at times awkward for its choreography (but the headdresses and gowns in the films are spectacular...). Yet, as they say, quite often the worst pictures get the best receptions and, in this case, the film, and Garbo's headdress, became iconic: Andy Warhol even dedicated to Garbo in Mata Hari's garb one of his best-known screenprints in colours with diamond dust - "The Star," part of his 1981 "Myths" collection.
Five people were killed and another 25 were injured in a shooting last Saturday (the eve of the Transgender Day of Remembrance) when a gunman opened fire in an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs. The attack came amid growing fears of violence and intimidation toward the LGBTQ+ community.
The current anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, fuelled in America by Republicans that seem at the moment intent on targeting drag performers (Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson filed in November a bill to prohibit drag entertainers from performing on public property or at private functions where their performance may be viewed by a minor) is preventing the creation of safe environments where people can celebrate community and feel comfortable being who they are.
The creation of safe spaces and architectures is explored in the exhibition "Coming into Community", currently on at the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design in, Oslo, Norway. The event is part of the celebration for the Queer Culture Year, and marks the 50th anniversary of the decriminalization of male homosexuality in Norway. Section 213 of the Norwegian Penal Code, which prohibited sexual acts between men, was indeed repealed on 21 April 1972.
The event, a joint effort organized by the National Museum, National Library and National Norwegian Archive for Queer History, explores architecture through the queer gaze and invites visitors to consider in which ways architecture can create new forms of community where there is space for everyone.
The first section of the event, hosted in the Ulltveit-Moe Pavilion, consists in a playful installation from the Swedish art and architecture collective MYCKET (Mariana Alves Silva, Katarina Bonnevier and Thérèse Kristiansson).
"Heaven by MYCKET" is based on the collective's years of research into queer spaces and queer club concepts with the power of creating more inclusive worlds.
In the installation the queer nightclub becomes the locus where the concept of community can be developed.
Visitors are free to dress up, dance, play and rest following a path with a walk-through closet where they can pick clothes and transform themlseves; a dance floor where they never have to dance alone, a bar where all kinds of bodies are welcome, and a canopy bed for solidarity and recovery.
This space is therefore an exploration and celebration of the nightclub, conceived as a form of architecture and as a way of getting together.
At the same time, the queer nightclub is almost an excuse, a starting point to examine wider questions about how spaces can help make people feel safe, dream and act.
Through this space MYCKET also points out the dichotomy between permanent and temporary architectures: nightclubs often have a short life, but, in the case of queer communities, they also end up having great significance.
The second part of the exhibition, on display in the Bucher Room, is more technical as it looks at urban planning from the past 70 years in Norway and analyses it from marginalized perspectives and in particular from the queer and feminist points of view.
Post-war housing construction in Norway focused on accommodating and nurturing the nuclear family. The "neighbourhood unit" became an important planning model in these years: designed to offer residents a sense of belonging, the unit served as the model for the Oslo suburb of Lambertseter.
The housing associations founded in these years, such as the Norwegian State Housing Bank, mainly focused on offering accommodation for nuclear families, something that penalised residents who did not fit this norm – for example, single people (until 1959, people who lived alone were excluded from social housing in Oslo), couples without children, students, older people or people with reduced mobility.
Yet things changed throughout the 1960s and '70s: between 1962 and 1965, four high-rise and two low-rise blocks were built in the Enerhaugen housing cooperative in central Oslo and, for the first time, single people could apply to the city's housing association for an apartment.
The housing market, though, kept on discriminating queer people: until 1967, two people could live together in an OBOS (the largest housing developer in Norway) home only if they were married. In 1981, however, anti-gay discrimination in the housing market became a crime.
In some cases, residents and residents' groups collaborated with architects to express the needs of their communities. The 1967 the Selegrend Movement was started by the Bergen-based lawyer and priest Edvard Vogt as a reaction to post-war housing construction.
The central focus of a Selegrend (literally a "happy community"), was no longer the nuclear family, but the idea of a country village with room for everyone, including housing-vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, single parents, and immigrants. In 1970, the Selegrend Movement began collaborating with the architecture firm Cubus. In 1975, the first of two Selegrend projects were completed.
In the 1980s and '90s, Enerhaugen became a popular place to live among the gay and lesbian community. Originally designed to suit single people and childless couples, the smaller apartments located close to the city centre also appealed to many of those embracing queer lifestyles.
One intriguing project in this section refers to the Svartlamon neighbourhood in Trondheim: in the mid-1980s young people in the music and counterculture scenes in Trondheim began moving into a dilapidated area scheduled for redevelopment. Many of them were influenced by punk anti-capitalist ideologies and the squatting movement. As the years passed, squatters became tenants. Svartlamon is now an autonomous eco-community, a cooperative made up of 100 old and new buildings and nearly 300 residents. Rent is kept low through simple housing standards and collaborative DIY initiatives.
Apart from Norwegian projects, the exhibition includes also international perspectives. The American experience is analysed through the idea of a separatist gay state conceived by American activist Don Jackson, who was inspired by the Stonewall Riots in 1969.
Jackson proposed creating what he called the Stonewall Nation in Alpine County, California, a separate city for gay men, a safe place filled with love, where people could be themselves without the risk of encountering harassment, violence, and prejudice.
Don Jackson's utopian vision is the starting point for the film "The Stonewall Nation" (2014) by Sille Storihle, also included in the exhibition alongside a 1986 interview with Don Jackson conducted by Olaf Odegaard, artwork by Odegaard, and archive materials from the ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives at the University of Southern California.
Two other displays feature the work of Matrix, a feminist architecture collective that in the 1980s offered free architecture services to marginalized groups; and work by the lesbian architect, photographer and filmmaker Phyllis Birkby, who campaigned to raise awareness of women's needs in architecture and against the perpetuation of patriarchal attitudes by educational institutions.
In 1981, the feminist architectural cooperative Matrix was established in London. Matrix offered free architectural assistance to marginalized groups and co-designed with them. They worked with women's centres, kindergartens, and housing projects for single, gay and lesbian people. They also developed educational resources and methods to demystify the language and processes of architecture. Reduced state funding for community services led the group to disband in 1993, although many of the members continued their work through teaching and design.
As a lesbian woman, the American architect and filmmaker Noel Phyllis Birkby (1932-1994) had difficulty adjusting to the male-dominated field of architecture, and also to the heterosexual feminist movement. In the 1970s, Birkby began to organize "Environmental Fantasy Workshops" for women's groups throughout the United States. She was interested in what housing and living could look like if freed from patriarchal ideals. Inspired by the consciousness-raising techniques of 1970s activists, Birkby's discussion and drawing exercises were intended to make women more aware of their own desires and dreams.
Rather than definite solutions "Coming Into Community" poses questions about architecture, urban planning and community and about how architecture can help nurture interpersonal relations. All the dichotomies explored in the event - inclusion and exclusion, liminality/marginalization and integration - aim at showing that architecture and design can support differences and create a more tolerant world where there is room for everyone.
"Coming Into Community" runs until 29 January 2023. The exhibition will then be archived in a 3D digital format to allow people from all over the world to explore the themes examined in the event and help architects and designers to come up with innovative projects that can foster a stronger sense of community.
Eight months ago a group of anarchist squatters occupied a west-London mansion owned by billionaire energy tycoon Oleg Deripaska, founder of metals and hydropower company EN+, on the list of Russian oligarchs sanctioned by the British government. The group stood on the balcony of the mansion with a Ukrainian flag, banners stating "This property has been liberated" and "Putin go fuck yourself" in Ukrainian and English. In a message posted on social media, the squatters stated: "You occupy Ukraine, we occupy you," concluding with a final invitation to "Squat oligarchs' properties everywhere".
The dream of these squatters recently turned into a reality and was even validated by a court in The Netherlands.
In late October a group of squatters took over a multi-million euro 1879 five-storey mansion at Vossiusstraat 16, central Amsterdam. The property belongs to Russian billionaire Arkady Volozh, co-founder and former CEO of Russia's biggest search engine, Yandex. Known as "Russia's Google", this is a controversial tool as Yandex's news aggregator censors articles against Putin and the Kremlin and promotes State media in its search results.
Like many other wealthy Russians investing in properties all over Europe, Volozoh bought the house in 2019, paying for it over €3m. EU sanctions were issued against Russia soon after it invaded Ukraine, and Volozh was placed under sanctions in June, with the accuse of "supporting, materially or financially, the Government of the Russian Federation". He immediately resigned from Yandex to protect it from being targeted by sanctions.
The house in Amsterdam was frozen only a few weeks ago, because it is owned through a company on the Virgin Islands. Like the squatters in London, the occupiers in Amsterdam explained in a statement they did so as a protest against Volozh's ties to the Kremlin. Yet the squatters also added that, by occupying the property, they wanted to remind people of the current housing crisis in Amsterdam.
The interesting thing about this story is the twist in the tale: last week a Dutch court ordered that the squatters did not need to vacate the property, a decision that surprised even the lawyer of the squatters, considering that all forms of squatting were made illegal in the Netherlands in 2010.
Volozh's lawyer stated the billionaire intended to carry out rebuilding work on the house, a legitimate reason in Dutch law to keep a property empty. Yet, being under sanctions, Volozh is not allowed to enter or transit EU territory, and, since his accounts were frozen, in accordance with EU law, he is prohibited from making any profit from renting out property. The court highlighted that by carrying out rebuilding work and maybe renting the properties, Volozh's assets would increase and this would not be allowed because of the sanctions.
The court also dismissed Volozh's lawyer's statement that he planned to move to Amsterdam with his family, pointing out he currently lives outside the EU (even though he acquired Maltese citizenship in 2016 through the "golden passport" scheme), he is under sanctions and has no reason to travel to the Netherlands as he is no longer head of Yandex, a company that has its European headquarters in Amsterdam.
Volozoh's lawyer plans to appeal, but, for the time being and from an architectural and legal point of view, the decision of the court is extremely exciting as it creates an interesting precedent (especially in The Netherlands where property rights favour owners) for squatters in other European countries, but also for those properties including yachts that were seized in other countries such as Italy (actually, we could repurpose them for raves after the new far-right government announced at the beginning of November a crackdown on illegal raves and a ban on gatherings of more than 50 people that "arbitrarily invade other people's land or buildings").
It will be intriguing to see if any other courts in Europe will follow the example of the Dutch court. In the meantime, maybe the squatters who occupied buildings belonging to oligarchs should be invited to architectural festivals or even major architecture biennale events, after all, they are helping us rethinking urban spaces (often colonised by wealthy investors who bought properties through companies in tax heavens as it happened in Amsterdam) to accomodate people with low incomes.
The FIFA World Cup in Qatar kicked off only yesterday, but football fans may feel already mentally exhausted. This state of exhaustion is not caused by watching too many incredibly good football matches, but from the controversies the event has unleashed. In fact, it looks like the dared sportswashing is an almost impossible activity to carry out. The latest controversy regards a small accessory - the OneLove armband.
Until yesterday some teams had confirmed their captains would be wearing the rainbow armband in support of LGBTQ+ rights. England's captain Harry Kane, for example, stated the team intended to do so.
In Qatar people from the LGBTQ+ community face a lot of challenges, male homosexuality is illegal and same-sex sexual activity is punishable with prison or may even lead to a death sentence. In October 2022, Human Rights Watch issued a research that found out that Qatar Preventive Security Department forces arbitrarily arrested LGBTQ+ people and subjected them to ill-treatment in detention.
The teams didn't intend to wear the armband out of respect or as a provocation, but to show they support inclusion. The national football associations wrote to FIFA in September to let them know they intended to wear the armbands, but had no response. Besides, the armbands were used in other occasions such as the UEFA Nations League matches in September.
This morning FIFA issued a warning highlighting that the captains could be booked or forced to leave the pitch if they insisted on wearing the armbands. The warning aligns with FIFA's opposition over the years to political protests or sloganeering during games or in stadiums (Law 4 of the Laws of the Game restricts the possibility of having slogans on shirts or undergarments, while there are further regulations on political gestures within the Disciplinary and Ethics codes).
As a result, by the late morning the situation had dramatically changed: England, Wales, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland stated their captains would not be wearing the armband.
In a joint statement, the seven teams explained: "As national federations, we can't put our players in a position where they could face sporting sanctions including bookings, so we have asked the captains not to attempt to wear the armbands in FIFA World Cup games. We were prepared to pay fines that would normally apply to breaches of kit regulations and had a strong commitment to wearing the armband. However, we cannot put our players in the situation where they might be booked or even forced to leave the field of play. We are very frustrated by the FIFA decision which we believe is unprecedented (…) Our players and coaches are disappointed – they are strong supporters of inclusion and will show support in other ways."
Captains can now wear the FIFA-mandated band - "Football unites the world" - or the armband that was designed for nations that would reach the quarter-finals, spelling "NoDiscrimination", and that will now be available throughout the tournament to allow all 32 captains to wear it.
The decision goes against what Qatar had stated in December 2020, when they announced they would comply with FIFA rules promoting tolerance and inclusion at matches despite the Arab country's strict anti-LGBTQ+ laws and even allow rainbow flags on the pitch.
An armband is a small accessory, but it can show allegiance and support, yet in this case the problem is not the armband per se or the dilemma "wearing or not wearing it". The real problem is that, if they are scared about an armband, then how will things ever change for LGBTQ+ community in Qatar? Because that's the main point of hosting an inclusive sports event - making sure that through it and after it, things can change for the better for the hosting country. That's why FIFA shouldn't have opposed the decision to wear the OneLove armband, and that's why captains should have risked a yellow card.
But that tolerance is getting the red card at the World Cup in Qatar is proved also by the negative reactions caused by another accessory, a rainbow bucket hat donned by Welsh fans during the USA-Wales match today. According to reports, female supporters wearing the hats got them confiscated. Looks like rainbows are out of fashion in Qatar.
But there were other issues that took away the attention from football and reshifted it on the situation in Iran. Protests have been going on for two months in the country after the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, detained by the "morality police" for being in violation of the dress code for women. Shaken by the demonstrations, the strongest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran's clerical leadership answered with violence, killing so far 380 people, including 58 children. The latest ones to be arrested are actresses Hengameh Ghaziani and Katayoun Riahi, both detained as they removed their veil in public and supported the protests.
Prior to the World Cup group B soccer match between England and Iran at the Khalifa International Stadium in Doha, all the Iran players were silent as the anthem was played. Iranian fans showed their conflicting emotions by being noisy, instead, to try and drown out the anthem and to show they do not feel represented by their team and hope they lose to avoid the regime taking the merit. Iranian fans also carried the lion-and-sun flag of the country's pre-revolutionary government (banned in the country since 1979) or held placards with the words "Women, Life, Freedom", the uprising's main slogan. FIFA may not like political messages on the pitch, but there's more at stake on the Qatar pitches than just a few goals.
Yet such events can also be attempts at sportswashing: Benito Mussolini hosted the 1934 FIFA World Cup, Adolf Hitler the 1936 Olympics, while today the 2022 FIFA World Cup is kicking off in Qatar. The event is overshadowed by the fact that Qatar has a bad record when it comes to human rights violations, ranging from the mistreatment of migrant workers to the discrimination that people from the LGBTQ+ community have to face and to the repressive laws curbing the freedom of expression.
Architecture-wise the event offers some great entertainment: since December 2010, when it was announced that the World Cup was going to take place in Qatar, the country launched a building programme that included new stadiums, a new airport, roads and hotels.
While the Khalifa International stadium is the transformation of a facility built in the late '70s, the other stadiums, notable mega structures with a massive capacity, were built from scratch.
In most cases the structures can be considered as architectural extravaganzas, exotic and at times even bizarre. Some of them represent metaphors for elements borrowed from Qatari culture: Studio Dar Al-Handasah's stadium in Al Khor, hosting the football tournament's opening game today, is inspired by the traditional bayt al sha'ar tents used by nomadic people; a traditional gahfiya cap worn by men throughout the Middle East inspired instead the Al Thumama Stadium by Qatari architect Ibrahim M Jaidah.
Then there's the "diamond in the desert", a stadium with a diamond-like pattern by Fenwick-Iribarren Architects and Pattern Design.
Foster + Partners designed instead the gargantuan 80,000-seater Lusail stadium, with a shape and facade that call to mind the decorative motifs on bowls and other vessels of the Arab and Islamic world.
Design-wise, the building that most people have learnt to recognise is maybe Zaha Hadid Architects' Al Janoub stadium: allegedly inspired by the sails of a dhow, it became notoriously famous when critics stated it looked like a vulva (frankly, it is difficult to disagree...).
Stadium 974 is instead the most sustainable: its name refers to Qatar's international dialling code, as well as the number of shipping containers used to build its staircases, kiosks, bathrooms and parts of its exterior.
Designed by Spanish practice Fenwick-Iribarren Architects, the stadium is a tribute to the local maritime history as well as the industrial heritage of its site near Doha's port. Stadium 974 is made with a modular structure that can be completely dismantled and repurposed, in whole or in parts, and this could be an inspiring idea also for other types of buildings/structures in the future.
Yet behind these inventive architecture designs there are issues that should be examined - the environmental and above all the human cost of all these structures.
For what regards the former, well, the environmental impact of the constructions should be considered (despite Stadium 974 can be dismantled and the Al-Rayyan Stadium by BDP Pattern was made using the rubble from the former Ahmad bin Ali Stadium that was demolished in 2015) as well as the damages caused by the air conditionining systems (surely the extreme temperatures should have played against Qatar when FIFA considered awarding it the competition...). Some stadiums are destined to be resized and shrunk once the World Cup is over, in some cases the upper tier will be removed and parts will be reconverted into hotels, housing units or even schools and health clinics, but this makes you wonder why did they have to build such huge structures in the first place.
The most tragic aspect of this World Cup remains its human cost, though: the stadiums and the other structures were indeed built by low-wage workers.
Qatar is reported to have spent $200bn on getting the World Cup ready, but organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have highlighted that, since Qatar was awarded the tournament, thousands of migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka died (over 6,000 according to surveys), or were injured, exploited, lived in squalid, filthy and overcrowded accommodation, suffered abuse, ended up working 14-18 hours a day for roughly $300 a month, and often without paid overtime. Many of them also had to pay a recruitment fee (now illegal) to get these jobs, a fee that generated high debts for them and for the families of those workers who died.
The causes of death for these workers vary: some of the workers died on stadium construction sites, but other deaths were attributed to "natural causes", the most common reason, as the workers died in other locations such as their accommodation, often from acute heart or respiratory failure.
In these cases, and under Qatari labour law, compensation for the deaths was not issued to the families of the deceased as the deaths occurred somewhere else and are therefore not considered as work-related. Yet, medical studies carried out in 2019, highlighted that hundreds of Nepali workers died of cardiac arrest and cardiovascular causes that could have been prevented if there had been heat protection measures.
Also women workers suffered from abuse: in particular migrant workers in the hospitality industry were victims of sexual harassment and gender based violence. Many women are reluctant to speak because they fear losing their jobs while, quite often, those who report rape end up being prosecuted as the police believe men claiming it was consensual.
Labour reforms about minimal wage were introduced in more recent years (after 2018) and the kafala or "sponsorship" system (which meant that workers couldn't change jobs without their employer’s permission) was abolished, but this was too little and too late and abuses and deaths continued, leaving behind devastated families. Human rights organisations believe FIFA should help compensate migrant workers who have died or suffered injury in Qatar with the equivalent of the World Cup's total prize money - $440m (the winners of the Qatar World Cup will receive $44 million).
But money is inducing many to lose their integrity over this World Cup: David Beckham, former England captain, husband to the former Spice Girl-turned-fashion designer Victoria, and gay icon, has taken up the role of ambassador for Qatar, a job that comes with a promotional fee of $170m over 10 years.
In a video promoting the country, Beckham, forgetting the situation of the migrant workers, the fact that in Qatar homosexuality is illegal, same-sex sexual activity is punishable by seven years in prison or may even lead to a death sentence (on November 8, Khalid Salman, a 2022 FIFA Qatar World Cup Ambassador, appallingly described homosexuality as "damage in the mind" in an interview with ZDF, a TV channel in Germany), smiles as he is filmed going around the country, visiting a market and stating "It's one of the best spice markets that I've ever been to" (pun intended? unintended? We will never know...), blissfully ending with "This is perfection for me."
But there other people who have or will be losing their integrity over the World Cup in the next few weeks, many linked also with the fashion industry. Between the semifinal and final matches of the World Cup, there should be the Qatar Fashion United by CR Runway, the Carine Roitfeld-helmed organization. The show is curated by Roitfeld, in association with a Qatar-based non-for-profit foundation, Education Above All.
Prada is a brand representing women's empowerment, but in Qatar women are subject to a discriminatory system as they must obtain permission from their male guardians to marry, study abroad on government scholarships, attend mixed-gender universities, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive health care. Women also have to show proof of marriage to access some sexual and reproductive health care, for example, prenatal care, transvaginal ultrasounds, pap smears, and sexual health checks. The discriminatory system also denies women the authority to act as their children’s primary guardian, even when they are divorced and have legal custody.
The Qatari royal family is very interested in fashion, though, since it owns (through private investment groups) brands such as Valentino (that for this reason also scored a major exhibition at the M7 in Doha this year - yes, sadly, Valentino's trademark red shade, as vivid as blood, is very trendy for this World Cup), Balmain and Pal Zileri, British department store Harrods and French chain Printemps.
Money makes you easily forget your social conscience and integrity, but it is about time for brands to take a stand and some sponsors have been doing so: Sony and Johnson & Johnson dropped out of the World Cup as sponsors, others like the Belgian team sponsors (chocolate brand Côte d’Or and courier service GLS), announced they will not be going to the tournament. As consumers we can make our voices heard by boycotting those brands joining the World Cup shenanigans without calling for remedy and compensation for the bereaved families of the workers.
There is something that FIFA could do as well. After previous World Cups, FIFA contributed to the creation of legacy funds to support projects following events, allocating funds with former hosts South Africa ($100 million), Brazil ($100 million), and Russia ($60 million), for example. The remedy fund in this case should be allocated to the families of migrant workers who died in Qatar between 2010 and 2022.
In July Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and FairSquare sent an open letter to FIFA's14 corporate partners and World Cup sponsors urging them to call on the football body to remedy abuses of migrant workers linked to preparations for the World Cup. Four sponsors - sportswear giant Adidas, that also produces uniforms and garments for seven national teams, McDonald's (Download Qatar_McDonalds), AB InBev/Budweiser and Coca-Cola (Download Qatar_CocaCola) issued a statement of support for such financial compensation. Ten other sponsors - Visa, Hyundai-Kia, Wanda Group, Qatar Energy, Qatar Airways, Vivo, Hisense, Mengniu, Crypto and Byju's - offered no public support and did not respond to written requests to discuss tournament-related abuses.
Is there something positive about the World Cup, well, there will be three women referees - Stéphanie Frappart from France, Yoshimi Yamashita from Japan and Salima Mukansanga from Rwanda - and three women assistant referees - Neuza Back from Brazil, Karen Díaz Medina from Mexico and Kathryn Nesbitt from the USA. Yet, while this is encouraging, it's just a drop in the ocean of shame that is engulfing this World Cup.