World on View
Phoebe Morrison History of Exhibition Culture RISD 2017
1
2
Pessimism doesn’t make Expos: the model is Star Trek, not Blade Runner. -Paul Greenhalgh
3
4
5
6
PUTTING AN END TO THE VANITY FAIR Interview with Jacquez Herzog originally published in Uncubed Magazine for the issue titled Expotecture. Written by Florian Heilmeyer.
How did you get involved in designing the masterplan for the Expo 2015 in Milano?
We were invited by Stefano Boeri, who is based in Milan and was commissioned to develop the masterplan. His ambitions were to fundamentally rethink the entire Expo format. The concept of a “World’s Fair” appears to be very outdated. It is a model from the last century, and Stefano really wanted to turn it into an exhibition for the 21st century. So he invited us to work together with William McDonough and Ricky Burdett on this masterplan, because he knew we would share his ambition to radically reinvent the idea of a World’s Fair. He also knew he would need a strong team in order to turn this revolutionary ambition into reality. What made you think the Expo in Milan would be interested in such a radical and critical approach?
I have seen a few World’s Fairs. Particularly the last one in Shanghai in 2010 made it clear to me that these Expos
have become huge shows designed merely to attract millions of tourists. A giant area filled with enormous pavilions, one always more spectacular than the other, and these unbelievable vast halls for gastronomy, shops and pissoirs. What a bore and a waste of money and resources! We decided only to accept the invitation to design the Milan masterplan if our client would accept a radically new vision for a world exhibition; abandoning these monuments of individual national pride that have turned all Expos since the mid-nineteenth century into obsolete vanity fairs. Instead we wanted to oblige every participant to channel all their pride into their contribution to the Expo’s theme of “Feeding the Planet”: addressing the important topics of food production, agriculture, water, ecology etc. The content of the exhibitions should make the countries look different, not the size of their pavilions. Also we felt that this expo would be exactly the right place to start focusing on content, because it simply seems embarrassing to address
this very important topic and at the same time built enormous, dramatically curved pavilions with facades in wavy plastic or with spectacular waterfalls or whatever. We would much rather know how countries like Kenya, Mexico, China, Laos or Germany are dealing with the question of how to feed their people. How did your masterplan try to disrupt the dominance of the national pavilion architecture?
We suggested a strong basic and generic pattern with two big main axes based on the cardo/decumanus orthogonal grid of the antique Roman city. This would create a grid of extremely long and rather thin plots, with every country having a plot of the same size. We proposed encouraging all participants to present their exhibitions as agricultural gardens with only very simple, basic shacks forming sheltered spaces for their exhibitions. All of this would have been covered by a structure of tent roofs stretching over the entire site, provided by the organisers. This would 7
have resulted in all participants having plots of equal size under the same light roof structure, with no big individual pavilions.
individual designs and break with the Expo traditions they have all been following for so long now. It was clear to many people that the themes of this Expo deserved to be treated differently, but they were not prepared to follow our guidelines.
This would indeed have turned the Expo as we know it upside down. Did you really think you could get away with these radical ideas?
So what happened to your masterplan?
Our intentions were clear from the very beginning and the organisers understood and supported us. However they were not powerful or courageous enough to convince their own organisation and the responsible politicians to support them. As a consequence they were reluctant to convey that fundamental message to the participating countries to forgo their
It became the official basis for the Expo in Milan - yet only as an urbanistic and formal pattern, not as an intellectual concept. The tent roofs we proposed are now covering the main boulevard in front of the national pavilions, which seems an absurd reversing of our ideas. As I said, we are not involved in the realisation of the Expo anymore. From what I have heard about
8
the coming pavilions and concepts, it seems that this Expo will be the same kind of vanity fair that we’ve seen in the past. What was lacking to have made your concept reality?
I cannot put the blame on anyone or anything in particular. All the people we discussed our concept with were quite intelligent and understanding - but bound to their employers and/or voters. I still think that everyone involved at Expo agrees with our critical vision of what a World’s Fair should be and that the basic idea behind it should be kept for the next possible occasion. But when if not there, in Milan, with people like Stefano Boeri
and Ricky Burdett on our side, could we convince an Expo client to take that risk? An event this big (and expensive) has many forces acting upon it and I am not even sure if there ever was a conscious decision against our concept. Maybe it is rather like a swarm of fish swimming in one direction; we tried to navigate it in the other, but somehow they kept swimming. Maybe we should have initiated a diplomatic mission, sending the very talented “diplomat” Ricky Burdett to every single participant, explaining our concept, and to win them over. But this was impossible, and we then realised that the organisers would not – or could not – undertake the necessary steps to make these ideas
happen. Since 2011 none of the offices are involved anymore – Boeri, McDonough and Burdett got out, and we decided to end our collaboration with the Expo team that was an almost daily exchange until that moment. The Expo team has dealt with the realisation themselves since then. Yet the structure will still be based on your ideas. At least that’s what the Expo office tells us. Do you believe that this Expo will be different from the others, even just a little bit?
I believe that some countries understood our concept and therefore will put more weight on content than on form. Also, as far as I know there will be 13 ngos like
Oxfam and wwf adding some important topics. But they will have small, modest venues compared to the big global companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, New Holland or Agriculture, which will be present with huge shows – and we can expect similar marketing shows from many of the participating countries. So I am afraid that the visitors will again be blinded and distracted rather than informed and made aware of chances and risks, of opportunities and difficulties, of politics and business, etc. There is an amazing variety of global themes that should be tackled and brought to the fore – the conventional format with national pavillons competing for design awards cannot deliver that! 9
Much to your own surprise, you became involved with the Expo once again in 2014 when Carlo Petrini asked you to design the pavilion for the International Slow Food Movement. Why did you decide to work again within the framework of your own failed masterplan?
a triangular courtyard, an open and communal space. After the Expo they will be easily dismantled and reassembled as garden sheds in school gardens around Italy, to be used by Carlo’s Slow Food Movement for their ongoing educative school programme.
That was only because of Carlo, who had been working with us on our ideas for the Expo from the very beginning. He was reluctant himself about joining a big show event like this, but had finally agreed to present Slow Food on a very prominent location within our grid: a triangular plot at the eastern end of the central boulevard, which we always imagined to become one of the main public forums. We felt that it would be great to have Carlo and his ideas and convictions being represented, so we couldn’t resist. I believe that our Slow Food Pavilion will demonstrate how we had imagined all the pavilions of this Expo to be. It is composed of three very simple shacks made of almost archaic wooden structures, like market stalls, which define
Do you think that the upcoming Expo editions in Antalya, Astana and Dubai will pick up on the principles of your collective masterplan?
10
I still believe that most of all we have to overcome this ridiculous system of national pride represented by individual pavilion design. Difference should be real, i.e. based on content, not on architectural design – basta! A World’s Fair must expose common topics and problems, presenting different ways of dealing with these problems in different regions of our world. That would be an amazing and exciting exhibition that I would be eager to visit on the very first day it opens. Yet of course this is much more difficult than to simply stick to the existing model, and that’s why
unfortunately it is very unlikely that it’s going to happen anytime soon. I would rather expect the upcoming Expos to be more like the one in Shanghai again, trying to attract an ever-larger crowd of visitors. If you say that so many people were convinced by the ideas inherent in your masterplan, what would it take to make things change in the future?
As long as the Expos are more or less an economic success – at least to promoters of tourism – there will not be any fundamental change, simply because there is no real need to change anything. The Olympic Games are meanwhile viewed very sceptically in many democratic countries, which is at least partially due to the fact that they are a very profitable business for only a very few, and a financial disaster for the hosting city or country. As a consequence such events will increasingly take place in countries where democratic systems are not so well developed and such shows serve as propaganda for the political regime.
Nationalism, brand identity, propaganda, politics and economics, all wrapped up in spectacle and shiny architectural gestures: Expos, says author and historian Paul Greenhalgh, are a quintessentially modern invention – the most effective peaceable way to wage war. -Paul Greenhalgh
11
12
13
14
Lost in Translation
When Herzog & De Meuron were first approached to design the Milan Expo to be held in 2015 they said yes under the condition that the expo break the mold of what a world fair was like. The theme was set to be “Feeding the Planet Energy For Life.� The serious theme of the expo seemed like a great opportunity to simplify the concept of the expo down to its purest form. The proposal that was accepted for the design of the expo included a main road that spanned the site, connecting all of the pavilions. Instead of large modern pavilions, Herzog & De Meuron encouraged each country to devote the majority of their lots to gardens. The pavilions would be secondary to the gardens and would just serve as understated shacks for exhibitions. This plan would allow for the expo to be installed with minimal investment from the participating countries and would be easy to take down at the end of the expo. The Milan Expo committee agreed with this plan but as the countries began
to submit their drawings for pavilions it became clear that getting everyone on the same page would be close to impossible. Participating in an expo is a large financial investment for a nation. There are high expectations for what participation in an expo will bring a nation. It is a chance for a nation to make a big statement about where they fit on the world stage. Trying to send out a message of national unity and strength from behind an understated shack was too much for most countries to accept. Ultimately Herzog & De Meuron stepped down from the project. On their website they have written quite brashly, “As much as we were convinced that our master-plan would be a good platform for the radical re-invention of what a world exhibition could be in the 21st century, we understood that the organizers would not undertake the necessary steps to convince the participating nations to give up on their conventional indulging in self-contemplation instead of focusing on their specific 15
contribution to agriculture and food production.” This brutally honest account of what it was like working on the expo shows how challenging it is to honor the theme of an expo, when the underlying themes are unavoidable. While parts of the expo’s original plan remained like the main road with a large tented structure, minimalism certainly wouldn’t make the list of descriptors for the event. The glorification of the pavilion has become deeply ingrained in expo culture. It is a symbol for everything a country stands for in a very utopian sense and that rarely comes with out a grand architectural gestures. 16
The culture of nationalistic display has always occurred in the world’s fair setting. In the Crystal Palace, the resources and culture of colonized nations were showcased to strengthen support for the British Empire. Although things have changed since the Crystal Palace the platform of the fair is still used in a similar way. Investing in a pavilion is like buying ad space at the super bowl. Nations have to make their own decisions about what will benefit them the most. At the end of the day no theme is more important than nationalism. With so many people working on the project coming from such a wide range of backgrounds it is difficult to
create a cohesive expo experience. Despite an optimistic plan for the Expo it is clear that the organizers and many visitors are not ready to end the era of the vanity fair. The dis-conjunction that occurs at the event only adds to the spectacle that people have come to expect from world’s fairs. The New York Times wrote, “... among dozens of buildings lined up in aesthetic disjunction, like words pulled from a hat by a Dadaist poet.” The whole affair is wonderfully odd and not unlike the fairs that have come before it.
17
18
Bringing in The Masses
Reading through reports of both the Milan Expo and the 1939 World’s Fair there is an enormous fascination with scale. The amount spent on fair was speculated time and time again in magazines and newspapers along with the expected number of visitors. Even metrics like the number of trees planted at the 1939 World’s Fair became an exciting element of the spectacle. National Geographic wrote, “The whole area covered by the Fair embraces 1,216 acres. There are 17 miles of roads, 45 miles of footpaths, and 300 buildings. About 2,000,000 growing plants are shown; there are 250 acres of lawn and 10,000 trees transplanted and set as in landscape gardens… The total cost of construction was about 155,000,000. About 60,000,000 people, including repeaters, are expected to pay admission…” This quote regarding the 1939 World’s Fair is one of many articles I found written in this way. The focus of much of the promotional material for the
event is on large numbers rather than large ideas. Visitors are drawn in by the grand spectacle of the crowds and visual displays. Although expos have always been a means of bringing tourist dollars into a city, the public’s perception of that has shifted. Life magazine published an article on the development of the World’s Fair while it was still being constructed. They wrote, “The fair, however, has always declared primarily that it is more concerned with instruction than amusement. An out-and-out advertising venture, sponsored by New York businessmen who expect visitors to spend $1,000,000,000 in their city, the Fair has a high-sounding purpose: to demonstrate the interdependence of men and the blessings of democracy.”This quote is one of the only instances I have found where the intentions of the fair have been questioned. Much of what I have read presents the fair as a bringer of hope and better days. The 19
20
fair was coming at the end of The Great Depression and promised a hopeful future along with an influx of tourism. It was proposed as something that would be beneficial to all. The fair’s emphasis on using the tools of today to build the world tomorrow allowed for visitors to take a break from their reality. Much like in art museums, visitors are asked to put aside their frustrations and find comfort in the possibility of a better future. In a time of uncertainty, the World’s Fair provided proof of what was to come. The goals for the Milan Expo were very similar but the public did not respond to it
nearly as well. When it was announced there was a lot of opposition. Protests were held in the streets of Milan as a part of the No Expo Movement. Protesters argued that the Expo was only going to benefit big businesses. The lure of a mass tourism event has passed. The pattern of expos has shown huge investments and not much positive impact for the nations people. Italy had been experiencing an economic downturn and the high-stakes investment was not a popular decision. The government set aside 1.3 billion for infrastructure and construction surrounding the expo. When allegations of
corruption started to fill the news, the opposition to the expo intensified. Despite interruptions to the construcstion of the site the expo opened on time with only a few of the pavilions incomplete. In six months the expo was estimated to have brought in twenty million visitors which met the projections for the event that had been set. This shows how much appeal events like the Milan Expo still have. Even though opposition has grown there is still a market for glitzy shows.
21
22
23
24
The Pavilion
Herzog’s creative battle over the tone of the pavilions at the Milan Expo shows how important the pavilion is as a symbol for a nation. The construction of a Pavilion is a time for a country to wrap up all their efforts into one modern and forward thinking package. As I walked around the expo the outlandish architecture is the thing that screamed the loudest. The only thing that you don’t have to wait in line to see are the pavilions themselves. The exhibitions on the inside were largely secondary to the buildings that housed them. As Oliver Wainwright wrote for The Guardian, “Because, ultimately, surely the only point of visiting an Expo is to marvel, drop-jawed with morbid fascination, at the bizarre architectural freak-show, and be entranced by the same sense of contemptuous captivation that comes from watching the Eurovision Song Contest. It is a spectacular mess, but it’s also fascinating to see national ambitions embodied, side by side, in a line-up of skin-deep architectural flourishes.”
The pavilions become a strange assemblage of styles all fighting to prove their modernity and power. Before visiting the Milan Expo I went to the Venice Biennale. The event happens every two years on the same site and the pavilions do not change from year to year. The only countries with pavilions rivaling the ones form the Milan Expo are new entries to biennale. This allows the focus to stay on the art and not on the architecture. The pavilions, for the most part, are understated and worn around the edges. The American pavilion is done in a traditional style and really doesn’t say much about what America means today. This forces countries to be more resourceful and use what they have to say something about who they are today. I was struck by the Israeli Pavilion which was covered in a sheet of old tires that had been zip-tied together. It was a simple and inexpensive move that helped align the structure with the work inside the pavilion.
25
26
27
28
This humbleness would not be possible at the Milan Expo. If a country is going to spend money on constructing a pavilion they are going to build the thing that will showcase them the best. There were some pavilions that were designed to fit specificallywithin the theme. Many more were likely very considered but put aesthetics above content. Elivia Wilj wrote about her experiences at the Expo in an article for Uncubed, “Practically spartan in comparison with its neighboring architecture, Bahrain’s oasis, designed by Dutch architect Anne Holtrop and Swiss landscape architect Anouk Vogel, is
assembled of cool concrete panels that will eventually be re-purposed as a botanical Garden in Bahrain. It is one of the very few pavilions where anything edible is actually being cultivated, or with any attention paid to its own structural sustainability.” This is one of the few examples of pavilions that had active garden and considered the life of the pavilion after the close of the expo. Now that the event has ended there is much talk about what will happen to the pavilions. Most of the pavilions were not built to last but were also not meant to be disposed of easily. This means that a lot of the resources used to build the pavilions will go to waste.
The theme of feeding the planet makes it difficult to appreciate a large architecture display. The Huffington Post wrote, “I left wondering why so many countries - many very poor with starving citizens - would make the large investment to be present at what seems like a giant, glitzy tourist information show.” It is hard to say if the Expo has done more harm than good. There are many indirect unseen benefits. Perhaps a country’s multimedia display will inspire a wave of tourism or raise awareness for world hunger.
29
“...it simply seems embarrassing to address this very important topic and at the same time build enormous, dramatically curved pavilions with facades in wavy plastic or with spectacular waterfalls or whatever.� -Jacques Herzog
30
“It was a wonderful fair, with fantastic modern architecture, waterfalls coming down off buildings, lights shining upward at night upon the bright green young trees; with fountains, and fireworks, and a General Motors Futurama…” -1939 Newspaper
31
32
Expo and Enterprise
Much of the protest surrounding the Milan Expo was in regards to its blatant alignment with big business. McDonald’s, Illy and Coca-Cola all had a large presence at the Expo. The entire country of Italy was littered with collectible Expo themed jars of Nutella and Illy x Expo sugar packets. An event as large and costly as a world’s fair requires corporate sponsors. The United States, for example, is banned from spending tax payer’s dollars on international expos. In order for the United States to participate, support is needed from private sponsors. With sponsors comes different voices all trying to get what they need from the event. The message becomes diluted and misguided. The New York Times wrote, “In all, Expo has around 150 dining spots, including McDonald’s (yes, McDonald’s, whose inclusion at Expo raised the ire of Italy’s Slow Food Movement) and a Coca-Cola pavilion, where visitors wait in line for a free Coke. A question came to mind: Is Expo part of the problem or part of the
solution?” The expo published the Milan Charter which lays out the themes of the event. It is not very reflective of what manifested itself. Some of the themes listed include, access to healthy food, sufficient and nutritious food, and sustainability of production processes. I think many visitors left wondering how a sugary drink like coke fits into that vision for the future of food. The view of corporations has shifted a lot since the 1939 World’s Fair. People today often have negative associations with large companies because they can take jobs away and hurt local economies. In 1939 corporate sponsors had a different reputation. Paul Greenlagh wrote, “Yet the World of Tomorrow turned out to be dominated more by corporations than by nations. In the United States businesses had always used fairs to compete with one another, but in the past they had occupied in a distinctly lower rank than American states or foreign nations. In 1939, however, the corporations did more than display 33
their products; they took on the role of interpreting the future to the American public, telling them that the long depression and danger of war could be overcome and that a utopian future for their children was achievable by 1960,” (204). At the 1939 World’s Fair, the public was looking for signs of a positive future. Corporations like General Motors took the opportunity to present themselves as the harbingers of that tomorrow. The General Motors Futurama exhibited the world of tomorrow with their product inserted into it. The public put their trust in the corporations to help bring them out of the depression. 34
They were hopeful that the promise would be kept and that things would turn around by 1960. Greenhalgh also wrote, “Corporations promised a cornucopia of goods and services that would eliminate social problems and usher in an age of universal ease and abundance.” (222) Since 1939 the trust in big business has dissolved. While brands still have an enormous amount of power given to them by the consumer, that power is questioned. Despite increased opposition nothing has changed from 1939. Instead of the Futurama we have the Coop’s Supermarket of Tomorrow and instead of the Heinz Pavilion we have the Coca-Cola Pavilion.
The continued presence of corporations at the fair shows that there are still many benefits for businesses who sponsor expos. At the end of the day visitors come to expos to marvel at the spectacle of it all. The shows put on by nations are not all that different from that of the corporations. All of the pavilions aim to dazzle and most of the spectators are ready to experience the show, whatever motive may be behind it all.
35
36
Exhibitions of Power
Exhibition culture and politics have always been tightly aligned. The display of wealth and high culture is its own unusual form of warfare. As Carol Duncan wrote in Civilizing Rituals, “Ceremonial displays of accumulated treasure go back to the most ancient of times,” (21). There has always been a desire to use material goods to express power and to intimidate.
used to express political dominance and strength. In the Crystal Palace the sections on India and the other British colonies were shown prominently. They developed an exhibition that would present the countries as prosperous and full of culture under British control. This was a way to harness material goods to form new meaning.
When I visited the Expo I thought it was curious how my friends were eager to visit the pavilions of their home countries first. Seeing what your country thinks it is like is one of the strangest part of the spectacle. Jacques Herzog describes the expo as a vanity fair. In many ways that is truly what an expo is. We visit our own countries pavilion to look at a reflection of our own culture. It is reminiscent of panoramas when visitors would pay to see a representation of their own city that is better than reality.
Ever since the Crystal Palace politics and world’s fairs have been inseparable. It is one of the grandest ways for a nation to declare their strength on a world stage. Paul Greenlagh wrote in Uncubed Magazine, “Expos are a quintessentially modern invention, the physical manifestation of material progress, and their rationale can be found in the need for money and national cohesion.” World’s fairs are an unusual opportunity for a country to refine and express what they stand for. A utopian vision can be constructed and presented to the world as fact.
The displays in the Crystal Palace in 1851 are a clear example of how exhibits can be
The theme of the Milan Expo was diluted again by the political agendas of the 37
38
participants. Many countries utilized their exhibitions to tell a story about their country at large rather then to focus on food production. An article on Hyper Allergic remarks, “...the Turkmen pavilion doesn’t even try. It touts the country’s ornate rugs, its exceptional horses, and, above all, its mighty oil industry... While every other pavilion struggles to play along with Expo Milan’s sham of a theme, the Turkmen pavilion embraces the fraud whole heartedly.” Turkmenistan is not the only country who put the theme aside in favor of a nationalistic celebration. Nationalism is always present inside of the pavilions but is usually expressed more discretely.
Despite high costs for participation in an world’s fair, there is still enormous pressure to participate. Presence at a fair has come to symbolize the state of the nation. “...‘Rivals must participate,’ Benedict notes. ‘ Failure to do so is acknowledgment of defeat, of the superiority of one’s rival.” Or it is an admission of enmity-neither Germany nor Spain came to the New York fair. In contrast, Japan, Italy, and the Soviet Union entered the competition, seeking to use the fair as a showcase for their societies,” (203-204) Not participating in an expo has come to represent weakness. There is an expectation for participation regardless of how trivial the whole affair really is. Looking into the
future Jacques Herzog said, “Such events will increasingly take place in countries where democratic systems are not so well developed and such shows serve as propaganda for the political regime.” The public has become increasingly critical to the world’s fair but it is hard to say if that will be enough to keep them from occurring. Even if the fairs have questionable motives it will be difficult to stop people from lining up for the events like moths to a flame.
39
40
41
42
Bibliography Donadio, Rachel. “Milan’s Expo 2015 Finds Success, but With a Muddled Message.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016.
Keleher, Heather. “Milan World Expo: Pavilions and Expectations vs. Reality.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Nov. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016.
Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.
Wainwright, Oliver. “Expo 2015: What Does Milan Gain by Hosting This Bloated Global Extravaganza?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 May 2015. Web. 22 May 2016.
“Expo Milano 2015 | Nutrire Il Pianeta, Energia per La Vita!” Expo Milano 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. Greenlagh, Paul. “Fair Trade.” Uncube Magazine. Web. 22 May 2016. Greenlagh, Paul. “Origins and Conceptual Development.” Cultures of International Exhibitions, 1840-1940: Great Exhibitions in the Margins. Print. Heilmeyer, Florian. “Putting an End to the Vanity Fair.” Uncube Magazine. Web. 22 May 2016.
Wilk, Elvia. “Expo Milano: No Critique Necessary...” Uncube Magazine. 22 July 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. Sutton, Benjamin. “The Nine Circles of Hell at Expo Milano, the 2015 World’s Fair.” Hyperallergic RSS. 28 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. Articles surrounding the 1939 World’s Fair are from various unidentifiable newspaper clippings and magazines as well as issues of Life Magazine from the time.
Photography Photos from the 1939 World’s Fair courtesy of the risd Picture Collection Architectural renderings from Herzog & De Meuron Russian Pavilion. Digital image. Russia Expo Milano 2015. Web.
uae Pavilion. Digital image. Niuanse-studio. tumblr. Web. Grazia, Sergio. Chinese Pavilion. Digital image. Sergio Grazia. Web. World’s Fair Inc. Digital image. Medium. Web. Fake Pigs. Digital image. Hyperallergic. Web.
Coca-Cola Pavilion. Digital image. China Daily.
Milan Expo. Digital image. exyd. Web.
Coop Pavilion. Digital image. Cefla Shopfitting.
Turkmen Pavilion. Digital image. Rubber Slippers in Italy. Web.
World of Tomorrow. Digital image. Wired. Web. Expo Milano 2015 Du Pavillon Vanke. Digital image. Casal Grande Padana. Web.
Slow Food Pavilion. Digital image. EgoMagazine. Web.
VP, Yannick. Etihad Airways A330 “expo-2015” Digital image. Flickr. Web.
Colophon Type: Priori Sans ot Priori Serif ot
Paper: Xerox Digital Color Elite Silk
43