Aperture and Architecture by James Anderson

Aperture and Architecture Image and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impact on Design James Anderson | Plymouth University

For Murphy

Preface Ours is a culture of the visual, however, do we always truly recognise what we behold? With the advent of the photograph we see the world increasingly through images. Architecture has always been promoted and described through various mediums however today it is the photograph that has found its place as the discipline’s most indispensable and widely used representative technique. However, in the process of capturing the real what is lost along the way? Our society carelessly assumes that these frozen remnants of our restless world mirror back an undistorted version of reality. We continually fail to make the distinction between the authentic and the simulacrum, thus we refer to the representation as reality itself, what inherent implications come with this paradox?

Content Eye for an Eye

Accidentally/Deliberately Subjectively

p10

Voids. what we have lost

p18

How to Live Forever

p35

The Distorted Gaze of the Camera Lens

p44

The Camera and the Architect

p52

Visual RAW

p58

Vogue

p67

Seeing past the visual

p72

References

p77

Visual References

p83

Snapshot

p86

Eye for an eye

The representation of architecture can take many forms but, it can be argued, none are totally objective. The most basic form of representation is by the human eye. An individual can look at a building and form an opinion about it. They can cast their eye at the roofline, walk around the building and view its varying aspects; they can see how the object interacts with its environment. Yet first-‐hand viewing of a building requires the observer to be present and involved and this is not always feasible. To that end, other forms of representation have replaced the human eye. Film, sketches and computer graphics are often used as forms of representing a construction. But most commonly a building is represented in the form of a photograph. Before the photograph’s conception, either embarking on a costly pilgrimage to view new buildings or trusting others’ sketches was the only way to ‘experience’ some architecture. In its embryonic stages photography favoured architecture as its subject because the inanimate but intriguing subjects were ideal for the 8-‐hour exposure time required1. With the increased use of photography, architecture suddenly became accessible to those who were unable to travel to the sites.

Schwartz, J. ‘Zoomscape: Architecture in motion and media’ New

The camera aimed to “democratize all experiences by translating them into images.”2 It is therefore understandable that photography soon became architecture’s most esteemed medium. Thus by the mid 1850’s architecture had found a new lease of life as a result of the photograph – and through architectural journals, designer had access to buildings beyond their immediate environment. Photographs were a resource that not only expanded the designer’s knowledge of familiar historical traditions but extended the scope of his knowledge to a wide spectrum of historical styles that were less accessible at first hand.3

Sontag, S. ‘On Photography’ Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, 1977, p.7.

Akerman, J. ‘On the origins of architectural photography’ in Rattenbury, K (ed) This is not architecture. London:, Routledge 2002, p.33.

The modern camera has evolved to a level far more advance than our human eye. It has the ability to shed light on details of buildings (especially ancient architecture; where plans and details maybe lost) that would otherwise go unnoticed due to their obscurity or distance from human eye level.4 Peter Davey emphasises this by suggesting “photography and ruins might have been invented for each other.”5 An article from ‘The Builder’ magazine describes how the camera has allowed architects to “study (Gargoyles) from photographs with almost the same advantages as from the monuments themselves,”6 and so the camera became the quintessential tool of reference, revealing what otherwise would have been lost. Photographs did not create the discipline; but without them opportunities for the development of sophisticated research methods would not have been available to

Akerman 2002 Davey, P. ‘Gargoyles and Shadows: Gothic Architecture’ and 19thCentury Photography pp.92-93 in; Architectural Review February 2010 6 Unknown ‘The Builder’ 1969, cited in Architectural Review February 2010 5

scholars, who had had access only to drawings and traditional prints7 The more au courant media such as film and, latterly the Internet, have further complimented and refined architectural photography. Some of the most wonderful images of buildings have been shared globally, inspiring hundreds of budding young architects and helping push the discipline further than ever before. But is this always an advantage? Does the globally available imagery mean that architecture is bound to improve, or is it possible that the impact of the photograph does a disservice to the art of architecture? While acknowledging that the photograph performs a vital function in bringing the image8 of a building to a wider audience the point remains that photographs cannot adequately represent a building and it’s myriad of functions and demands; it can only take a snapshot of a moment in time. Perhaps this is an

Akerman, 2002, p.34. Image noun 1 a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art. 2 a visible impression obtained by a camera, displayed on a video screen, or produced by reflection or refraction. 3 the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public. 4 a picture in the mind. 5 a simile or metaphor. 6 likeness Soanes, D. (2005) Oxford Dictionary of English Revised Edition 8

acceptable restriction, but I would also argue that too much importance is attached to the photographic representation of the building and, on occasions, architects may be swayed by the ‘image’ their building will present, rather than the functionality of their design. The issue is not in the chronicling a building’s development using photographs as a key tool of communication for the designer and subsequent contractors – but how the photography represents the finished building, where it is no longer a tool but becomes a final reflection on the creative process. Architecture is discussed, explained and identified almost entirely through its representations. Indeed, these representations are often treated as though they were architecture itself. Huge status is given to the imaginary project, the authentic set of photographs or the eminent critical account. This is a paradox. Architecture is fundamentally concerned with physical reality, yet we discuss and even define architecture (as opposed to building) through an elaborate construction of media representations: photography, journalism,

criticism, exhibition, history, books, films, television and critical theory.9 There is no doubt that photography provides a vital service in the chronicling, historiography and promotion of architecture, but the question must be raised to whether a two dimensional representation can accurately and fairly capture the reality10 of a three dimensional construction. All too often the photograph is used as the definitive measuring tool for the success of a building project; does it look good as opposed to its function or practicality; is too greater authority given our photographs and does this hinder the architect whose concerns are multi-‐dimensional? Although photograph and building are both motionless this is where their similarities end, a flat representation of an image as in a photograph has little to do with the reality; how it feels, functions, the true experience of ‘being there’ surely the camera is an inappropriate tool to convey this?

Rattenbury. K. ‘this is not architecture’ London. Routledge. 2002 .p.1 Reality noun (pl. realities) 1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2 a thing that is actually experienced or seen. 3 the quality of being lifelike. 4 the state or quality of having existence or substance. Soanes, D. (2005) Oxford Dictionary of English Revised Edition 10

The photograph acts as the mediator between the writer and the reader, who is encouraged to assume that the experience of the photograph is the same as the experience of the building”11 There are inherent consequences in interpreting architecture only through the distorted eye of the camera lens; to only see the building subjectively, through a 2D effigy, from the vantage point of the photographer. Suddenly, architecture becomes the photograph and that could have dangerous consequences.

Rattenbury, 2002, p.87

Accidently/Deliberately Subjectively

Is the photographer becoming all-‐powerful in the way they decide for us what needs to be seen and determine what shall not? Clearly the actual photographer has a considerable influence on the way we view buildings; after all they have the power to spread an architectural style worldwide. For these reasons, the photographer’s understanding of each specific building and their skills with a camera are paramount. Sontag explains that “photography has powers that no other image-‐ system has ever enjoyed because, unlike the earlier ones, it is not dependent on an image maker.”12 Perhaps this statement is too extensive, yes the camera has the technological advancement of using chemical or electronic automated instant systems to record an image, and yes in this way the image is far less dependent on the maker; however, the photographer’s actions still significantly influence a photograph’s outcome. When looking back at architecture’s history, styles and movements that the photograph has documented, it throws into question whether the photograph does in fact provide an accurate description. The photographer, when capturing a shot, is without a doubt though perhaps subconsciously swayed by his or her own background, prejudices, ideologies and of course the tastes of

Sontag, 1977, p.158

the time. In this way, a photo of the same building taken by two different photographers from separate centuries will look drastically different. An example of this is Bayard’s photograph of the church of the Madeleine in Paris where the photographer has used a degree of artistic licence to individualise the image.13 Lighting and artful technique have created a picture that is not objective. It is not to say there is anything wrong with an artistic photograph of architecture, but does the image become less about the architecture and more about the art of photography in its purest sense?

Akerman 2002

“Sometimes these (images) can seem more iconically (sic) famous and even more satisfyingly ‘architectural’ than some of the buildings themselves.”14 A photograph can give a certain level of the understanding to spatial dimensions and materialities of a construction but it cannot contend with an intrinsic truth that perturbs everything, the passage of time.15 An impact of this is that often after visiting an iconic public building, individuals leave feeling unfulfilled and perhaps a little deceived as the building may not deliver on visual expectations; the edifice that stood so proudly in the snapshot now dog-‐eared and unsound, a shell of its former self, perhaps exposing the failures in its fabrics and anatomy, or perhaps it was the way in which the photographer chose to best frame their subject.16 Photographs can paint a very different vision of a building to what most will actually experience, influencing us even more so than our reality; “even when the object fails to live up to its representation it is the latter (the representation) which will stay in peoples minds, as what they have really ‘seen’.”17

Rattenbury, 2002, p.57 Unwin, S. ‘Analysing Architecture Second Edition’ Oxon: Routledge, 2003 16 Akerman 2002 17 Urry, J. ‘The Tourist Gaze’ London: Sage Publications 1990. p.78 15

We need photographers to capture and record significant details that allow us to better understand our past and realise our future; however, it would be unwise to naively believe that images are an accurate representation of the building actual. Archive images of buildings appear stale and dismal, this is an untrue representation; most had to be taken on overcast days to prevent the movement of light effecting long exposure times.18 When we look to John Ruskin’s watercolor of the Window of the Palazzo Foscari, Venice we discover it manages to capture a different dimension, the vibrant life and color of Venice.19 This would not have been possible with the cameras of the time and could be argued that is still not so with our most advanced technologies.

18 19

Davey 2010 ibid

Voids. what we have lost

A criticism of all photography (but perhaps even more so when the subject matter is architecture) is the way in which the photographer focuses on the object, and how they frame said object. Architectural photographers frequently manage to remove the building from its context20 and in doing so force people to focus purely on the building without taking into consideration the relevance of its surroundings. “Architecture is not primarily about the contriving ‘picturesque’ compositions (though sometimes it is presented as such).”21 A building that does not consider its ambience often appears patently out of place, ill fitting for its environment, an alien invader encroaching on long standing cultures. A photograph with no acknowledgement of a building’s milieu implies the architecture can be applied to any environment, a ‘universal’ architecture of sorts.22 To help illustrate this point one can look to Dubai’s ongoing incorporation of western architecture; behemoth skyscrapers clad in glass exposed to a desert environment. Is this the wisest decision regarding the

Sontag 1977 Unwin 2003 p97 22 Mare, E ‘Photography and Architecture’ New York, Pantheon Books. (1961) 21

environment it sits in?23 Ideally, a new build should extract qualities from its surroundings, but it is the architect’s mastery that manages to make a building distinctive. Picture for example one of the most iconic images in architectural circles; Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater.24 When we envisage the image, we picture the gushing waterfall the building tilters so delicately over; we visualize the locally sourced stone façade. We feel connected because the iconic image pans out to show the buildings context; we can understand Wright’s embracement of the lines of nature. If the photographer focused purely on the building we would have a completely different notion of it. It is plausible that the very way the modernist skyscrapers where photographed (without their context) contributed to the notion that they may be applicable to any environment.

Stern, R. 21 Feb 2008 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 1st Feb 2010 24 Completed in 1937 it has received critical acclamation and numerous awards including ‘best all time work of American Architecture (1991)

A decent architectural photograph is no doubt an impressive thing. All too often, however, the images are captured as if they were merely swollen works of art; vacant of the very factor that they were designed for, the catalyst that brings them to life: Void of people. The curse of architectural photography, which is all about the wonderfully composed shot, the absolutely lifeless picture that takes time out of architecture… all those lovely but empty stills of uninhabited and uninhabitable spaces have squeezed more life out of architecture than perhaps any other single factor.25

Brand, S. ‘How Buildings Learn; what happens after they’re built’ New York, Penguin Books 1995 p.55

Architecture must be more than simply what art requires. It must at the very least be practical, functional, and comfortable. Art is rarely any of these things.26 Le Corbusier, “probably the most written about architect this century”27 understood the visual aspect of architecture, its emphasise was a dominant feature of modernist thought; “man looks at the creation of architecture with his eyes, which are 5 feet 6 inches from the ground,”28 as he put it “I am and I remain an impenitent visual – everything is in the visual.”29 He owes much of his fame to the images of his projects, interestingly the interior shots in particular rarely feature people inhabiting them, rather, they hint of recent activity with personal objects placed a little too purposefully in the frame. “His blatant use of fakery in published photos of his built work, his appropriation of advertising imagery, his staged filming of his buildings”30 all do well to serve and promote his work, but inevitability the buildings are left feeling cold and

ibid Colomina, B. ‘Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media’ MIT Press, Cambridge, MIT Press 1994 p.3 27

Le Corbusier ‘Towards a new architecture’ London; Architectural Press, & New York; Frederick A Praeger, 1959 p.164 29 Le Corbusier in Crosset PA, (1987) ‘Eyes Which See’ London: Casabella p.115 30

Rattenbury. 2002 p.65

untouchable and discouraging; “set like jewels into the diadem of architecture, they become aesthetic objects par excellence and above reproach,”31 all due to the very fact that they lack life, interaction, bodies. A photograph struggles to convey the “more abstract subtle dimensions: pattern of life, work and ritual,”32 the inclusion of people inhabitating spaces is conceivably the last glimmer of hope in the representation of these most important cogs of reality. After all architecture, at its very core, is about people.

Ghirardo, D ‘The Architecture of Deceit’ Cited in Ballantyne, A (ed) ‘What is Architecture?’ Oxon, Routledge, 2002 p.64 32 Unwin 2003 p.97

How can a photographer compose the perfect image then? The late Julius Shulman33 is acclaimed by many the greatest architectural photographer of recent times, reveals part of his secrets when preparing to shoot a building; “I don’t go there in a pre-‐ determined consideration. When I go to see a house, I look at it, take out my camera, the composition that comes out is pretty straight-‐forward.”34 Shulman is attempting to relinquish any pre-‐conception he may have of a building in an attempt to capture the most un-‐bias and honest image possible. Fellow photographer Juergen Nogai explains the relationship with his photographs and reality; I try to be objective with my subjective eye. I try to understand the buildings I will photograph and create their unique story. Our reality is always subjective, it is what we see, realize and feel. I hope, that my clientele will find the ‘real’ building in my photographs.35

Julius Shulman 1910-2009 Shulman, J cited (online) in www.fabrikmagazine.com/content/transcending-the-framearchitectural-photographers-julius-shulman-juergen-nogai/ (February 2010) 35 Nogai, J J cited (online) ibid 34

Nogai acknowledges the photographs limitations, but interestingly to overcome them he tries to create a story, a narrative, in the same way an architect does when designing. Both photographers understood the importance of context and inhabitation shown by Shulman’s ‘Case Study House #22’ photo. They go about their work with the same passions and ideals as the original architect.

If one were to argue that a building’s context and inhabitants were in someway irrelevant then it is perhaps the architect’s drawing that can be crowned the best way of representing architecture as even the simplest, crudest sketch has been extracted directly from the architect’s mind, their vision, thus it is less likely to be misconstrued as it only shows what is necessary. Design drawings that refer to a reality which still lies in the future are important in my work. I continue working on my drawings until they reach the delicate point of representation when the prevailing mood I seek emerges, and I stop before inessentials start detracting from its impact.36 The drawing is more clear and refined; in the case of the photograph there is always the fear that additional, reasonably unrelated components can distract the viewer’s attention from the concepts and meaning of the building. As Benjamin explained, with the invention of the photograph an

Zumthor, P ‘Thinking Architecture – Second, Expanded Edition’ Berlin, Birkhauser 2006 p.13

equally crucial innovation must be implemented. The explanation next to the image so the viewer can better understand what is being represented.37 Conversely, a viewer may better relate to a photograph over a sketch or diagram because it would appear more deeply anchored in our reality, familiar and more comforting perhaps. The photograph allows a viewer to become instantly in-‐tune with a representation because it deals with what they know, what they understand, what they have experienced. An imaginable ideal then is a hybrid of the two; the clearly defined ideas expressed in a design sketch married with the debatably more tangible stimuli of the photograph?

Benjamin, W ‘the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, in illuminations (New York 1968)

How to live forever

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion is unquestionably a world renowned and much imitated architectural entity. It embodies Mies’ dogma ‘less is more’ and is a keystone for all modern architecture. However, during its 1929 construction it was plagued with technical and financial difficulties to the point that it was never truly completed. Despite being dismantled the following year, it is through images the Pavilion lives on long after its withdrawal from existence. In fact the status of the image can be solely attributed to the building’s reconstruction in 1986 by Morales et al38. Although inspired by virtue of photographs to rebuild the pavilion, even Morales argues; It is necessary to go there, to walk amidst and see the startling contrast between the building and its surroundings, to let your gaze be drawn into the calligraphy of the patterned marble and its kaleidoscopic figures, to feel yourself enmeshed in a system of planes in stone, glass and water that envelops and moves you through space39

The Barcelona Pavilion, Reconstructed by Ignasi de Sola Morales, Christian Cirici and Fernando Ramos in 1986 39 Morales, S ‘Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilions’ New York: Gustavo Gili 1993 p.39

In any case, Mies van der Rohe’s name and legacy has been immortalised via the pseudo-‐image. However, this was not an accidental outcome; Mies understood the photograph’s calibre as a key representative technique. The photograph became the surrogate reality, defining a proposed building before it was even (real)ised. His process was painstaking and complex; after designs were drawn, Mies van der Rohe would set to work on creating sophisticated models, using actual materials scaled down and surgically installed.40 Thereafter the models were carefully photographed and edited by collage to feature people; an archaic Photoshop, if you will. The result; when these plates were enlarged to a grand scale and displayed in cavernous exhibition halls41 they acquired instant admiration; it allowed him to achieve the overstated but unsustainable impact our erratic society demands. Conceived to deceive, these meticulously detailed non-‐ realities were the first convincing attempts of virtual realism. The photo sparked the Pavilion’s resurrection, but its original

Steele, B ‘Absolut Mies, Absolute Modern Building Good Copy’, in The Journal of The Architectural Association School of Architecture, issue 48, Winter 2002 41 First Retrospective exhibition, 1946 Museum of Modern Art, New York

temporary purpose42 has now been altered, it has become a monument, artwork itself; the symbolic testament of a precedent. Rattenbury reiterates this observation describing the photograph’s use in promoting the architect, (often at the expense of reality) …to present the building as a higher form of cultural production to defend and promote architects and patrons. Many architectural photographs display similar characteristics, such as perfect climate and no people, because they mimic the perfect but sterile conditions of artwork in the gallery 43

The Barcelona Pavilion’s original use was to display German art-work during the 1929 Barcelona International Exposition 43 2002 Rattenbury p.87

Mies took this visual emphasis to its logical conclusions by commodifying his architecture,44 his architectural style; the ‘Mies brand’ became instantly recognisable and advertised through photographs. He was very careful in setting the scene in preparation to photograph a building; tweaking various variables such as furniture and lighting to evoke the ideals his buildings represented. Schulze suggests that “Mies is the most important modern architect to a new generation because he’s the easiest to copy – well.”45 It became fashionable to design like Mies however, the limitations to these imitations were often far too clear and failed to live up to the original. Yet it wasn’t just the architectural world that realised the mass appeal of the ‘icon-‐architecture’; many brands used the pavilion (as well as more current buildings) to promote themselves. Elements of Mies van der Rohe’s International Style became globalized on an unprecedented scale, and for better or worse they are here to stay. It is the photograph we have to thank for this.

Mies van der Rohe’s acknowledgement of a newly emerging ‘brand’ architecture is evident at the 1927 Wekbund Exhibition, he was the only architect to file for a design patent 45 Schulze, F (1994) ‘Philip Johnson: Life and Work’ New York p.200

The Distorted Gaze of the Camera Lens

The photograph can be so successful in promoting architecture that they “become the quintessential image: the ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ version of it, of which the occupied, adapted, economically handicapped, ageing or inaccessible building seems only a partly valid version.”46 The photo is held in higher regard than the architecture, to the point where it can be perceived as architecture itself.47 We only have ourselves to blame for this situation, as it is because our culture focuses only on what can be seen, at face value; “our era…prefers the image to the thing, the copy to the original, the representation to the reality, appearance to being.48 There seems to be an overwhelming assumption that a photograph has the extraordinary ability to capture the essence of the building and translates it for the masses via a 2D construct; this is echoed by Urry who suggests that we consider the photograph as not a flawed interpretation on reality, but actual slices of it, not to be questioned;49 however, “to translate is to convey. It is to move something without

Rattenbury 2002 p57 Ibid p.57 48 Feuerbach, L. ‘The Essence of Christianity’ New York Published by Calvin Blanchard, Nassau Street, 1855 p.4 47

Urry 1990 p.127

altering it.”50 In the process of capturing and developing the images 3D to 2D elements are lost and the existing is altered. Take the obvious constraints of the surface on which the photograph is presented, more often than not a sheet of paper, “to be viewed frontally, otherwise proportionality degenerates.”51 Evans refers to Matilda Ghyka’s 1931 study of the Golden Ratio; Helen Wills’s face fitted the rare mathematically perfect proportions, however the face was only valid when reduced to 2D “the analysis is not of the rotund undulating, folded, punctured surface we call a face, but quite another surface, onto which the face was flattened by the process of photography.”52

Evans, R ‘Translation from Drawing to Building and other Essays’ London: Janet Evans & Architectural Association Publications, 1997 p.154 51 ibid, p.183 52 Ibid

The same criticism is valid when the subject is architecture, “The dimensions of architecture include more than the two of the picture-‐frame.”53 Christopher Alexander theorizes that the key to good architecture is to create a dwelling that is “absolutely comfortable – physically, emotionally and practically.”54 These elements cannot be conveyed on paper and so a space may look beautiful on paper, however the authentic space can prove to be uncomfortable and unpractical. pointless. A crucial benefit of the photo is that it allows us to delve into the global spectrum of architecture, and this it does (infinitely enhanced by the internet) however, is it not the case that there is a disproportionate number of architectural photographers in the ‘developed’ countries simply because this is generally where the wealth and large cities exist? The consequence of this is that western architecture becomes over published and overemphasised resulting in a severely skewed understanding of worldwide architecture.

Unwin 2003 p.97 Alexander, C. cited in K, Nesbitt, ‘Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-95’ Princeton Architectural Press, 1996 p.389 54

If the images we see were more balanced then perhaps we would notice that “indigenous architectures in various parts of the world seem to be born of the muscular and haptic senses more than the eye.”55 Perhaps the crux of the issue is that the camera just isn’t the right device to record and convey architecture as a whole. While it has a definite role to play within architecture, in the recording, reference and classification of past styles and movements, it is no more than a tool. The photo, although not a clear window to the reality of the building, “directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint or a deathmask”56 it still remains a more reliable method of recording a building than any other architectural medium but it is the way we interpret the photo that we need to reassess. “Images have become our true sex objects, the objects of our desire. The obscenity of our culture resides in the confusion of desire and its equivalent materialized in the image.”57 We view the world as if every blink we take is another potential

Pallasmaa, J ‘The Eyes of the Skin’, Padstow Cornwall, International Ltd, 2007 p.26 56

Sontag 1977 p.154 Koolhaas, R, 1995 ‘Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large: O.M.A’ Monacelli Press, New York p.787 57

photograph but the photograph encapsulates one sense only, vision; it is incapable of casting all the emotions, hapticity and intimacy associated with a building. “The privileging of the sense of sight over the other senses is an inarguable theme in Western thought, and it is also an evident bias in the architecture of our century.”58 The reaction a building gives someone is incredibly personal; it will differ from person to person. The photograph indeed captures real life, but only a single moment in time, from one subjective viewpoint, and in doing so condenses and warps it. Photographic images cannot simply be read as reflections of reality, but must depend on various elements of choice (of subject, position, framing, lighting, focus, etc.)59

Palasmaa 2007 p.39 Ackerman 2002 p.26

What of the moving images then, the film? After all it can absorb the different shadows, it can document different spaces, and how you transverse through them. But even this, even a film that scrupulously encompasses an entire structure does not allow you to truly explore architecture or reflect on a specific place. The film is linier and lacks the omnipresence of the photograph. It is a failed medium to represent a building. It can be argued then that the architectural photo is an illusion of reality. The light from a camera flash can only scratch the surface, the façade of a building, the camera cannot be relied on or expected to penetrate all aspects of a building. A photograph is skin-‐deep and represents only the most superficial of images thus never doing a building true justice, it will never explore everything a building has to offer and will never be a substitute for visiting a building in person.

The Camera & the Architect

It has been established that too must weight is given to the photograph when considering architecture. But how does this directly affect the architect, is this imbalance a positive or a negative? “Architects live and die by the images taken of their work, for every person that visits a private house, there may be ten thousand who only view it as a photo.”60 The photograph has exponentially aided the promotion and recognition of architects’ designs; today’s architects can publish newly finished buildings online, and keep the images in portfolio ready to share with the next potential client. The photograph opened the lid on architecture and ultimately led to the phenomenon that is the ‘starchitect’, the likes of Norman Foster and Frank Lloyd Wright, have been catapulted to the status of celebrity, insuring that a new client is never far away and allowing them to establish their work on a more global scale. Subsequently, a greater trust is attained which leads to more funding for more ambitious projects. Although the information conveyed by a photograph is finite, it still allows projects to be shown in a different dimension to that of architectural drawing. It allows other architects to view a snapshot of the reality of a building; the photo allows

Bricker, E. extract from the movie ‘Visual Acoustics’ 2008 based on the life of world renowned architectural photographer Julius Shulman

architects to judge for themselves whether the building ‘works’ and learn from others’ mistakes. The vast majority of photos the architect carries in their portfolio are of their creations taken on the day of completion when the building has yet to be tainted by its inhabitants, “before people start using the building.”61 Some architects believe that this is where a project ends, but surely the success of a building should be judged on its ability to adapt, work and grow with the user. This is what the photograph must radiate. By not revisiting past work the architect is ignorant to their past successes and failures, therefore future schemes are unable to improve and evolve. As long as the photograph continues to be accepted as a true representation of a building, the true merits of a successful project will continue to be distorted. This issue is plainly demonstrated in the industry’s own recognition of talent; most competitions are judged on a photograph of the building in question.

Brand 1994, p.55

You get work through getting awards, and the award system is based on photographs. Not use. Not context. Just purely visual photographs taken before people start using the building62 This, then, suggests that the problematic usage of photography is more than a whine at the false imagery bestowed upon the profession. Brand acknowledges that photographs are synonymous with awards and “awards never reflect functionality.”63 A deeper seeded and more troubling concern has arisen alongside the photo’s growing popularity. “Architectural theory and criticism have been almost exclusively engaged with the mechanisms of vision and visual expression.”64 As increasingly high regard is given to the visual analysis of a building it becomes the main criteria to evaluate by, thus trivializing many other topics that every building should be judged on. This in turn serves to concentrate praise on a relatively small reservoir of buildings focusing purely on aesthetics whilst overlooking an ocean of architecture that didn’t tick the boxes. Critical analysis based

Brand 1994 p.55 ibid 64 Pallasmaa 2007 p.29 63

on a photograph is carried out on an unclear and narrow criterion and can simply boil down to a matter of personal taste and preferences “one critic may find a certain degree of mathematical complexity necessary to make a building great; another may focus on the effects of massing techniques; yet a third may demand an elegant series of references to or comments on the past.”65 Throughout schools of architecture, such as the one I am currently enrolled in, a photograph of a building is referred to in almost every lecture; “Educational philosophy has likewise understood architecture primarily in terms of vision, emphasizing the construction of three-‐ dimensional visual images in space.”66 Architectural education is flawed; it overemphasizes the image, it encourages students to design dysfunctional buildings that look good on camera, arguably a student will learn far more from one visit to a building as opposed to studying countless images of it. When referencing an architectural photograph we must always remember the reality of the building and that it is a considerably more complex creature than any other art forms.

65 66

Ghirardo 2002, p.65 Pallasmaa 2007, p.30

Visual RAW

Clearly the photo is pushing architects to design towards a more visually pleasing goal Pallassma contends; “The ocular bias has never been more apparent in the art of architecture than in the past 30 years, as a type of architecture, aimed at a striking and memorable visual image, has predominated.”67 But is aesthetics taking priority over the ultimate primary concern of provide functional shelter. The age old argument arises; Louis Sullivan’s dictum ‘form follows function’ versus Louis Kahn’s counterargument ‘function follows form’. Robert Stern describes how he does find that in “the current scene, too much emphasis is being placed on artistic expression, independent, often of good urbanism or even functional response.”68 Has the photograph for all its advantages served to bastardize and dilute the discipline? Leaving an architecture of “contrived depthlessness (sic)… its fixation with appearances, surfaces and instant impacts that have no sustaining power over time.”69 Is the architect now becoming purely an artist sculpting an increasingly uninhabitable space

Pallasmaa 2007, p.30 Stern R 21st Feb 2008 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 1st Feb 2010 69 Jameson F, 1984, in Harvey, D. (ed) ‘The Condition of Postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change’ Cambridge Blackwell p.58 68

just to be photographed well, and architecture, “an art of the printed image fixed by the hurried eye of the camera?”70 Or has the camera, through essentially exhibiting a building’s aesthetics, helped architecture progress? The discipline has a history of being considered more than merely another branch of the construction industry, throughout civilization architecture seemed to have deeper further reaching layers to it; Classical Greek architecture was used to convey power and represent their gods, Notre Dame depicts biblical stories71 Pallasmaa argues Greek architecture was “ultimately refined for the pleasure of the eye.”72 So it seems, focusing on the visual is by no means a new way of thinking; “architecture of our time often appears as mere retinal art of the eye, thus completing an epistemological cycle that began in Greek thought and architecture.”73

Pallasmaa 2007 p.30 Heidegger, M. ‘Basic Writings’ London Routledge 1985 72 Pallasmaa 2007 p.26 73 Pallasmaa 2007 p.30 71

Some of today’s architecture has a higher level of meaning, a narrative behind it; designs are drawn not always because they are the most practical or most efficient but because they have some sort of aesthetic merit. In this way architecture can be considered an art form and the architect its artist. However it “is not the same kind of art as paint or sculpture might be for example, it is a public art, a social art.”74 Richard Meier argues that “architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses things that other arts don’t even deal with.”75 Architecture is profoundly entwined with society and so then becomes a hybrid not to be experienced or referred to on the same level as absolute art. The fact that we all become immersed in architecture in our everyday life is something that architects must keep in the back of their mind whenever designing. With other art, for example paintings, we can simply choose to ignore it whereas architecture is much harder to hide from. Yet it is so easy to design for design sake, buildings can become visual masterpieces, bespoke for the camera’s eye but unfortunately what is gained in beauty is often lost in functionality, comfort and practicality.

Stern R 2008 Meier, R. Feb 4 2008 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 10th September 2009 75

“Where we no longer ask for feeling of comfort and soothing ideas in other artworks, it seems reasonable to question the need for an architecture that may leave our daily satisfactions shaken or disoriented.”76 The architect clearly has more responsibility than your average artist, as Meier puts it “a sculpture can make a square wheel, and an architect has to make a round one.”77 Architecture can never be considered simply and completely in the visual, especially not by the architect. A building that has only aesthetics considerations inevitably will fail in so many other aspects. Photography does indeed accentuates the visual perhaps too much, but without the amalgamation of function and the resulting artistic element we would exist in a less exciting world where functionality reigns supreme; “the human world is governed by the principle of the priority of appearance.”78 It is the human psyche to explore with our eyes perhaps this is even more relevant now than in earlier times; “the cotemporary city is increasingly the city of the eye, detached

Goldblatt, D ‘Journal of aesthetic and art criticism’, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1997 p.171 77 Meier 2008 78 Scruton, R ‘The Classical Vernacular: architectural principles in an age of nihilism’ New York St Martin’s Press 1995 p.57

from the body by rapid motorized movement, or through the overall grasp from an airplane.”79 Severing this visual-‐ architectural link would be to lose a considerable amount of architectural evolution throughout time. Perhaps we wouldn’t be at the present stage we are now. To elaborate, the Romans developed designs from the Ancient Greeks in the search for a grand artistic style that represented them. To do this they had to push for new techniques and technologies.80 This pattern has repeated throughout mankind to present day. Merely trying to keep our buildings looking distinct and beautiful has led to the progression in the building industry, this in turn has allowed for the mega-‐structures we have today. Frank Lloyd Wright believed that art was a fundamental necessity for people; “design and art should be an integral part of our everyday lives.”81 Basic psychology also advocates that aesthetically pleasing objects in our lives are beneficial and can relax us,82 beautiful object please us because it reminds us of the “fullness of human life, aiming beyond desire to a state

Pallasmaa 2007 p.29 Adam, J ‘Roman Building, Materials and Techniques’ London: Routledge, 2003 81 Wright, F ‘Frank Lloyd Wright; An Autobiography’ London: Faber & Faber 1945 p.83 80

Rolls, G ‘Essential A2 Psychology’ Hodders & Stoughton 2004

if satisfaction, it accompanies us, so to speak, on our spiritual journey…taste, judgment and criticism are therefore immovable components of aesthetic understanding.”83 So surely the artistic visually pleasing architecture is an invaluable asset to society. “The aesthetic experience is not an optional addition to our mental equipment. On the contrary, it is the inevitable consequence of our interest in appearances.”84 If we are to understand architecture without art, our hardwired fascination with appearances means little progression, we would not be able to categorize our history in the same way because architecture has always been used to differentiate between different eras. Would all our architecture be the same globally? Would they all be the simplest form of dwelling? The fact is the human innate love of beautiful and interesting things has helped drive architecture in all its forms and components forward. The trick it appears then is to find the balance, the perfect equilibrium with aesthetics; the visual, to which the photo drives, and the additional multifarious complexities architecture must seek to surmount. But what happens when

83 84

Scruton 1995 p.11 Scruton 1995 p.58

an architect has a blatant disregard these diverse issues seeking though the medium of photography to make their work more merchandisable? turning to; Designs – not even of a different and better world, but instead a set of increasingly abstract, pretty (and marketable) renderings of their own or of antique works…these aesthetic indulgences simply masquerade as architecture. They reveal architects in full retreat from any involvement with the actual world of buildings.85

Ghirardo 2002 p66-67

Vogue

A new trend has washed over the architectural scene, not a movement as such but something damaging eroding the heart of architecture. “Architecture has adopted the psychological strategy of advertising and instant persuasion; buildings have turned into image products detached from existential depth and sincerity.”86 No-‐one can question that the internet has revolutionized the sharing of knowledge and architectural images; however the influx of millions of inspiring photos has led to the imitation of publically acclaimed architecture. Be it particular claddings, patterns or the form the building takes on. Mimicking the successful buildings the imitator hoped to receive some of the praise and media attention surrounding the original canonized architect. In the short term their building may then be eulogized by society because it is chic, cutting edge and fashionable. Conversely these a la mode copies are rarely, if ever as impressive or as thought provoking as the inspired originals they are based on. The photograph acts only as an inadequate vessel of representation; the copied building’s architect was praised not simply because they chose specific claddings as illustrated in the photograph, but because the building worked, it works in the real.

Pallasmaa 2007 p.30

The architect successfully orchestrates the coming together of all architecture’s components to eventually accomplish a building that is able to represent something on an almost unconscious level, able to relate to the place in which it sits, able to feel emotionally tactile, profoundly right for some unknown reason87 To understand why a building ‘works’ it is paramount to go beyond the representation. If we do not all the focus is placed on “the instantaneous impact”88 the architect unknowingly withers, they becomes no more than a beautician, a stylist focusing purely on architecture’s skin. The result; “a extremely inexpensive structure and all this glitz on the surface. The structure rots after thirty years, and all the glitz is so expensive that you daren’t even fuck with it.”89 The architect is increasingly focused with the skin for that is where architecture seems to be praised. “The only area of architectural discretion in artistic or financial terms is the skin. The architectural imagination has allowed itself to be well and truly marginalized.”90

Zumthor 2006 Harvey 1992 p.58 89 Alexander, C. sited in Brand 1994 p.57 90 Duffy, F (1992) ‘The Changing Workplace’ London: Phaidon Publishing, 1992 p.232 88

The architect is attempting to appeal to the wrong people, the on lookers, and the passersby, the architectural photographer. Not the users, not the occupiers. The cycle is vicious; competitions make judgment on photographs, the public is fickle but easily amused, the architect feels that to be acknowledged his architecture must be beautiful to behold. The architect borrows ideas from existing acclaimed architectural images. The discipline cannot progress. Thus fashions the discipline’s own neutron bomb, which promises to leave nothing but the vacant buildings intact – an empty bric-‐a-‐brac landscape in both style and substance, a literally empty reminiscence of a bygone culture91 Zumthor describes how we all carry round images that influence us, but these images do not make new architecture. “Every design needs new images. Our old images can only help us find new ones,”92 imitating images of architecture will only serve to stunting architecture’s growth. These presidents may however inspire, resulting in fresh images. The architect

91 92

Ghirardo 2002 p.68 Zumthor 1998 p.67

must first remove himself from the shackles of the visual image. Once again retain the status of ‘master builder’.93

The word ‘architect’ derives from the Greek term ‘architéktōn’. ‘archi’ in this sense meaning; chief or master, and ‘téktōn’ translates to builder or craftsman. online; (www.etymonline.com)

Seeing Past the Visual

In the space of a single lifetime, humankind has witnessed monumental technological advancements; this has led to the exponential growth and availability of images. We are overwhelmed; we reside in this decadent culture of instant gratification, bright lights, loud noises; always fast moving, always looking for the instant impact. Vision prevails as the dominant sense; thus, the archetypal medium of representation is the photograph. It is when we combine what culture demands with photography that we find a poisoned architecture, with rotting organs and skeleton, but healthy in the skin. The dominant premise that runs throughout this paper is that images are continuously misinterpreted. Through the most basic and fundamental process of photography, the capturing of the image, a snapshot of our reality is captured, processed, assimilated and dissimilated. The outcome, a false incarnation of what exists or indeed what now ceases to exist, the world disregards and even denies this truth, but we in the realms of architecture cannot afford to overlook the contradiction -‐ too much is lost. We all can from time to time be seduced by the beauty of the image, it is after all our nature, but we must take a step back, contemplate the mesmeric image to remind

ourselves that there is more than what meets the eye. Good architecture requires the harmonic amalgamation of many different components; vital cogs that allow architecture to work; unfortunately, many of these are very poorly, if ever represented in the image. The more weighting we give to the visual the slower the vital cogs turn; they rust away, ultimately dissolving from the discipline altogether. What remains are glamorous buildings that allure the public for a time, but ultimately fail as architecture, appearing more like failed artistic experiments. The photograph can be manipulated; it is subjective and is not an accurate manifestation of the real. Our way we perceive and use the pseudo-‐image must be re-‐evaluated, and our understanding of our culture must transcend the smog of visual so we may focus on what really matters. The discipline will always have an affinity with the photograph as an indispensable tool, the architect’s love affair with the media that closest reflection of reality, will also continue. A building that has been captured by a photograph can never die, it lives on through the image; perhaps Karl Marx encapsulated this abstractation best: “All that is solid

melts into air”94; buildings will decay with time, we cannot stem the flow of time but the internet coupled with the photograph is our greatest attempt at preserving our pasts, celebrating our history and immortalising our architecture. Aborigines and Native Americans believed that taking a photograph of a human steals part of their soul; if we take a photograph of a building and merely reference it through the image we do very literally strip architecture of its soul. It becomes trapped in the singularity of the image, unable to engage with people. The photograph will never capture the “magic of the real”95; an image is purely mono-‐sensory, it cannot infuse the wealth of phenomenological emotions one encounters in the authentic. The only true way to ‘experience’ a building is to visit it in person, no media existing or in the conceivable future will be an unquestionable reflection of real.

Marx K. ‘Capital: The Communist Manifesto and other writings’ Carlton House, New York 1932 p28 95 Zumthor 1998 p.85

References Adam, J (2003) Roman Building, Materials and Techniques, Routledge, London Alexander, C (1977), The timeless way of buildings OUP, USA Alsayyad N (2001) Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism Routledge, London, England Ballantyne, A (2002) What is Architecture? Routledge, Oxon Brand, S (1995) How Buildings Learn; what happens after they’re built Penguin group, New York Bricker, E. (2008) extract from the movie Visual Acoustics based on the life and works of world renowned architectural photographer Julius Shulman Canizaro, V (2007) Architectural Regionalism: Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity, and Tradition Princeton Architectural Press, New York Colomina, B (1994) Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media MIT Press, Cambridge, England Crosset PA, (1987) Eyes Which See Casabella Duffy, F (1992) The Changing Workplace Phaidon Publishing, London, England

Evans, R (1997) Translation from Drawing to Building and other Essays Janet Evans & Architectural Association Publications, London Feuerbach L (1855) The Essence of Christianity Published by Calvin Blanchard, Nassau Street, New York Jencks, C (1997) Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture Wiley-‐Academy, Sussex, England Koolhaas, R, (1995) Small, Medium, Large, Extra Large: O.M.A, Monacelli Press, New York Ghirardo, D (2002) Architecture After Modernism Thames and Hudson, London Goldblatt, D (1997), Journal of aesthetic and art criticism, Prentice Hall, New Jersey Harvey, D (1992) The Condition of Postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change Blackwell (Cambridge) Heidegger, M (1985), Basic Writings Routledge, London Leach, N (1997) Rethinking Architecture Routledge, Oxon, London, England Le Corbusier (1959) Towards a new architecture Architectural Press, London & Frederick A Praeger, New York

Mare, E (1961) Photography and Architecture Frederick Praeger, Pantheon Books, New York Marcus, A (2007) Visualizing the City Routledge, London & New York Marx,K (1932) Capital: The Communist Manifesto and other writings Carlton House, New York Morales, S (1993) Mies van der Rohe: Barcelona Pavilions Gustavo Gili New York Nesbitt, K (1996) Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-‐95 Princeton Architectural Press Pallasmaa, J (2007) The Eyes of the Skin TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall, England Piotrowski, A (2001) The Discipline of Architecture University of Minnesota Press, London, England Rapoport, A (1969) House Form and Culture Prentice Hall; Facsimile Edition, New Jersey Rapoport, A (1982) The Meaning of the Built Environment University of Arizona Press, Tucson Rattenbury, K (2002) This is not Architecture: Media Constructions Routledge, London, England

Rendell, J (2008) Art and Architecture a place between I.B Tauris, London, England Rolls, G (2004) Essential A2 Psychology Hodders & Stoughton Rossi, A (1982) Architecture of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, England Saint, A (1983) The Image of the Architect Yale University Press, New Haven and London Schwartz, J (2009) Picturing Place: Photography and the Geographical Imagination I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, England Schwarzer, M (2004) Zoomscape; Architecture in motion and media Princeton Architectural Press, New York Scruton, R (1995) The Classical Vernacular: architectural principles in an age of nihilism St Martin’s Press, New York Sontag, S (1977) On Photography Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York Soanes, C (2005) Oxford Dictionary of English Revised Edition OUP Oxford, England Tanizaki, J (2001) In Praise of Shadows Vintage Books, London, England

Unwin, S (2003) Analysing Architecture Second Edition Routledge, Oxon Urry, J (1990) The Tourist Gaze Sage Publications, London, England Venturi, R (1977) Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form The MIT Press, London, England Wolsdorff, C (2001) Mehr Als Der Blsse Zweck: Mies Van Der Rohe Bauhaus-‐Archiv, Berlin Wright, F (1945) Frank Lloyd Wright; An Autobiography Faber & Faber, London Zumthor, P (2006) Thinking Architecture – Second, Expanded Edition, Birkhauser, Berlin

Journals Davey, P (2010) “Gargoyles and Shadows: Gothic Architecture and 19th-‐ Century Photography pp92-‐93 Architectural Review February 2010 Unknown (1862) The Builder Magazine, cited in Architectural review, February 2010 Steele, B (2002) ‘Absolut Mies, Absolute Modern Building Good Copy’, cited in The Journal of The Architectural Association School of Architecture, issue 48, Winter 2002 Benjamin, W (1968) ‘the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, in illuminations, New York Web References Robert A.M Stern 21 Feb 2008 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 1st Feb 2010 Glaser, September 2 2009 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 4th February 2010 Meier, R. Feb 4 2008 (online) www.thebigthink.com accessed on 10th September 2009 (online)www.etymonline.com accessed on 12th February 2010

Images Front Cover (1998) Authors own image, Abandoned Berlin Back Cover ibid Preface Image, (1998) Authors own Reichstag, Berlin [Figure 1] a collection of various architectural journals; American Architect, Architect’s Journal, Architectural Review, Space Magazine [Figure 2] Bayard, H, Church of the Madeleine, Paris, interior of Facade portico, Le Secq, H (1851-‐3) Church of the Madeleine, Paris, South Facade [Figure 3] Ayling, S (1869) Westminster, (online) http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/468xAny/a/s/a/Westminster , accessed on 26/02/2010 [Figure 4] J Ruskin (1845) the Window of the Palazzo Foscari, Venice (online)http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail [Figure 5] Wright, F, Fallingwater, (online) http://www.checkonsite.com/wp-‐content/gallery/falling-‐water, accessed on 25/02/2010, Edited by Author [Figure 6] ibid [Figure 7] (2009) Author’s own image, Rohe, M, Neue National Gallery, Berlin, [Figure 7b] ibid [Figure 8] Le Corbusier interior photographs, foundation le Corbusier/ADAOG 2001

[Figure 9] (1960) P Koenig Case Study House #22, Photograph by J Shulman, (online) http://casestudyhouses.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/case_study_ house_22.jpg, accessed on 22/02/2010 [Figure 10] (2009-‐10) Author’s own architectural drawings [Figure 11] (1929) Rohe, M, Original Barcelona Pavilions, Spain, (online) http://www.invisi.com/weblog/2005, accessed on 20/02/2010 [Figure 12] (1962-‐5) Mies van der Rohe, New National Gallery, model [Figure 13a] (2000) Renault advert featuring Pavilion [Figure 13b] (2001) Brett Steele, Imagined Prada Barcelona Pavilion [Figure 14] (1931) M, Ghyka, The Golden Ratio, Le Nombre d’or [Figure 13] Archive Beauty Contest (online) www.belonging.org, accessed on 11/01/2010 [Figure 14] (2006) Author’s own image, Mayan Symbols, Xunantunich ruins, Belize [Figure 15] (2009) Authors own image, Decay of architecture, immortalized by the photograph, All plates from Snapshot were taken by author in various locations between 2005-‐2010

Special Thanks To Gursewak Aulakh Bob Brown Daniel Maudlin Carey Anderson Mark Anderson Lee Lawrence

The image part with relationship ID rId35 was not found in the file.

100

101

102

103