NEWSWEEK: How did the Guggenheim initially get involved in the Saadiyat Island project? Thomas Krens: It was probably a kind of coincidence of two objectives—the objective of the Emirates and Sheik Mohammed, and the objectives of the Guggenheim, which over the last 50 years has clearly developed a strategy of international development. We have museums in Bilbao, Las Vegas, Berlin, New York. Our board has approved a strategic plan that calls out three areas in the world where we could be interested in doing something: the Middle East, Asia and Latin America.
From the other side, I had been paying attention to the developments taking place in the United Arab Emirates, particularly in Dubai, and I recognized that Abu Dhabi has extraordinary resources. Abu Dhabi is 94 percent of the landmass of the UAE and has the equivalent percentage of its oil, and a good deal of potential to develop economy and expand. In 2005, Sheik Sultan, head of the ADTA, and a team visited Bilbao then visited New York and engaged the Guggenheim is a discussion. For practical purposes, not many institutions do what we do and do it at the level of architectural sophistication and financial planning. They had discussions with us about Bilbao, they were intrigued by the Guggenheim there. I met with Sheik Mohamed in October of 2005. He candidly asked me what I would do, so I described what I would do, and he liked it.
Had you been approached by other countries in the region? Business moguls, governors, mayors—they all come through the Guggenheim on a regular basis. Bilbao has had such an enormous impact.
The numbers are hugely impressive and so is the standard. In last three years, more than 130 cities have made an initially inquiry into doing something like Bilbao. We are more or less in this business. But 95 percent of inquiries don’t have any substance or they are not in the position to make financial or capital investments for one of top museums in world in terms of exhibition programming and among the best expertise in terms of international development.
We did spend a great deal of time in this part of the world [the Middle East]. We had a plan with Qatar that was equally ambitious though different, orientated toward the education and cultural investment in the country. I spent a lot of time in Qatar, though one wasn’t necessarily amazed by the resources there. I had meeting with Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait. For various reasons, it wasn’t a match with our aspirations—we have very definite aspirations for what the Guggenheim is and represents. For a while, we thought that match would take place in Qatar, but problems developed there internally in how the project was unfolding. It was not surprising, but despite all the work, it didn’t come together there.
What was your initial impression of the Abu Dhabi project? Having the discussion with Abu Dhabi wasn’t automatically like, “Wow.”
I do a certain amount of traveling. When I came there, I was impressed, no doubt. I wasn’t overwhelmed, but I was impressed. And it has gotten better. I’m convinced of their commitment and their sincerity.
Abu Dhabi had the Gensler Associates first design the master plan. It was intelligent, but more or less unremarkable from an architectural standpoint. They divided the island into six districts and developed a road network. One area was called out as the cultural district. They just had placeholders of very vague and amorphous notations—museums, performing arts center, conventional stuff.
Abu Dhabi was looking for it to be a tourist destination. So what are components of a tourist destination? Luxury hotels, condos, golf courses. So they carved it into districts. OK, so what’s next? It is easy to say “museums,” but it is harder to get the Louvre or the Guggenheim. Those are conditions of discussion and debate. We represent our brand. It has a certain level of quality—programming, collections and architecture.
How did the vision for the cultural district evolve? The Guggenheim signed an agreement to develop the master plan for the cultural district, which called out a modern and contemporary art museum, a classic art museum, a national museum, a maritime museum, a performing arts center and a biennale pavilion.
My driving concept was to create a critical mass that by definition would be—rather aggressively—the greatest concentration of contemporary cultural resources in the world. We worked for 18 months very closely with Sheik Sultan, the TDIC and the ADTA to develop a presentation of the cultural-district master plan. It was completed in January of 2007. We looked at what existed around the world, looked at the resources and the scope, and designed our plan to surpass everything—and Abu Dhabi has the resources to do this.
What was your experience working with Abu Dhabi? In that part of world, most decisions have to take place with a approval of the rulers. Shiekh Mohammed is the crown prince, and this is very much a Sheik Mohammed project. But we have a great deal of contact on a weekly basis with Sheik Sultan—with Sheik Mohammed, it has been episodic, more to set the direction and at end to make presentations, with several moments in between. It fits into the conventional decision-making process in that part of the world.
What was your biggest challenge? We had to persuade many of the architects to participate. It was not easy to get them committed to being in this part of the world. Let me think of a diplomatic way of saying this: real-estate development in Dubai has a theme-park atmosphere that the architects were very apprehensive about. Many of them had been contacted previously—not by the government but by individual developers. There is a different attitude about development and architecture here than what we represent. It is a combination of distances and the cultures. So it is hardly self-evident that something like this would have credibility. It took a while. The Guggenheim lent credibility to this and confidence, as did one by one the architects.
Sheik Mohamed really wanted [architect Frank] Gehry to design the contemporary art museum. But we couldn’t just sign him up. It was a combination of enthusiasm and persuasion. “Come on, Frank, take a look at this, I think it’s good.” Frank agreed to come to Abu Dhabi. They did a great job with presenting the rather extraordinary things here. The crowned prince met with all the architects. Zaha Hadid was actually a little bit more skeptical [because she knows the Arab world].
There is less confusion now Dubai with Abu Dhabi. A year ago, if you mentioned Abu Dhabi to most Americans, they would recount it and call it Dubai. That’s happening less, and that’s hardly surprising. That’s exactly what Abu Dhabi is seeking—seeking to draw distinction between Abu Dhabi and Dubai, make sure world understands this part of the world.
Have you been surprised by the intense criticism of the project? Though the situation is different in scale, I would point to Bilbao.
Basque country is a very tense region, with a great deal of political activism, separatist tendencies, a strong suspicion of the continued unity with the central government. I came up for a huge amount of criticism for Bilbao. Why Bilbao? Where is Bilbao? It’s a decaying, industrial city, very small, no place for sophisticated, international culture. Look what happened. Bilbao has been successful in every conceivable way—architecturally, programmatically, audience. It is an unlikely location in a small town, but the Gehry design made it one of great buildings of 20th century. But there isn’t a situation or condition that is not going to avoid criticism because people are always skeptical.
We have the opportunity to be very engaged in a very sensitive partnership. Look at the great cultural cities of the Middle East—Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad. These cities were doing it way before the Europeans had cultural centers. Are there any rules that say the Middle East can’t attain that status again? Does that ambition have to ruled out?
Are you concerned with the possibility of censorship? I don’t think censorship is an issue. Being sensitive to local tradition is not problematic from my standpoint. I don’t see it as something negative that defines this project. Are we going to do things that challenge local sensitivities? Look at Dubai. Look at how international culture fits into this part of the world. It exists. I don’t see this as something that is a problem here. That doesn’t mean there won’t be individual situations where sensitive discretion will be exercised, but we are hardly going to begin a program thinking of ways we can upset the balance of the local situation. And looking at contemporary art across the board, 99 percent of it not going to be problem.
If you were sitting in this part of the world 60 years ago and described that there would be an airport and a city like Dubai, what would you say? Absolutely impossible, crazy, unattainable. But the world is changing. The fact is that they want to change. And the fact is that you can’t get a hotel room in Dubai or Abu Dhabi. The fact is that investment is taking place on a colossal level. What do you think?
Will the Guggenheim make any efforts to include local arts and culture in the museums? That’s not my option. I’m not a service company. What we do at the Guggenheim has an objective to be one of top elite cultural institutions in the world. We set out a conscious global strategy.
What role will education play in the Saadiyat Island project? Education is a big part of it. The Sorbonne signed on here. One of introductions that we did make upon request was Yale University. Yale is negotiating and discussing to bring a creative campus here. They have the grad schools of architecture, design, music, and drama. We presume it will go forward. We see the Guggenheim as an educational institution. We’re storytellers, organizing historical artifacts into compelling narratives.
Qatar did the same thing with Cornell. The fact that this development is taking place now is obviously largely a function of resources—the discovery of oil is only 50 years old. But the objective is not to spend it all but to invest in the intellectual culture and life of the region. These are things that have to happen at this point of their development.
