The image That Counts by Hugo Lopes

THE IMAGE THAT COUNTS

Thinking when presenting architecture

Hugo Lopes

The image that counts: thinking when presenting architecture Hugo Lopes

Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Fidel Meraz Undergraduate Dissertation, Architecture (BSc) Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England

(5082 words)

This study was completed as part of the Dissertation Module at the University of the West of England. The work is my own. Where the work of others is used or drawn on, it is attributed to the relevant source.

Bristol, January 2019

I would like to thank Fidel, for the orientation. My dad and mom, my mentors and anti-procastination advisors. To all my friends: Doe and Kale, for the video-call conversations that keep making me question my own discourse about architecture, Nica, for the constant support; and those who had a few minutes to hear me blathering about this dissertation. Robin Wilson, for the lunch meeting and Jonathan Moasley for arranging it. And, all the creators whose work keeps inspiring.

4 5

1 6 7

8 9 10

Preamble Introduction: specifying the image CHAPTER ONE: THE IMAGE 1. Towards the ‘bigger picture’: behind and beyond words and images 2. Representations, realities and the reality of the image 3. The image: photography in architectural publications CHAPTER TWO: WHAT COUNTS? 4.Roles subjacent to the image 4.1. The place of the image when thinking architecture 5. Current challenges of the image 6. The next image CONCLUSION 7. The image as part of what counts in architecture BIBLIOGRAPHY

8. References

figure 1

preamble

Figure 1, on the left, is a ‘print-screen’ of a conversation held in mid-July 2018, in

response to an article posted on Dezeen (a digital architecture magazine) about ‘a minimal concrete house in Porto’. The conversation started with my comment pointing on the lack of information that the article offered about the design of the house itself over the supremacy of the photos depicting the new house. I was lucky enough to have someone replying to me. On the comment, it was said that “very emptiness” of the house that the photos showed was enjoyable and engaging, and it was argued how the housing market might have had a direct influence in the staging of the house. In the following comment, I answered that it was not the empty ‘staging’ of the house that I was interested about, but rather how on the article never mentioned how the project responded to its context, none of the design decisions were explained and neither was the construction process. In my opinion, the building had been treated and explained as independent from architecture -‘only’ a concrete minimal house- and I questioned myself if I could be the only one that needed to see a different set of information to get a better understanding of the house and the architect’s intentions.

Were those the best photos to represent the house in an objective and informative

way? Could not there be other modes of representation to complement the text and the photos? Ultimately, does architecture needs an image to explain ‘itself’ or is architecture revealed through itself? What does an image offer rather than the image itself? Awareness of the ‘bigger image’? These were some of the questions that triggered the beginning of this dissertation.

Introduction: specifying the image

The image that counts is an attempt to better understand how architecture is

being presented in contemporary media platforms and how different ways of architectural representation may impact the ‘bigger image’ in architecture: ‘what counts’. But, what does exactly ‘count’ when presenting architecture? Is there an intrinsic meaning to architecture no matter the form of architectural representation? Does representation holds an ultimate, universal message to the understanding of architecture that should strive to be transmitted? The image could have many interpretations and there is more to it than purely the visual; here, only its visual implications will be focused. The image could also refer to any kind of visual representation, ranging from photography and film to animations and computergenerated renders. An image can be the portrayal of an architectural idea, a representation of the design process of a project or the depiction of the constructed building. An image can also serve different purposes such as publicity, advertising, documentary, research, artistic endeavour or commentary.

For this dissertation, the image will have its focus on contemporary photography of

architectural projects already constructed, for digital architectural publication (figure 2).

pre-construction

THINKING ARCHITECTURE

designing

construction

the building

nerated renders uter-ge p m o eal c er-r tec hyp h

e nt

using

THINKING ARCHITECTURE

the building

of the building

sket

n co

post-construction

cep

retat

t drawings

nica

ches

l draw in

photo

graph

PRESENTING ARCHITECTURE

publication about the project in architecture magazine

the representation has an influence in people’s imagination about the building and architecture

the representation has an influence in people’s understanding of the building and architecture

starting point for the

THE IMAGE THAT COUNTS

figure 2. Contemporary representation of architecture: where the image that counts sits within the ‘bigger picture’

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this dissertation is not deep research into the image itself, but to provide

a focused understanding of how the image is being presented in architectural publications and ways in which it can instigate the thinking of architecture rather than offering solely a visual experience. It is a reflection on the apparent supremacy of the photo in contemporary representation, and in the role of the image when portraying architecture to the general public.

As Wand and Groat explain, to formulate a ‘broad explanatory theory’ to a question,

logical argumentation “organises a large and disparate reality into a comprehensible framework so that others are freed to do work within the domain without having to define fundamental parameters de novo” (2013, p.382). To do that, in CHAPTER ONE: THE IMAGE, first it is shown how both ‘words’ and ‘images’ constitute important elements in architectural understanding and how representation can influence the perception of architecture by the general public; secondly, it is explored how interpretation affects our perception of reality no matter the mode of representation, to then start analysing the relationship between the photograph, the architectural publication and architecture. Once the image has been conveniently portrayed, in CHAPTER TWO: WHAT COUNTS, first, is an exploration of the roles subjacent to the image; secondly, it will be questioned if the anticipation of the image may be having a direct influence in the thinking of architecture and how representation affects the understanding of architecture; and then, summed up the challenges of the image, based on the literature covered.

CHAPTER ONE: THE IMAGE

1. Towards the ‘bigger picture’: behind and beyond words and images

The significance of the image can be seen as intentional: the qualities of architectural

photography are based on certain attributes of the building and these qualities have to be transmitted in some way. However, these attributes of a building, such as how it responds to its function, how it sits and responds the bigger context or how it deals with legal and political constraints, might be difficult to be manifested visually into an image.

When talking, critiquing, commenting or contextualising a building, and to keep

“architecture into the realm of discursive practice” (Snodgrass, A. & Coyne, R, 2006), arguably, the use of verbal language would be the most comprehensive and precise way to do it. The discussion involving the suitability of images and words when describing architecture is commonly addressed. In Rhetoric of the Image (1964), Roland Barthes suggested how in one hand the image can be seen as an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language, but on the other it can be admitted that the image is a source of ‘ineffable richness’ whose signification could never be exhausted (1977, p. 152). Dalibor Vesely, for example, argued that architecture “should primarily be communicated visually rather than through words” (2004, p.2). A final consensus is not really relevant to conduct the dissertation however, this dichotomy highlights an unquestionable paradigm: we live in an era in which we are constantly surrounded by images.

CHAPTER ONE: THE IMAGE

As the focus is on comprehending how an image impacts and determines the way

we interpret an architectural project and its influence in the understanding of architecture, it is important to comprehend how does meaning get into the image and where does it end. This meaning can be defined in many ways, but to clarify the significance of the image, it is important to bring closer the concept of interpretation. Andrew Higgot suggests that “buildings do not speak for themselves, but rather through the interpretations that are made of them” and presumes that “architectural projects are invariably created within the context of believing in specific ideas” (2007, p.32). In fact, when examining the image, we might ask ourselves what exactly are we looking at: the vision of the architect, the view of the photographer or the statement of a magazine. And, since the image goes through a process of analysis and selection, by the time we see it, the essence of the meaning of an image can be lost in many layers of interpretation. As Coyne and Snodgrass propose that “design is interpretative at its core” (2006, p.4), meaning that interpretation always reflects back on the interpreter in a process of edification or education. According to the authors, architectural understanding is not separated from the architectural production, what makes evident the relationship between thinking and presenting architecture. On the other hand, Beatriz Colomina makes a distinction between the linguistic aspect of architecture and the practice of building and she argues that more than being ancillary to design, interpretation is “crucial to architecture’s place as profession” (2001, p.20). Accordingly, if we adopt Colomina’s distinction between the built and the architecture of the built, and consider that interpretation is part of architecture as Coyne and Snodgrass suggest, then how can the ‘mere building’ and its ‘architecture’ be distinguished in an image in order to interpret it? In other words, what reality are we trying to interpret?

the image that counts

2. Representations and realities and the reality of the image

Previous to the introduction of photography, architecture was produced through

drawings and represented through drawings or paintings. These paintings of the city, urban forms or landscapes were intended to be an exact imitation of ‘reality. However, even in modes of representation that strived for perfect depictions of our world, there has always been a subjective layer of interpretation. Ackerman writes that representation itself is not a reflection of some ‘reality’ in the world around us, but is a “means of casting onto that world a concept – or unconscious sense – of what reality is” (2002, p.119). This can be seen even in the most ancient modes of representing the built environment and architecture. For example, Renaissance painters that experimented with perspective to accurately represent plazas, Turner’s paintings that illustrate cathedrals’ ruins, or Ruskin’s drawings that preserved buildings’ details, have the same level of interpretation by the artist to what was being represented, as contemporary modes of representation. As Ackerman states, different modes of representation “were not significantly altered when new techniques were discovered, but that they perpetuate pre-existing conventions” (2002, p.118), meaning that the nature of any architectural representation is not dependent on the method or technology used.

The modes of architectural representation pre and post to the materialization of

architectural projects hold different roots and different intentions. Prior to the construction of a building, these representations may be market-driven to help the client and future user visualizing the future building or created as speculations that contribute to the dialogue of architecture: these are ‘free’ for the transmission of the most simple ideas to the most idealistic futures and they do not hold any specific social function. As shown before, these types of representation can be ways of casting into the world new realities that unfold themselves with new and different interpretations. As Vesely has stated, “we probably do not yet fully appreciate the true power of representation, particularly in its emancipated form, despite its conspicuous role in forming modern utopias and ideologies, or in economic and political systems” (2006, p.8). In architecture, these representations are not limited “to the formulation of manifestos and publicity but extend also to the creation of concrete works and large-scale projects” (2006, p.9).

However, when the image becomes an instrument of architectural publications it

gains a new status. Here, it may be limited by publicity, by the journal’s driven ethics or external pressing forces or by the digital layout that controls the visual space. But, how as the photograph become an indispensable mode of representation in architecture publications?

CHAPTER ONE: THE IMAGE

3. The image: contemporary photography in architecture publications “John Ruskin wrote that the identity of the nation was the origin or architectural practice, but a century and a half later the location of architecture was for most, rather than in any country, to be found in the pages of a journal. It became apparent, in a kind of fulfilment of a process begun at the start of modernism, that architecture was created and validated in the media, whether the sumptuously photographed magazine or the theoretical text” Higgott, A. (2007)

The culture of the image is so relevant nowadays and has such a big impact on the

way we live and interact, that we are able to manipulate of our image in order to control the way we want to be perceived. This modified image that we try to convey to others might not be a genuine and true expression of ourselves, which leads to a controversial state of ambiguous pressures. Often, the main channel connecting the individual and the outside world is social media (a global digital platform where we can access a lot of information) and the same may happen in architecture and the use of the image in architecture publications. At the present time, digital architectural platforms are the main platform between the general public and architectural thinking,

As it was shown before, architecture is textual as well as visual and spatial. This makes

explicit the importance of the image in architectural publications, and more importantly, the importance of publications in architectural discourse. All our dialogue carries ideas and those ideas may be recorded in the form of journal articles, in the editorship of journals or in books. The same happens with publications on architecture, which may or may not have a certain influence. In other words, what the ‘word’ is for our dialogue, the image is for architecture’s dialogue. As Higgot stated, “the published photograph has been one of the most important communicators of architectural ideas” (2007, p6).

With the expansion of the modern mass media, via illustrated magazines and

books, photography was establishing and spreading cultural value (Campany, 2015). In the ‘30s, almost a century after the introduction of photography, Walter Benjamin had already suggested that buildings “might be the ultimate artworks in the regime of the image” (in Campany, 2015), which proves that the general fascination for buildings and architecture did not start this generation. In one of his many essays about the image, David Campany wrote that “anything and everything was to be photographed and arranged on the page as a new and perhaps spurious kind of ‘visual knowledge’”(2015, p.20). For example, the image had such a big significance at the beginning of the 20th century that it contributed to the expansion of an architectural movement. As Campany stated “the establishment of what came to be called the International Style could not have happened without photography. Moreover, it is often argued that it was through Modernism that architecture became profoundly, perhaps irreversibly complicit with its camera image.” (2015, p.30) 14

the image that counts

Images carries ideas. It brings closer realities that are far from us and it show us

new things. They paints our mind with different visions and helps to construct a collection of visuals in our head and imaginary. Images brings us closer to architecture, thus bringing us closer to the world around us. Higgott, for example, has demonstrated how architectural books and journals have created twentieth century architectural culture in Britain (2002, p.7) The image, however, portrays a reality which may be filtered, edited, framed and presented in such a way that is transformed. Considering this WHAT COUNTS when using the image as a mode of representing architecture?

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT COUNTS

4. Role(s) subjacent to the image

With the construction of the building, the representation of the building and its

architecture gains a new nature when used in architectural publications because it addresses something which has been built. Whatever is built, will have a real impact on its surroundings, thus having a real impact on people’s lives. Plus, the building is expected to serve very specific functions, as well as expected to live for a certain period of time.

When thinking architecture, and a building is being designed, the direct users of the

building are not the only ones who make use of the building and its architecture. Nowadays, any architectural project can be seen by everyone if an article is decided to be produced about a project. That is why the public not only consists of the people that will experience it in ‘real’ life but also the ones who will see a reality of it through the article, particularly through the image. Therefore, it can be argued that one of the roles of the image is its civic role because it contributes to the perception and the understanding of architecture by the general public. This may have on influence in what is expected from architecture and, subsequently, the construction of our built environment.

the image that counts

In Architecture in the age of divided representation, Dalibor Veseley (2006, p.8)

reflected about how the distance separating the instrumental and the communicative understanding of architecture represents a wide gap in our contemporary culture and states that “restoring the communicative role of architecture is a necessary step toward restoring its role as the topological and corporeal foundation of culture” (2004, p.4). In his view, the “problem of representation really is critical and universal and representation should not appear to be a secondary and derivate issue associated with the role of representational arts” (figure 4).

Architecture

Representation

figure 3. Architecture and representation as one way of thinking

In the architectural media, it is evident how the image has been gaining a new

character and dialect. It often feels like a disassociated representational art with its own premises, rather than a communicative extension of architecture itself. The image has been accused as a practice that ‘treats the building like a sculpture’ which relies on a forced “search for meaning, narrative and metaphor” (Griffiths, 2018). Although this type of criticism is often addressing the image in post-modern architecture, this makes evident the need to define what the image should be in contemporary architecture: its role. As Vesely stated, “there is no clear notion as to what architecture should represent or whether in fact is should represent anything other than itself” (2006. p357). In response to the dubious role of the image, writers like Pérez-Gomez and Vesely himself, have encouraged a return to poetics and argued how and a new ‘poetics of architecture’ together with contemporary hermeneutics could provide the most appropriate framework for restoring the humanistic nature of architecture (Vesely, 2006).

Defining a sustained role for the image, might not be an achievable scenario since

it is always subjective to a number of circumstances , but maybe the understanding of how it relates with the design process of the building might help to reconsider its place when thinking architecture. 17

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT COUNTS

4.1 The place of the image when thinking architecture

Considering the difficulty in specifying the role of the image in the contemporary

representation of architecture, then when in the design process can the image start to have an influence in thinking of architecture? Is it even correct to assume that it should be considered? If so, to what extent does the image have an influence in the final outcome?

As suggested in chapter 2, the image is the result of a conversation between the

photographer and the architect, and the photographer and architecture. The photographer, as the creator of the image, as a particular way of seeing architecture, the built environment and its relationship with the world, therefore his or her work is unique. The work of some architecture photographers can even be recognisable from the work of other photographers, even if the buildings he or she is portraying are in extreme contexts. (This exemplifies of how the way the image ‘distorts’ the reality, by means of the author’s interpretation, and how it may show us a very biased representation of architecture.)

The anticipation of the image just described and the reality it may suggest, as well

as the prediction of how a building may be presented and represented to the general public, is a condition that has been heavily affecting the thinking in contemporary architecture. The thinking is translated into the design of the building and, after construction, when the long-anticipated image finally comes to represent the building what we might encounter is an architecture that serves the image better than it then serves its function. Consequently, this representation does not inform an understanding of the architecture and, as Vesely denotes “the distance that separates the appearance of structures from their cultural context is probably the main source of the vexed and problematic nature of representation today.” (2006. p357). In the author’s opinion, the difficulties facing representation are not in the lack of meaning, but rather in the displacement of meaning, which points to a “contradiction between the monotony and sterility of buildings and the complexity of our life” (2006. p. 358).

By creating and arranging the image in ways to represent an intact ‘reality’ freed of

any kind of imperfections that go against the expectations of the client and the architectural magazine, the meaning of the image as a civic instrument is lost by the time it is made available for the general public. Vesely argues that there are two modes of representation in contemporary architecture: ‘symbolic representation’ and ‘instrumental representation’. Considering Vesely’s distinction, ‘instrumental representation’ would be the one associated with the image because of its (supposed) clear role in informing the viewer about the project. However, as the author suggests, this mode of representation “tends to be reduced to the overt relationship between an instance of representation and the process of its genesis” (2006. p. 358), which perhaps, constitutes one of the challenges in contemporary representation of architecture: the predominance of an image which only shows the constructed building over an image of what is ‘behind’ and beyond the constructed building. 18

the image that counts

5. Current challenges of the image

In a recent publication, David Campany stated that “the cultural value of buildings

is what we call architecture and that is inseparable from photography” (2015, p.31). Indeed, architecture is very much dependent on the image however, its place, role, and meaning still encompasses a complex field to define. In fact, the evidence of this complexity might be seen as an important indicator of how influential the image has been in architecture and how crucial it is to keep addressing and discussing this issue, especially in current times.

In 1936, Walter Benjamin pointed out how the ‘displayability’ of the work was

changing the work itself and its artistic function. He argued that (1936, p.13) “because of the absolute weight placed on its display value, the work of art [was] becoming an image with entirely new functions” and photography may have been the most practical implementation in this new way of reproducing and presenting the work of art because of its quickness (in comparison to other forms of art at the time) and capability of reproduction.

With the introduction of photography in architectural publications, the ‘words’ in

the article had to adapt and the photograph gained a new structure. In 1961, Roland Barthes in The Photographic Message analysed this new structure: the picture itself and the text that accompanies every press photograph. As the author explained, these two structural components were “co-operative but, since their units are heterogeneous, [they] necessarily remain separate from one another” (1975, p.17), meaning that, in spite of complementing each other, the picture and the text had distinct natures of communication. Barthes also stated that “whatever the origin and the destination of the message, the photograph is not simply a product or a channel but also an object endowed with a structural autonomy” (1975, p.18). To explain this, throughout the essay Barthes points a few dilemmas that make evident the paradox in the structure of the photograph:

“ [...] the photographic paradox can then be seen as the co-existence of two messages, the one without a code (the photographic analogue), the other with a code (the ‘art’, or the treatment, or the ‘writing’, or the rhetoric of the photograph) […] This structural paradox coincides with an ethical paradox: when one wants to be ‘neutral’, ‘objective’, one strives to copy reality meticulously, as though the analogical were

a factor of resistance against the investment of values (such at least is the definition of aesthetic ‘realism’); how then can the photograph be at once ‘objective’ and ‘invested’, natural and cultural?” (Barthes, 1975)

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT COUNTS

This paradox relates with the question collocated on the first chapter, about the

difficulty of being aware of ‘what is’ being represented in the image and ‘what can be’ interpreted in the image. Considering the two structural components of the image and the co-existence of two different messages, the general public is absorbing an inconsistent and diffused representation of architecture which culminates in the uncertainty of expectations and altered ways of living.

Respectively, Su Barden goes further by asking whom does the photograph represent

and questions if “the photographers’ own ideas about the subject dominate the way the picture is taken and shown and, if so, is this bias apparent to those who see the image?” (1983, p.5). The question of what the photograph captures correlates with one of the previous chapters on realities of interpretation and perhaps, as Kester Rattenbury suggests, “it has become impossible to dissociate the values of a medium from the architecture reproduced through it” (2002, p.56). This induces to think that whatever the image is representing may end up being seen as architecture itself: the representation creates a certain reality and that reality becomes architecture. Rattenbury also states that “inevitably these values, criteria, and limitations shape all kinds of architecture in various ways - from how it’s imagined and designed, to how it’s photographed and written about, to how it’s used or interpreted and defined” (2002, p.57)

In the turn of the century, the new media and the changes in the economic sector

had a real impact on the image and in the modes of representation of architecture. In Eyes of the Skin, Juhani Pallasma stated that “architecture has adopted the psychological strategy of advertising and instant persuasion” (1998, p.192) and questioned if “architecture was working to support ideological emptiness and commercial exploitation rather than a shared cultural and historical understanding?” The idea of ‘instant persuasion’ and the “visceral immediacy” of the image (Higgot, 2007) is very present in the contemporary debate of architecture representation. An image which appeals to the eye and subconsciously seduces our mind. For example, Perez-Gomez has written about the dualistic opposition between the visible and the invisible and refers to Nietzche when saying that he “believed that it was important to learn to see: “habituating the eye to repose, to patience, to letting things come to it [;] … the essence of it is precisely not to ‘will’, the ability to defer decision.” (2000, p.330).

Based on the previous literature, the challenges of the image can be summarised

as an ambiguous transmission of meanings and messages that rely on the visual delight, and the product of several layers of interpretation which is produced to be visualised in an instant. Considering this and Campany’s initial statement, then why is the image still the predominant way to present architecture?

the image that counts

6. The next image

It has now been shown how the image is a mode of representation that may be

generated and controlled in ways external to us that do not exactly favour a fair and genuine understanding of architecture. As Therese Tierney suggested, the reason why the image and its implications in architecture is becoming so susceptible nowadays might be due to the fact that “the architectural image now operates within a field of complex, interactive, and continually changing relationships involving cognitive abilities, social forces, and technological modes of expression” (2007, p.1). This is probably not the best scenario to stimulate the diversity in image making and it might mean that the image itself may have been the reason why the message of architecture has been suppressed beyond its discipline. An image more sensible to the design process in architecture is needed. To contribute to a holistic and more comprehensive perception architecture, photography in architecture publication needs to be more inclusive to go beyond the representation of only the constructed building, which constitutes only an instant of the building and architecture, This is a discourse that effectively removes the distinction between architecture and representations of architecture (Barthes, 1988). As an example, Barthes remarks this idea by referencing Focault’s notion of “a level…at which the ouevre emerges, in all its fragments, even the smallest ones…as the expression of the thought, the experience, the imagination, or the unconscious of the author. The unity of interpretation includes the notebooks, the jumble of laundry bills and sketches to make sense of what is behind one particular position” (1988, p.190). Therefore, when inserted in the architectural publication, this mode of representation could communicate not only what the building ‘looks like’ but also ‘how’ and ‘why’ it exists, thus this image would become a testament since the thinking and making of the project first started. One of the challenges for this image would be to learn how to deal with and adapt to the continual changing relationships mentioned by Tierney in the previous paragraph. Moreover, with this transformation of the architectural image comes a methodological crisis in the architectural field: a crisis that calls for a “considered judgement of the origins, nature, and possible consequences of the crisis” and a thorough “understanding of new media’s effect on the architectural image, the architectural design process, and the architectural field in general” (Tierney, 2007). This might involve the questioning of alternative and complementary modes of representation to the image.

CONCLUSION

7. The image as part of what counts in architecture

The intention of this dissertation was never to oppress the use of the contemporary

photography in contemporary representation, but rather to show how the predominance of its use and the reliability of its capacity might not be enough to make justice to what can be said about an architecture project, in an article. In spite of also seeing architecture as an ‘interpretive, critical art’, I would add to Colomina’s theory that there is an element in the representational modes of architecture that should not be open to interpretation due to its quasi civil role but rather an objective starting point for any kind of interpretative process. I defend this because I do not believe that post-construction modes of representation in architecture should allowed to give as much space for interpretation as other representational arts. The starting point mentioned would be to clearly show the specific set of characteristics that the project responds to. Arguably, the text in an architecture publication assumes this function but still, I believe in power of an image and I like to believe that, in-between the constant change, the image will find a way to adapt itself to new needs.

One of the dissertation’s objective was to organise a large and disparate reality into

a comprehensible framework. These are the building blocks that helped me to construct my understanding of the image: 1

The image is a necessary element in architectural discourse. 2

The image can have different signifieds and its use can follow different purposes. 3

The image can either be produced by the one who designs the building or an external figure that brings his/her own interpretation. The image is a requirement for the media (professional bodies, magazines) when presenting a building. 4

The image influences the interpretation and thinking of a building and, ultimately, architecture

In conclusion, the word image can open up in many meanings and interpretations:

one of them is contemporary photography of architectural projects (already constructed) for digital architectural publication. This image contributes to the ‘bigger image’ of architectural understanding, and the ‘bigger image’ is the perception that each individual has of architecture. This perception, a reality made up of interpretations, is legitimate and is what makes architecture keep evolving. The general public and the architecture world are not expected to share the same exact ‘big image’, however it is the image that can help connecting the two. 22

the image that counts

Probably everything counts when presenting architecture. Probably anything really should be shown in the image. Probably it is not one, but many images that count. And it is not the conventional image, but derivations of it: a non-image, a new image.

10. Bibliography

Ackerman, J.S. (2002) Origins, Imitation, Conventions. Berkley: MIT Press Barthes, R. & Heath, S. (1977) Image, music, text. London: Fontana Press. Barthes, R. (1988) Camera lucida. New York: The Noonday Press. Benjamin, W. (2010) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Lexington, KY: Prism Key Press. Braden, S. (1983) Committing Photography. London: Pluto Press Bordieu. P. (1990) Photography: A Middle Art-Brown. Cambridge: Polity Press Borden, I. & RĂźedi Ray, K. (2006) The dissertation. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press, an imprint of Elsevier Campany, D. (2015) Architecture as Photography: Document, Publicity, Commentary, Art. In: Pardo, A. & Redstone, E. (2018) Constructing Worlds: Photography and Architecture in the Modern Age. London: Prestel. Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton Colomina, B. (2001) Privacy and publicity. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Coyne, R. & Snodgrass, A. (2006) Interpretation in Architecture. Oxon: Routledge. Evans, J. & Hall, S. (1999) Visual culture: the reader. London: Sage. Griffiths, S. (2018) Architectural meanings are nothing but fictions. Dezeen [online]. 24 August. Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/24/sean-griffiths-opinion-stevenholl-ucd-dublin-meaning-architecture/ Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2013) Architectural Research Methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Higgott, A. (2007). Mediating Modernism: Architectural Cultures in Britain. London: Routledge Lucas, R. (2016) Research Methods for Architecture. London: Laurence King Pub Mackend, M. (2012) The Book as a Site: Alternative Modes of Representing and Documenting Architecture. Phd, University of Sidney Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945) Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge Pallasmaa, J. (2010) The thinking hand. Chichester: Wiley. Pallasmaa, J. (2005) The eyes of the skin. Chichester: Wiley. Pallasmaa, J. & MacKeith, P. (2012)Â Encounters. Helsinki: Rakennustieto. Perez-Gomez, A., Pelletier. L (2000) Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. MIT Press Perez-Gomez, A. (2006) Built upon love: architectural longing after ethics and aesthetics. Massachusetts: MIT Press 24

the image that counts

Perez-Gomez, A. (2015) Architecture, Art of Belonging. University of Bologna. 3, pp. 15-18 Rattenbury, K. (2002) This is not Architecture. London: Routledge Tierney, T. (2007) Abstract Space: beneath the media surface. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Vesely, D. (2006) Architecture in the age of divided representation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Wilson, R. (2015) Image, Text, Architecture: The Utopics of the Architectural Media. Surrey, England: Ashgate

Images: figure 1 Image by author, base image: Garrido.N (2018) JoĂŁo Vieira de Campos at Dezeen [online] Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/06/23/joao-vieira-de-campos-completesminimally-detailed-concrete-house-in-porto/ [Accessed 28 June 2018] figure 2 Image by author figure 3 Image by author

the image that counts, 2019