Open Letter to Michael Žantovský

Dear Mr. Director,

In response to the call from the Václav Havel Library (hereinafter KVH), I participated in a non-public, non-anonymous one-round selection process for the design of a structure intended to replace the current installation Forum Havlum at Václav Havel Airport. The results were announced to the participants and published on the website www.vaclavhavel.cz on April 4, 2019, with my proposal finishing in 5th place. A few days later, I alerted you in writing and subsequently in person to the fact that none of the three award-winning proposals met the mandatory requirements – and the jury you led, which also included Ondřej Černý, Jiří Fajt, Zdeněk Lukeš, and Jakub Puchalský, was bound by the conditions (which it "committed to respecting and honoring as a contract") to exclude them from the selection. Therefore, I repeatedly called on you, both personally and subsequently through legal representation, to honestly acknowledge the error, annul the irregular results as soon as possible, and inform the participants and the public of this decision.

Although I provided detailed arguments backed by documents, unfortunately, you have persistently refused to acknowledge the obvious irregularity of the results for half a year. In defense of the jury's decision, you cite distorted and untruthful claims that can easily be refuted, or you portray everything as a misunderstanding or a matter of opinion. Therefore, I also reached out to members of the Board of Trustees and Supervisory Board of KVH; after follow-up inquiries, Ms. Dagmar Havlová briefly responded to me through the director of the VIZE 97 Foundation and aligned with your claim that you explained the jury's process adequately. She also stated that the selection process remains within your competence. Thus, I have no choice but to reiterate everything once again – and to approach you again with an appeal for the annulment of the irregular results, this time through a publicly published open letter.

One of the two content-binding conditions was that the proposal creators must consider the implementation of a digital exhibition in the structure at their discretion, which they could view in the premises of KVH and request technical materials for. The digital exhibition consists of the parts Havel in a Nutshell (the life and work of Václav Havel) and Round the World with Václav Havel (a map of Václav Havel's activities), both of which are interactive and based on touch control. The provided technical requirements therefore prescribed the use of touch screens and specified their minimum diagonal sizes of 70 cm and 120 cm, respectively. The selection consultant, Mr. Martin Vidlák, also confirmed that touch screens (of any manufacturer) must be used and that KVH wishes to implement the same exhibition at the airport, so it will not interfere in any way with its digital content (he only allowed for the division of the Havel in a Nutshell part into a different number of screens).

Proposal No. 7 (1st place) places the screens in the center of the structure in such a way that they are inaccessible/reachable. Touch control is not an option; the author himself speaks of a different digital content – automatic projection. Proposal No. 5 (2nd place) incorporates accessible touch screens, but the width of the structure is less than 50 cm, so the proposed screens cannot accommodate the Round the World with Václav Havel part with the minimum required diagonal of 120 cm – even if the world map were absurdly rotated by 90 degrees. Proposal No. 3 (3rd place) contains many small screens in glass passages, on which images are projected automatically according to the authors. None of the awarded proposals, therefore, considers the required application of the existing digital exhibition, which was specifically and clearly described in the conditions.

The reason for the removal of the Forum Havlum structure primarily concerns safety and operational considerations. The selection conditions thus also included a number of technical requirements (simple maintenance and easy cleaning, absence of service, anchoring all elements of the installation due to the potential for theft, transparency of the area, impossibility of hiding people or leaving objects inside and near the installation, etc.). These requirements brought further significant limitations for the conceptual, formal, and material solutions of the proposal. However, the jury also selected projects that do not meet some of the requirements. In Proposal No. 7, it is impossible to speak of easy maintenance and cleaning – the space between the vertical glass panels of graduated height (approximately 20 to 100 cm) spaced approximately 40 cm apart is inaccessible, and for example, removing discarded waste or regular cleaning of the floor or walls of the installation is practically impossible. Proposal No. 3 is a semi-enclosed black, dim box, in which leaving objects discreetly would be quite easy. Proposal No. 1 (4th place) creates a separate space; the jury itself describes it from a safety standpoint as risky. At least three out of the four projects selected for the 2nd round should therefore have been excluded due to non-compliance with the technical requirements for possible placement of the installation in Terminal 2.

Despite the above, you still assert that the jury had the right to its decision. To a significant extent, you deny the existence and importance of the content-binding condition, namely the requirement for the application of the existing exhibition through the touch screens of the prescribed minimum dimensions. You further present the use of a specific interactive exhibition as (any) display of (any) digital content, which does not correspond to the wording of the conditions; additionally, reference to the existing exhibition at KVH would in such case lack any meaning. By arguing based on the preservation of digital content, you then overlook other crucial facts. A touch-controlled exhibition, which includes, for example, the selection of places on a map, cannot be applied on inaccessible screens, as no one would be able to view it, of course. Two of the awarded projects, moreover, incorporate and also describe automatic projection, that is, an exhibition that is different, with a different concept and method of viewing. When fairly comparing the binding conditions and the awarded proposals, the contradictions cannot be explained nor truthfully justified.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge and rectify your obvious error – even at the cost of distorted, untruthful, and nonsensical arguments – even though you often publicly call on others in the name of KVH to respect truth, justice, and rights? Why do you leave the irregular results of the selection in effect, publicly present them, and even intend to build a tribute to Václav Havel based on them? Do you really think that the participants of the selection process, who fulfilled the binding requirements and adapted their proposals accordingly, would not be harmed by the unjust actions of the jury?

Dear Mr. Director, I once again urge you to apply the values of KVH to yourself, publicly acknowledge the errors of the jury you led, and annul the irregular results of the selection process.

Sincerely, Petr Pištěk