The transnational construction of national identities: A classification of national pavilions at world fairs

Abstract

This chapter proposes a typology of the architecture of national pavilions. The current architectural classification is not very suitable because it highlights the supposedly unique, national character of most pavilions. For a comparative analysis of the way in which the nation was represented two factors are crucial. Was the pavilion inspired by buildings pertaining to high culture – such as temples and palaces – or does it refer to “low” culture – such as vernacular buildings or commercial structures? Another axis is the opposition between a universalist language (timeless classicism or a future-oriented functionalist style) and national particularism (which could be expressed by focusing on characteristic features). By thus defining four different options for national pavilions a number of global trends can be mapped. Around 1900, the emphasis on high culture – expressed in a dominant role for classicist and historicist pavilions – was replaced by a growing influence of popular culture – both in the form of festive, commercial structures and neo-vernacular buildings. Another clear shift is the rapid advance of architectural modernism in the late 1920s. Moreover, the typology shows that transnational influences are crucial to understand the decision-making process concerning the construction of national pavilions. First, global architectural trends heavily influenced how each participating country aimed to position itself. Second, the definition of each country’s national heritage was largely determined by a transnational public. World fairs induced a quest for the extraordinary; quaint and striking buildings became a central aspect of the nation’s heritage everywhere.