12 January 1994

Doc. 6986

1403-7/1/94-4-E

REPORT

on the future of international exhibitions

(Rapporteur: Mr TUMMERS,

Netherlands, Socialist Group)

Summary

      The report describes the complex historical evolution of world exhibitions into the stunning international spectacles that they have become.

      The Assembly believes that an international exhibition should continue to be a display which has as its principal purpose the education of the public and underlines its role of fostering cultural exchanges with a view to a better understanding between peoples and to the strengthening of peace in the world.

      Furthermore, the Assembly supports the International Bureau of Exhibitions in its efforts to unravel and make more transparent the complex structure of the present by updating and clarifying regulations and planning for these events.

I. Draft resolution

1.       A quarter of a century has elapsed from the start of the preparations for the Osaka Universal Exhibition of 1970 to the aftermath of that which took place in Seville in 1992 and international relations have not remained the same since the wave of ideological criticism in the sixties.

2.       However, disbanding the guilds and the freedom of labour as elements of human rights have not everywhere lost their topicality and the perspective of a more united world with regard to cultural co-operation and a more equal distribution of wealth is not exactly a thing of the past either, even if national ideals and the search for local profit in the framework of economic and cultural relations could constitute impediments on the way towards global unity.

3.       Against this background, the Assembly considers that the history of the evolution of such phenomena as international exhibitions presents an edifying reflection of our civilisation.

4.       Technical progress in the field of visual information now shows the world perfectly well during the years between exhibitions and therefore the element of meeting is more important than the element of showing in international exhibitions.

5.       The Assembly is aware of the consensus among member countries of the International Bureau of Exhibitions on the continuation of international exhibitions and

supports the efforts of the Bureau to unravel and make more transparent the complex structure of the present by updating and clarifying regulations and planning for these events (frequency, locations, types of exhibitions, choice of themes and the limitations of these themes).

6.       An exhibition should continue to be a display which, whatever its title, has as its principal purpose the education of the public, as defined in Article 1 of the 1928 Convention on International Exhibitions. Furthermore its role of fostering cultural exchanges with a view to a better understanding between peoples and to the strengthening of peace in the world should be emphasised rather than the roles of direct contribution to the progress of science and technology and of fostering industrial and commercial exchanges.

7.       In the current process of re-assessing the aims of international exhibitions our contemporary cultural ambitions should be critically checked against:

i.       north-south relations (rich-poor);

ii.       the ecological situation (protection of natural resources, flora and fauna);

iii.       security on our earth and in space (peace and viability);

iv.       technology at the service of the people (employment and leisure).

8.       The Assembly believes that the above provides realistic themes for international exhibitions along the lines similar to those suggested by the United Nations pavilion in Seville and welcomes the theme "Mankind, Nature, Technology" chosen for the next universal exhibition due to take place in Hanover in the year 2000.

II. Explanatory memorandum

by Mr TUMMERS

A.       Introduction

      Towards the end of the twentieth century the world exhibitions have become stunning spectacles, reflecting their complex historical evolution.

      Other international events have also revealed themselves just as staggering, making it difficult to fathom the course of development and the ultimate aim of the events.

      Now that the Universal Exhibition in Seville has run partly parallel to the Olympic Games in Barcelona the obvious thing to do is to compare these two events.

      If we do so we discover that initially they both had different aims. They have both however given up their initial concept; and not only do they both now serve different auxiliary purposes, but they have both become dependent on their profits.

      A world exhibition could be called the olympiad of capitalism and the Olympic Games could be called the exhibition of athleticism of the nations.

      However, in this year of 1993, what is our attitude towards the past, present and future of world exhibitions in the perspective of European culture? Before answering this question some clarification is necessary.

      Throughout this paper, with its historical perspectives, the general terms "world" or "international" exhibitions are used. Discussion will reveal how far the more recent distinctions of universal exhibition, world trade fairs, etc. are really meaningful.

      The aim of the present report is to contribute to the consideration of what Europeans want from large international world exhibitions at the start of the third millennium.

      The Committee on Culture and Education had the opportunity of visiting the Universal Exhibition in Seville last year, where it held a colloquy on the future of world exhibitions. This colloquy was attended by Mr Virgilio Zapatero, Spanish Minister for relations with the Cortes, Mr Emilio Casinello, General Commissioner of the Seville Universal Exhibition, Mr Correa, Secretary General of the Exhibition and Mr Ted Allan, President of the International Bureau of Exhibitions.

B.        The history of international exhibitions

Origin: Liberté du travail — Freedom of Labour

      The world exhibitions belong to modern history and bear the mark of cultural changes emanating from the industrial revolution. That much has been established. Therefore, the annual fairs held in the times prior to the era when the guilds were disbanded, do not count as the precursors of the world exhibitions.

      The French and the British national industrial exhibitions also led to the birth of a new event: the world fairs. These fairs, these exhibitions were a festive effect of the freedom of labour/liberté du travail which was proclaimed shortly after the French Revolution: after the guilds were disbanded (1791) and patents were introduced.

      The Liberté du travail enabled every citizen to practise the profession of his choice. This was revolutionary in respect of the feudal industrial relations of that time.

      The freedom brought about in general by the revolution had still to permeate through society as a whole and led to lifting the limitations the guilds had imposed on production. This new freedom was felt as a liberation. This liberation had to be celebrated and celebrations go hand in hand with festivities. The liberté du travail led to a special kind of celebration of the revolution. This feast/party had to be repeated, just like birthdays and anniversaries. In France such festivities were held in public places, mainly on the Champs de Mars (Paris), the scene of all national festivities since the end of the ancien régime.

      This celebration of the liberté du travail also focused on progress. With respect to the future, people had the greatest expectations of this progress of the industrial production and the underlying inventions. Sous le régime de la liberté, les arts utiles étaient appelés à un brillant avenir. The initial celebrations of the liberté du travail were, of course, still only national events. They coincided with an exhibition of what was to be shown of the new national industrial product(ion)s. These consisted first of all of the industrial products for everyday use: the consumer goods.

Evolution: the useful arts

      The early industrial products were not only labelled "useful arts", they were also for a long time an (albeit superfluous) reminder of the artistic produce from the time of the guilds. The machines that allowed the production of these products were also always exhibited, and with pride, as remarkable objects. Particularly in England. As early as 1754 and 1761 exhibitions of machinery were held in London. These exhibitions were mainly for members and friends of the associations for the promotion of the useful arts.

      The period between 1789 and 1849 saw the development of the concept of national industrial exhibitions which were open to the general public. However ... one still went to the Temple de l'industrie! After France and England, Germany too had its first industrial exhibition, which took place in 1844. In fifty years time the number of participants in these events grew from 100 or 200 to some 3 or 4 000. Internationalisation was inevitable just as was the subsequent increasing competition.

      Salient point: in 1844 national industrial exhibitions were held in both Berlin and Paris.

      The principle of free trade and the possibility to sell all over the world and buy raw materials — and therefore a minimalisation of trade barriers — were a stimulus for all nations to participate in such (national) industrial exhibitions; the concept par excellence for a universal framework for these exhibitions. The national exhibitions came inevitably to be surpassed by international exhibitions, by world fairs or universal exhibitions (the names vary, the definitions and rules followed only three-quarters of a century later).

      The liberal ideas about an economy had to carry the concept. The French Minister for Commerce was the first to plead in favour of an exhibition of tous les Etats (1849). But protectionist tendencies within the chambers of commerce thwarted his project. Two years later, in 1851, England carried off the palm. Under the patronage of Prince Albert the first world exhibition was held under one roof and its unifying theme was "The union of the human race". Through industrialisation, mind you! There was as yet no sign of a risk of exploitation, neither in respect of labour nor in respect of natural resources.

Expansion: reciprocal internationalisation

      Although the building where the first universal exhibition was held in London in 1851 was to express the sense of unity, national(istic) feelings were still prominent. The French Prince-President for instance had to come for a special opening ceremony of the French section at that London exhibition.

      Italy joined in 1861 (Florence) with the Esposizione nazionale di tutte le industrie. Austria followed suit in 1873, followed by the United States of America in 1876.

      Nevertheless, the fact that these exhibitions were international remained their most attractive feature; they promoted international contacts in the field of science, industry, culture, finance, commerce and such. Observers from various countries sent voluminous reports to their national governments on the huge perspectives they had seen opening up. The labour force also observed the internationalisation and the ensuing consequences.

      Just as the Directoire used the national industrial exhibition and all the surrounding festivities to wipe out the memories of despotism and tried to give recognition to the provinces, the industrialists attempted to appease the agitated labour force by offering trips to the world exhibitions, thus trying to foster company patriotism. Thus the world exhibition held in 1862 (again in London), became the accidental meeting place of labourers who still had to give substance to the motto "Workers of the world, unite!" (1848).

      The economic depression of the late fifties, the resistance against Bonapartism in France, the Polish struggle for independence as well as the American civil war gave just as many impulses to start a discussion on the situation of the working classes. What better place for these preparatory talks than the very spot where the produce of labour was exhibited and future perspectives were presented? It remains speculation whether the Saint Simonist, who inspired Napoleon III into engineering this scene, really knew where it might lead. Anyway, the stimulating preparatory talks leading up to the founding of the (Socialist) International (1864) were held — literally and figuratively — under the roof of a world exhibition, that is the exhibition of 1862.

      Historically not illogical: the freedom of labour was to be the beginning of labour towards freedom in order to achieve one's liberation from labour.

Continuation: model of the future

      In his Kulturhistorische Skizzen aus der Industrieaustellungen aller Völker, Lothar Bucher made two important observations. Bucher wrote about the building the "Crystal Palace" as such and concluded that it had not met with any resistance and that, on the contrary, the public was aware that in this case the architectural standards hitherto adhered to were no longer valid. He also noted that soon reproductions of this new type of building were seen hanging on the walls in the most remote German villages. The new event and the phenomenon as such apparently appealed and were considered a model of the future. This was particularly expressed in some paragraphs in Russian literature, notably in Tsjernysjevski's novel What to do (1862) and in Dostojevski's novel Notes from the underground (1864).

      Tsjernysjevski projected his new man, his new society and the new production system in a curious town, a huge building "without precedent except ... perhaps that palace on the hill of Sydenham". This is a direct reference to the Crystal Palace from the universal exhibition, which was indeed rebuilt in Sydenham. Dostojevski in his turn — in 1862 he had the opportunity to go and see the Crystal Palace in London — opposed Tsjernysjevski's utopian view and had his underground man fulminate maliciously against that Crystal Palace as a model of and for the future. (Tsjernysjevski's book was included in the curriculum of secondary schools in the Soviet Union, in any case up to and including the Gorbachov era.) The idea to present a model of the future in the form of a world exhibition lingered on for quite a while, in all its ideologically different forms.

      The world exhibition of 1867 in Paris was conceived by the conservative sociologist Frederic Le Play. Progressive constructors, among them followers of the socialist utopian Charles Fourier (including the young Gustav Eiffel) designed for him a round, globe-shaped pavilion (to express unity/uniformity). Its motto alluded to global unity: "All countries are here together, enemies live side by side in peace".

      Was this the beginning of modern corporatism? It was at the very least a clear-cut reaction to all social conflicts which had put society under pressure as a consequence of liberté du travail.

      Twenty years later when the centenary of the French Revolution was to be celebrated, Eiffel, who as a young engineer assisted his patron Krantz — also an adept of Fourier — was given the chance to design the accommodation for the world exhibition of 1889 in Paris. Eiffel then grafted his design on the principle of Fourier's phalanstery. The typical communication tower of the phalanstery was made a particular height and was pushed to the front: the Eiffel Tower. This Eiffel Tower was the very symbol of all kinds of technological progress.

Erosion: national ideals and local profit

      With the Chicago world exhibition (1893) which followed that of 1889, the idea of world-unity reflected by those large unitarian constructions was lost for these events. Chicago saw the first national pavilions. So, the initial concept was eroded, both culturally and politically. Not only was the world exhibition never again to express in one single pavilion a unitarian structure, but the set-up also now aimed at local profit. The world exhibition in Osaka for instance provided this town with an infrastructure worth some 5 thousand million guilders.

      Gradually all kinds of unwritten rules and regulations were established but an international agreement seemed necessary. Paris had been calling for one since 1907. In 1912 the German Government organised the Berlin Diplomatic Conference which established the basis for an international convention governing international exhibitions. Due to the war this convention was not ratified and governments took up the matter again in 1920, but it was not until November 1928, at another conference in Paris, that delegates of thirty-one countries signed the first convention governing, in a constructive manner, the organisation of international exhibitions.

      The international convention of 1928 brought order to the world exhibitions situation by regulating their frequency and outlining the rights and obligations of the exhibitors and organisers. At the same time the International Bureau of Exhibitions was created in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the convention. Subsequently two protocols — one concluded in 1948 and the other in 1972 — amended the convention on the key issue of exhibition frequency.

      The exhibition towns set out to outdo each other. As soon as the Columbian exhibition in the United States of America was announced, New York and Chicago went into competition. Not only did the most commerce-minded town land the exhibition, but this town also changed the new trend. A kind of mentality crept in that tried to do everything in its power to escape the present. Gondolas had to be brought from Venice to be put on Lake Michigan and the naive glory of early capitalism was sought. No longer the industry of all nations, but local jealousy, regardless of the idealistic slogans.

      Twenty four world exhibitions were held between those of 1867 and 1893. The places where they were held also reflected the then prevailing north-south relations: in this era of colonialism only three out of the twenty-four were held in the southern hemisphere (and only two after 1893). This aspect was a particular point of discussion during the preparations of the Osaka world exhibition in Japan. The theme then was "Progress and harmony for mankind"; the true motive, however, was to bind the Third World to the expansion of the Japanese industry.

      Some thirty world exhibitions have been held since the Chicago exhibition. The 1900 exhibition was the gateway to the twentieth century, the one in 1925 was notable; because of the presentation by the USSR (progressive art and constructivist politics from before Stalinism) and that of 1937 is remembered for the protest by the Spanish Republic against fascism. Picasso's Guernica remained as the emblem of the fight for democracy, against cultural, humanitarian and political destruction committed in the civil war. Fifty years later, in 1987, an exhibition on this exhibition was organised in the Musée de l'art moderne (Paris), itself part of the 1937 exhibition.

      The Museum of Public Works, built by architect Perret for the 1937 exhibition, now houses inter alia the Western European Union. The Mies van der Rohe pavilion in Barcelona (built for the 1929 Exhibition and rebuilt fifty years later), although without any current function, is an important example of pavilion architecture.

A new direction: towards the international community?

      The Osaka world exhibition preparations reached their peak in the last part of our sixties. Criticism of the affluent society then dominated. The production of consumer goods and the production of arms as well as the proliferation of bureaucracy were the object of criticism. The world exhibition in the land of the rising power, Japan, did not escape this wave of criticism.

      Through quite a large number of international magazines attempts were made by Dutch artists and cultural workers to achieve a change of direction for these world exhibitions. A new concept was not presented but a widely distributed pamphlet contained critical questions and pointed out the responsibility of all cultural disciplines in co-operating to achieve such a global event. Do not the world exhibitions force themselves upon us as manifestations of the freedom to have to produce things for which there is no need and to have to consume what we are forced to produce? Do not artists, designers, architects, etc. give the world exhibitions cultural images and are they not being (mis)used to present a sham freedom?

      The world exhibitions have become Olympian demonstrations of national ideals. Ideals formed by power monopolies which use their own norms as a standard to determine the freedom of other people, although these same norms are inadequate to allow for freedom within the system where the power monopoly exists. This has led in the modern world to an affluent society where values of life are imposed upon us, with the inherent aim of increasing profit. In various areas it is becoming clear that this is happening at the expense of human beings (in the Third World and also here) and that it is urgently necessary to seek alternatives and to oppose further escalation of the situation. It is important, with respect to the process of awakening and becoming aware, that precisely those people who are involved with the formulation of these human values (for example, designers, architects, artists, youth leaders, social workers, city planners, etc.) take a standpoint with respect to this system.

      In May 1968, on the occasion of a symposium at the Hogeschool voor Theologie en Pastoraat at the town of Heerlen to commemorate Karl Marx's 150th birthday, the question was raised as to whether the funds provided for the world exhibitions could not be used for the benefit of international independence and solidarity. Because since the first world fair after the second world war (Brussels 1958) in a time span of twelve years already four of such events had taken place (Seattle, Montreal, San Antonio and Osaka in preparation of 1970).

      To give an idea of the expenditure: the civil engineering works (for the infrastructure) of Osaka required 5 thousand million guilders, and the construction costs amounted to 500 million guilders. The Netherlands budget was 12 million guilders and was thought to be quite tight. After the world exhibition in Montreal several pavilions were sold for symbolic sums; some were used again, others were disassembled and put together again elsewhere to be re-used.

      Alternative suggestions for the world exhibitions after Osaka were presented at the colloquy:

      —to       use the funds available for the next world fair to develop one uniform pavilion that could be mass-produced;—

      —th       en to place these pavilions as a chain throughout the so-called Third World;—

      —to       have these pavilions function as centres for information and communication on global relations, development co-operation, but without the element of national prestige.Th

      The technical equipment of these pavilions should consist of information systems, TV-circuits, studios, etc. Suggestions for non-technical elements: attention for social history of the world, cultural identity, technological developments (progress). The visitors to the various pavilions should furthermore be given the opportunity to proceed to a direct creative translation of the information provided through theatres, workshops, ateliers, etc.

      So, on the one hand these alternative proposals took up again the pre-Chicago line — although taking into account one hundred years of progress — and on the other hand the unity of the original pavilion was re-shaped into uniform, dispersed pavilions, which were look-alike in concept.

C.       Present situation

      On 12 October 1992 the last universal exhibition of the twentieth century (and the largest ever) was officially closed in Seville. In his report to the General Assembly of the BIE the General Commissioner of the exhibition considered it "a massive success" which demonstrated "the need for a large, multicultural communications platform, the worthiness of world event dedicated to the promotion of the world's diversity, the appeal of a cultural production where no specific view or national perspective overshadows the others, the novelty of a stage which offers the place in the limelight to the small, distant or developing countries, granting them the opportunity to showcase their identity or their very existence, the prestige of an international exchange platform for ideas and cultural expression with the ambition to reach a global audience".

      Having benefited from the experience of previous international exhibitions (in particular Osaka 70, Vancouver 86 and Brisbane 88) Seville 92 was however innovative in many fields and lessons should be drawn from it for the forthcoming exhibitions: Budapest 96, Lisbon 98 and the next Universal Exhibition in Hanover in 2000.

      Members of the Committee on Culture and Education who had the opportunity of visiting the Expo 92 were in general favourably impressed by the quality of the exhibition, although some critical remarks were made. These concerned the re-utilisation of the exhibition materials and site; the high costs of building and running national pavilions and the ensuing financial problems for small countries; the fact that most indications were written in Spanish alone; the bad image conveyed by the United Nations and the European Union pavilions; the poor publicity about the exhibition outside Spain and the sometimes exorbitant prices of restaurants and hotels in and around Seville.

      In response to the concern expressed by some of its members on the occasion of the 1992 Seville Universal Exhibition, the International Bureau of Exhibitions started a thorough discussion on the future of international exhibitions and sent a comprehensive questionnaire to its forty-three member countries in November 1982. On 11 June 1993 its General Assembly started reviewing the replies to that questionnaire.

      Only twelve countries had replied so far. Despite a lot of criticism, they all agreed that international exhibitions could (and should) continue to play a valuable role and therefore should not be suppressed. However there was an urgent need for change.

      The main criticisms were related to the large number and array of exhibitions (universal, international, specialised, registered, recognised) which conveyed a blurred image to the media and the public at large. In addition they had considerably drifted away from the original purpose of showing the state of knowledge of mankind. Due to the costs involved some considered that universal exhibitions were no longer interesting platforms for the promotion of participating countries. Their international feature had shrunk to the profit of the organising country.

       The Executive Commission of the BIE proposed to have one single type of exhibition (which would be called international) every five years (as an intellectual parallel to the Olympic Games). These changes would be effective after the year 2000.

      Most participants at the General Assembly of 11 June agreed to reduce the type of exhibitions (but some wished two different types), to fix their periodicity (to one every four or five years) and to give the BIE a larger role in controlling them.

      The General Assembly decided to set up a task force composed of the President of the BIE, the President of the Executive Commission, who would act as rapporteur, and representatives of Canada, Hungary, Japan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru and Spain with the aim of preparing concrete proposals to be submitted to the next General Assembly in December.

       A quarter of a century has passed since the start of the preparations for Osaka; international relations have not remained the same since the wave of ideological criticism in the sixties. Against this background, one might consider with respect to the subject of international exhibitions:

      —th       at disbanding the guilds and the freedom of labour as elements of human rights have not everywhere lost their topicality;—

      —th       at the perspective of a more united world with regard to cultural co-operation and a more equal distribution of wealth is not exactly a thing of the past either;—

      —th       at the national ideals and the search for local profit in the framework of economic and cultural relations could constitute impediments on the way towards global unity;—

      —th       at the history of the evolution of such phenomena as world exhibitions presents an edifying reflection of our civilisation;—

      —th       at the complex structure of present day world exhibitions ought to be made transparent and should be unravelled;—

      —th       at technical progress in the field of visual information now shows the world perfectly well during the years between exhibitions and that therefore the element of meeting is more important than the element of showing in world exhibitions;—

      —th       at our contemporary cultural ambitions should be critically checked against:.n

.       north-south relations (rich-poor);

.       the ecological situation (exhaustion of natural resources);

.       security on our earth and in space (peace and viability);

.       technology at the service of the people;

      —th       at the above provides realistic themes for world exhibitions along the lines similar to those suggested by the United Nations pavilion in Seville;—

      —th       at the regulations and planning for these events should be updated and clarified (periodicity, locations, choice of themes and the limitations of these themes).Th

      These are some ideas that might be part of a scenario for a Council of Europe presentation at the inevitable future world exhibitions (Budapest, Lisbon or Hanover).

      Could not Freedom of Labour towards Labour for Freedom comprise a broad range of possibilities and opportunities for an encouraging entry into the 21st century?

      Reporting committee: Committee on Culture and Education.

      Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

      Reference to committee: Doc. 6434 and Reference No. 1738 of 28 June 1991.

      Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 5 January 1994.

      Members of the committee: Mrs Fischer (Chairman), Sir Russell Johnston, Mr de Puig (Vice-Chairmen), MM. Alegre, Arnalds, Bauer, Bell, Berg, Bonnici, Bratinka, Cem (Alternate: Talay), Decagny, Deniau (Alternate: Baumel), Mrs Err, Mr Ferrari, Mrs Fleeetwood (Alternate: Mrs Saint Cyr), MM. Galanos (Alternate: Hadjidemetriou), Gül, Mrs Guourova, Mrs Hawlicek, Mr Hint, Baroness Hooper, MM. Kalos, Kouck, Landsbergis, Baroness Lockwood (Alternate: Sir Keith Speed), MM. Lopez Henares, Malachowski, Mesoraca, Monfils, Muehlemann, Müller, Pahtas, Mrs Persson (Alternate: Mrs Hjelm-Wallen), Mr Pilarski, Mrs Robert, Mr Roseta, Mrs Ryynänen, MM. Schädler, Schmidt, Schreiner, Seeuws, Soell, Spacek, Ms Szelenyi, MM. Tatarella (Alternate: Caldoro), Tummers, Vajda, Verbeek, Zlobec, N ... (Alternate: Mocioi), N ... (Alternate: Paunescu).

      N.B.       The names of those who took part in the vote are printed in italics.

      Secretaries to the committee: MM. Grayson and Ary.