The Easter Island statues.
Navine-al-Aref wrote in the Al-Ahram online issue that Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, opposed the Foundation’s move to put the Pyramids of Giza up for election.
In response, the Foundation issued a press release conferring a special status on the Pyramid as the only honorary candidate of the New Seven Wonders of the World campaign. The website said that the voters could not vote for Giza. It would not have been surprising if the pyramid had been voted out.
While nations like India, China, Peru and Brazil rushed to vote, Europe and America appeared to be indifferent. This difference in response cannot be attributed to access to the Internet or lack of it. Had it got to do with the peculiar post-colonial conditions of these countries?
For almost a month, my inbox, and that of many others, was flooded with mails urging that we vote for the Taj to save our national pride. The idea of a national monument was cleverly overlaid on the New Seven Wonders campaign and it seemed to pay off.
To a country with a national flower, national bird, even a national game, the absence of a national monument appeared to be long overdue. Lotus as the national flower, peacock as the national bird and tiger as the national animal — the arbitrariness in such representations does not bother us.
Emblems are useful and can be handy, many seem to think. The patriotic ploy did work. Not many could resist or oppose it. This echoes what Alessandra Stanley, writing for The New York Times, had to say about media coverage of Paris Hilton: “the sheer absurdity of her fame ensures that anyone who denigrates it looks even more foolish.”
The question is not whether Taj is qualified to be a national monument or a world monument. But the irony that the wonders of the world — buildings of common world heritage — had to be chosen through the prism of a nation remains.
While we celebrate the selection of the Taj, the state of the heritage city of Agra or the pollution of the Yamuna does not draw the necessary attention. One hardly hears of a large campaign to protect local monuments. Concerns about heritage protection and voting for the Taj appear to be mutually exclusive. Understandably, the UNESCO has distanced itself from this campaign and even dismissed it.
Commercial motives
What can we expect of this new wonder campaign? Many have criticised the commercial motives behind the campaign. Newsweek wrote, quoting the foundation spokesperson that Bernard Weber, the founder of this campaign, paid $700 for a w ebsite based out of Canada to launch this contest. The voter turnout and the Internet voting have been many times more than what was expected.
The foundation pledged half of its revenue for the various conservation efforts including reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. The fact that the Afghan government has not prioritised the restoration of Bamiyan Buddhas nor that the Japanese government has already pledged US$ 1.8 million for the same project and the work is in progress is not an issue for the foundation. Instead of getting into such highly visible reconstruction project, should the foundation look at many monuments that languish without funds? This is a separate issue.
In response, the Foundation issued a press release conferring a special status on the Pyramid as the only honorary candidate of the New Seven Wonders of the World campaign. The website said that the voters could not vote for Giza. It would not have been surprising if the pyramid had been voted out.
While nations like India, China, Peru and Brazil rushed to vote, Europe and America appeared to be indifferent. This difference in response cannot be attributed to access to the Internet or lack of it. Had it got to do with the peculiar post-colonial conditions of these countries?
For almost a month, my inbox, and that of many others, was flooded with mails urging that we vote for the Taj to save our national pride. The idea of a national monument was cleverly overlaid on the New Seven Wonders campaign and it seemed to pay off.
To a country with a national flower, national bird, even a national game, the absence of a national monument appeared to be long overdue. Lotus as the national flower, peacock as the national bird and tiger as the national animal — the arbitrariness in such representations does not bother us.
Emblems are useful and can be handy, many seem to think. The patriotic ploy did work. Not many could resist or oppose it. This echoes what Alessandra Stanley, writing for The New York Times, had to say about media coverage of Paris Hilton: “the sheer absurdity of her fame ensures that anyone who denigrates it looks even more foolish.”
The question is not whether Taj is qualified to be a national monument or a world monument. But the irony that the wonders of the world — buildings of common world heritage — had to be chosen through the prism of a nation remains.
While we celebrate the selection of the Taj, the state of the heritage city of Agra or the pollution of the Yamuna does not draw the necessary attention. One hardly hears of a large campaign to protect local monuments. Concerns about heritage protection and voting for the Taj appear to be mutually exclusive. Understandably, the UNESCO has distanced itself from this campaign and even dismissed it.
Commercial motives
What can we expect of this new wonder campaign? Many have criticised the commercial motives behind the campaign. Newsweek wrote, quoting the foundation spokesperson that Bernard Weber, the founder of this campaign, paid $700 for a w ebsite based out of Canada to launch this contest. The voter turnout and the Internet voting have been many times more than what was expected.
The foundation pledged half of its revenue for the various conservation efforts including reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. The fact that the Afghan government has not prioritised the restoration of Bamiyan Buddhas nor that the Japanese government has already pledged US$ 1.8 million for the same project and the work is in progress is not an issue for the foundation. Instead of getting into such highly visible reconstruction project, should the foundation look at many monuments that languish without funds? This is a separate issue.
The New Indian Express recently reported that the New Seven Wonders Foundation claimed that they have invested €10 million in the whole campaign and that they did not break even. As a result, the Foundation announced that the mon uments will not receive any funding for their conservation.
The Foundation may claim that it is a non-profit organisation, but another organisation called the New Open World Corporation (NOWC) owns the copyright to its content and operations. The Foundation’s spokesperson has neither confirmed the expense and revenue figures nor explained the commercial arrangement with the NOWC. The details of who owns and runs NOWC are also not clear.
Till this article went to press, there was no reply to these queries. In the absence of information about voting details, revenue earned and the actual money pledged for conservation, the commercial theory gains ground. To be contd…
The Foundation may claim that it is a non-profit organisation, but another organisation called the New Open World Corporation (NOWC) owns the copyright to its content and operations. The Foundation’s spokesperson has neither confirmed the expense and revenue figures nor explained the commercial arrangement with the NOWC. The details of who owns and runs NOWC are also not clear.
Till this article went to press, there was no reply to these queries. In the absence of information about voting details, revenue earned and the actual money pledged for conservation, the commercial theory gains ground. To be contd…
No comments:
Post a Comment