Nüüd, kus meie ekspositsiooni külastanute arv tiksub kaugeltki mitte tagasihoidlikku kolmandat miljonit, tundub hirmutavana mõte, et Eesti paviljon võinuks nii lihtsalt olemata olla. Ei mingeid loodusjõude.
Now that the number of visitors to the Estonian pavilion is into its third million, a sum that is not modest by any standard, the thought that the Estonian pavilion could just as well not have come into existence
NII NAD MÜÜSIDKI MEIE RIIGI!
THUS THEY SOLD OUR COUNTRY!
Piisanuks vaid mõne teravmeelsema opositsionääri tähelepanekust, et EXPO on ju pood, kus müüakse Eesti riiki! Lisaks kõlab EXPO-vastasus sama efektselt kui Euro-vastasus, ehitamisele kulunud miljonite eest saanuks kõik pensionärid “Võimatu missioon 2-te” vaatama minna ning tagatipuks olnuks EXPO-l osalemise rahvahääletus ideaalne tribüün ja venitamistaktika atribuut. Kahju luhtunud võimalustest, kuid välispoliitiliselt pole kõik veel kadunud – võib ju tuntud telestaari pillatud hinnangut lõunanaabrite paviljoni aadressil tõlgendada kui embrüonaalse diplomaatilise kriisi ilmselget sümptomit. Tundub koomiline? Mulle mitte, sest müümise ja mittemüümise dialektika võimalused näivad käimasoleva NRG-tehingu näitel lõputuna. Selle taustal on Eesti osalemine EXPO-l niivõrd visioonikeskse ja jõulise lahendusega saavutus omaette ja kinnitab taas kord, et edukas turundus saab olla ja on olemuselt subjektiivne ning ebademokraatlik. Kas otsustab üks (tiim) või on targem igasugune efekt juba eos unustada. Kiirpilk EXPO-le näitab, et riigid kasutavad enese müümiseks taktikaid, mis on end kaubaturul tõestanud. Suured ja inertsemad riigid (brändid) löövad raha ja mahuga, väikeste edu tagab võime radikaalselt eristuda. Eesti oma pisut nahaalse ponkskatusega on viimaste seas päris hea näide. Ei müüda rahvamajandussaavutusi. Pigem rafineeritud mõtteviisi ja riigi kui “ruumi” valmisolekut – eelistab ju raha võimalustetiinet tühjust küsitavale “täiusele”. Eesti paviljoni võib ju vaadelda ka kui installatsiooni, ilma et see müügiedu kuidagi küsimuse alla seaks. Sellest prismast nähtuna võinuks ju paviljoni loonud tiim nüanssides paradigmaatilisemgi olla. Nii sobinuks näiteks riigi teadlik vastandumine tarbimiskultusele hästi rikka lääneeurooplase mõtteviisiga. Pole ju kaugel aeg, mil just tema parandab meie ökoküla elanikuna riigi maksebilanssi.
Igor Baturin Copywriter
seems frightening. No forces of nature whatsoever. Merely a remark by some witty member of the opposition to the effect that EXPO is a shop where the country of Estonia is being sold would have been sufficient to derail it! Moreover, opposition to EXPO sounds as impressive as opposition to the European Union. All pensioners could have seen Mission Impossible II for the millions spent on construction. Finally, a referendum on participation in EXPO would have been an ideal podium and attribute of obstruction tactics. It is a shame about the failed opportunities, yet all is not lost in the field of foreign policy. The offhand appraisal of the pavilion of our southern neighbors by a known television star may be interpreted as a clear symptom of an embryonic diplomatic crisis. Does this seem comical? Not to me because the possibilities of the dialectics of selling and not selling appear to be endless considering the example of the NRG deal presently at hand. Considering this, the participation of Estonia in EXPO with such a visionary and powerful design is an accomplishment in itself, confirming once again that successful marketing can be and is essentially subjective and nondemocratic. Either one (team) decides, or perhaps it is wiser to abandon all manner of effects right from the very beginning. A quick glance at EXPO shows that countries use tactics for “selling” themselves that have proved themselves on the market. Large, more inert countries (brands) strike with money and volume. The hopes of small countries for success are in the ability to differ radically. Estonia with its slightly impudent roof is a rather good example of the latter. It does not try to sell the economic achievements of the people. Rather, it offers a refined way of thinking and the readiness of the country as a “space”. Rather a vacancy brimming with possibilities than a questionable wholeness. And what could be more appealing to money? The Estonian pavilion can also be viewed as an installation without undermining its “successful sales” in the least. The team that created the pavilion could even have been more paradigmatic in its nuances when considering the matter through this prism. Thus, for example, consciously contrasting the country with the religion of consumerism and the manner of thinking of well-to-do Western Europeans would have been suitable. The time when he in particular as a resident of our ecological village improves the balance of payments of our country is not far off in the future.
Igor Baturin Copywriter