CULTURAL DIVERSITY UNDER PRESSURE

Markus Miessen in conversation with Frank van der Salm

Rotterdam-based photographer Frank van der Salm is interested in how megacities develop. Believing that the extension of the Port of Rotterdam is vital for the Netherlands both strategically and economically, he argues that discussions should be held at the national rather than the regional level, and that an international perspective is essential. He feels an international team of researchers representing a variety of disciplines could offer new opportunities for a social, economic and cultural revival of the Port.

MM Frank, you are based in Rotterdam. How does the city influence the way you work?

FvdS The most important influence any city can have on me is the ability to energize.
The contrasts you find in a large city – grim, run-down areas, anonymity and loneliness coupled with a vibrant nightlife and enriching social and professional interactions – all make me alert to change and the opportunities it can offer. Since my work revolves around urban issues, I need that energy to feel at home. On a subconscious level, it might even connect me to the places in the world where I have worked in the past, the photos I have taken in the weirdest of places – you know what I mean? It may not always be pleasant, but most of the time it is, and the energy is hard to miss. So, to return to your question, it is not the city of Rotterdam itself that really influences my work in the sense that it’s visible or even present literally, but it’s its ability to connect me with cities elsewhere, and with the issues that connect them.

MM Portscapes is establishing a conceptual framework for the extension of the port of Rotterdam. In the Netherlands, the extremes of the rural and the urban, the industrial and the natural are often spatially close. Is there a place that you feel equally attracted to, in terms of its specific nature?

FvdS In Rotterdam, that must surely be related to the river. When entering Rotterdam by car from the south, when you pass the Van Brienenoord Bridge, suddenly there it looms, most of the time covered by a Dutch blanket of grey clouds: a city so dependent on the water – even when noticing the huge cranes in the port, or the heavy traffic and its sprawling buildings on a flat area barely above
sea level. When you are looking at it from above, sitting in a fast-driving car, you only have a few seconds to get that image into your mind, where it then remains forever. I am always looking forward to this temporary sense of relief when approaching this bridge, whatever the time of day and whatever mood I’m in. It is exciting, full of expectations, and of course that is a bit strange, knowing what you’re going to see next, but perhaps it is the confrontation with what you know a large city is all about with this tiny moment in which it seems you get a glimpse of its vulnerability. It is a brief moment in which the city seems almost malleable – where the change of scale is waiting for me; and of course it is essential that this is happening while you’re moving. If I had to choose a place, then that place would be that fleeting moment on top of that bridge. And I should add the view – perhaps the view itself could be considered a place too.

MM How do you envision the port’s future in terms of its architectural, political and social realities?

FvdS It will have to change – not changing with time is not an option. Taking into consideration the massive changes in the global economy, for example the speed with which Asian countries are able to adapt to new situations, Rotterdam will need to adapt as well. No one can rely on past performance alone. The question for the future should be: ‘What does it want to become’? Will it continue to compete for its position with Singapore, Pusan, Hong Kong, and so on, or will it focus on a change in needs worldwide? Producing countries have changed, financial markets have started shifting, and new countries have begun consuming on a massive scale. International trade will continue, of course, and it will most likely retain its regional function, but on a global scale things might not proceed according to our national scenario. And a lot of space may become available, so I guess change would mean new uses for these areas. It is of national interest to address this internationally.

MM Thinking of decision-making on a regional scale, how can one overcome the politics of consensus, especially in a centre as economically and strategically important as Rotterdam?

FvdS First of all, that question implies that consensus is not the way to go. That will always be a topic of debate, I think, and even on the issue itself there will not be much consensus. So we are always in the middle of this debate. Rotterdam is economically and strategically important, at this particular time, but Port Rotterdam should be addressed nationally, not regionally. Regional needs are sidelined by national interest. The willingness to change will require consensus, whether or not there is a real need for change, and sometimes these things move very slowly – too slowly. I have no real insight into the political structures when it comes to decisions on these major issues, and I don’t know if anything like it is already in place, so I have to talk in general terms here, but it might be a good idea to appoint some kind of curator or team of curators with political credentials and mandates who will, in cooperation with port authorities, research comparable histories of other ‘old’ industries on an international scale, to see how they have managed to cope over time and adapt to different global needs. It could result in a network of rejuvenating ‘neighborhoods’ and changing industries, the introduction of multiple-use compounds or temporary activities, work-leisure combinations, etc., anything basically, and could include architects, urban planners, artists, port authorities, etc. The port is a city that is more connected internationally than many ‘real’ cities, so we should regard it as a city, a powerful metropolis that needs attention. The spatial qualities of Port Rotterdam have more potential uses than heavy industry alone. It is, however, necessary to realize that it is not the first time things have to be reinvented, stripped down and then rebuilt in a different way, or have multiple uses added, in other words to restructure the world of today. We need to speak an international language if the port is to retain its influence internationally. The spatial consequences would be huge, but thinking regionally is too limited for such a major port as Rotterdam.

MM If you could ask the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende one question, what would it be?

FvdS In terms of the issue discussed, I would ask him about the possibility to establish an international research team of politicians, scientists, port authorities, architects, artists and urban planners to reconsider the port’s uses and give them carte blanche in sketching a potential (!) economic, social and cultural makeover. No restrictions.

MM As a photographer and artist, what is your fascination with the development of cities?

FvdS Cities are the places where changes occur first. Large cities worldwide are interconnected through trade, finance and mass media, of which photography is the most important component.
For the first time in history, more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. Imagine the impact that might have on our understanding of reality in the next half-century. We live in a time of fast-moving images, and as a photographer you need to be mindful of that. You cannot simply add more images and expect people to ‘read’ them without thinking about context. Cities are no longer clearly identified objects, but form a landscape of interactions. This paradox I am in, that is: a fast-changing ‘real’ world built on imagery and working as a photographer referring to that reality at the same time is one of the key elements of my work/a key to understanding my work. It is a fascinating position in the middle of change. And the centre that it occupies, that I am exploring, using time and space as ‘morphing bodies’.

MM Looking at your work, one is often confronted with a control of landscape. To what extent should man interfere?

FvdS Man is everywhere; remember the images on TV a few months ago, taken from the air of ‘new Indian tribes’ dressed for war in the South American jungle, shooting arrows at the iron birds? We are all over the place, and almost no unspoiled nature will survive once we have discovered it. In fact, doing just that will change it forever. Looking (at something) is a verb, it is an action, it is letting things enter your brain; it is not neutral or harmless. Romantic ideals of pristine nature have become naive.
The abundance of images around us is not neutral either. We are thinking images. Does it matter? I do not think so. Reality is that man will interfere anyway, and my artistic response is the way to deal with it, by using images, playing with expectations, creating tension in assumptions of truth, etc. Remember that you are looking at images that use landscape, not landscape itself. Today control over images equals control over landscape, and adding images is adding space. Thinking about a contemporary city without images would be unbearable. So we should in fact be interfering!

MM What do you prefer: urban density or sprawl on a regional or national scale?

FvdS The fact is that both situations attract me for the same reason. Both show the impact of the actions of human beings on their habitat, the effort man has put into achieving his dreams, his flaws resulting from his actions and the impact it has had on natural resources. You know, to me style has nothing to do with the form of things. I could do a dozen series on partly blurred images of Switzerland, for example, like the one I did in 1995, and although most probably it would sell out,
it would prove to be repetitive and way too easy – it would limit me too much. Style to me is a personalized working method, a conceptual thing. It means that different situations need different actions to pull them into my own space. Urban density requires an approach different from sprawl, but ultimately they end up in the same – by which I mean my own – city, you could say; but that is photographically speaking. To live, I would always prefer a dense urban city to sprawl. I love its diversity, its uncontrolled anonymity, its dirt, its cultural interaction, and the non-places. In the Netherlands, I would not mind building dense megacities the scale of New York City. I prefer that to multiple sleepy, cookie-cutter VINEX districts (sites designated by the government for future urban development) occupying the same amount of space but with nothing interesting happening.

MM From the point of view of the Netherlands, a country that suffers from a severe lack of space, how do you look at other countries, regions and cities in regards to infrastructural issues and their visual characteristics?

FvdS I am watching with great curiosity. I am fascinated by the speed of growth and I am looking with a hungry eye at the enormous amount of input it is generating. I know that some people think megacities are against life itself, but in the Netherlands, which is planned so exhaustively and built horizontally, there’s less space for other uses, such as recreation or ‘new nature’, for example. One of the reasons people prefer living this way is the wish for a garden. I think this partly has to do with the lack of quality green public spaces in Dutch cities, which, to a great extent, have been filled with new buildings over the years, and the need for people to surround themselves with social look-a-likes, something that needs constant affirmation. Large parts of cities like Hong Kong, for example, are structured differently, with easy access to outdoor areas and fantastic public transport. Almost every new high-rise building doubles as a transport hub, and includes shops, different levels with outdoor pools and playgrounds, restaurants, schools, cinemas, day care centers, sometimes even hospitals. These facilities are all available in the same building, so there’s no use for a car really. At the same time it does not feel as structured as the Netherlands because of the sheer scale of the city. This somehow safeguards friction, improvisation, and rejuvenation.

MM Yes, there is a need for friction that also becomes visual.

FvdS In my opinion, the Netherlands cannot afford to only sit back and wish to have all city centers ‘UNESCOed’. If that happens, in 2100 we will be living in a museum and change will be a dirty word. We should learn from places like Hong Kong and re-invent the landscape. Personally, I think it all depends on what you want a big city to be. To me, these megacities are like gigantic hard disks on which you should simply learn to navigate to find the information you are looking for. Once you know, you can start with whatever you want to do and behave naturally. I expect these large urban centers will evolve into our new natural environment.

MM Is the drama of the city that it mutates?

FvdS Metamorphosis is essential to any living creature.

MM Absolutely. What accounts for the particular beauty of urban and/or industrial infrastructure?

FvdS Beauty lies not so much in something nice, but in the intrinsic references it has to our ‘state of being’ within the flat image that is the photograph. ‘Nice’ is nothing, it is empty, superficial.
It pleases, but it does not tell you anything really, because it does not trigger thought. Urban and industrial infrastructures speak an international language of economics and finance, of power and influence, of corporations and trade. And everybody knows what it looks like, because it matches the images of authenticity that we all have in our heads. When they match, only then do we regard these images as real. Rosalind Krauss has written very interestingly about this topic, by the way. Yes, it is a truth and a lie at the same time, and there is a quiet beauty in things we do not understand completely, because you cannot stop searching for confirmation; it is a human condition. We feel connected that way, and it’s very present, all the time. So, it is a kind of archetypical recognition that makes me choose these elements, and it is my fascination with the process and the search for beauty that is really beautiful, because it is so very true to what we think we know.

MM Do you feel that, to a certain extent, there is duplicity between megalopolises these days?

FvdS For sure there is; cultural diversity is under great pressure from globalization, which has put the economy first in large parts of the world more than ever before. It has flattened differences because differences are expensive. Differences cause difficulty of connection, which in turn causes misunderstanding in communication, which costs time and energy and therefore money. Compare the financial districts of major cities and you know what I mean. Really, international confirmation has been the leading design tool here. It created these kinds of non-places, stages, necessary for people to play and become a small detail within the overall design, overpowered by the function of – mostly generic – buildings. There are many cities like this, but from an artistic point of view that is great to work with. They offer me the opportunity to add and create. Marc Augé once stated that non-places are locations that cannot be defined as relational and historic elements that deal with identity. And where parts of the exterior are non-places, parts of non-places are images. That opens the option of adding my own identity and dealing with that issue.
 

Markus Miessen is a London and Berlin-based architect, researcher, educator and writer. Miessen has contributed to (and edited) diverse international publications in the academic, scientific and popular culture field. In 2009 he was PhD candidate at the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths, London, investigating conflict and non-consensus-based forms of participation as a form of alternative spatial practice. In the same year he was a visiting professor at the Berlage Institute, Rotterdam.