How Architecture Depends on Photography
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- Architecture and photography are deeply dependent on one another. The first photograph ever taken frames buildings as its subject. Even more, it took an entire room to produce the image through a camera obscura. In the early days, buildings were one of the few subjects that could sit still for the 8 hours it took to burn an image onto a photosensitive medium. However, architecture is dependent on photography too. Buildings are large, slow, and immobile. Without photographs, it would be difficult to visit the important structures around the world. In this way, photographs are an easily shareable surrogate for buildings. But, photographs are not truthful 1:1 depictions so photographers have a lot of agency when it comes to how we experience architecture. This video offers some insight into this relationship and presents a few photographers as examples for how they interpret an architect's intentions and add their own voice. These include Julius Shulman, Ezra Stoller, Stephen Shore, Iwan Baan, among others.
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a UA-cam journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
As a college student studying architecture in the 1960s, it never dawned on me how much I (and probably my classmates and even teachers) had been influenced by Shulman’s and Stoller’s depictions of space and form. Thanks for your insights.
It's great hearing "instagrammability" in the context of architecture, as to a layman (me), it's almost somewhat absurd to imagine that there's extremely professional and well-paid architects designing buildings that cost tens of millions of dollars considering if their design might get attention on social media. Anyways, the idea of Shulman's invisible elaborateness brings my mind to marketing, especially with the rise of individual influencers or small businesses. How often do you see promotional videos or photos for something like interior design, an AirBNB, etc. that's too perfect and staged in a very obvious way? If done poorly, the photo has a very specific and off-putting artificiality that's opposite to the goals of an advertisement. Seeing Shulman's photos and then learning about how perfectly meticulous they were is raising my expectations to an unachievable degree :)
For AirBnB's it works because it makes it stand out from the rest and people prefer places that are exclusively used as an AirBnB - the weirder the interior the more likely that there's nobody actually living there.
"It's great hearing "instagrammability" in the context of architecture," ................. yeah and there is looking at Stewart as well. Both equally engaging.
In the new order of things, instagrammability > architecture. Architecture is just stage scenery for a higher reality: the picture. We use paper, cardboard, models, drawings and formwork, scaffolding to make architecture. Afterwards these things can be thrown away. For instagram, architecture is just one of the ingredients of the picture, along with clothes, props, peoples expressions and poses - equally exploited and disposable. A building costs multiple millions but instagram is at the crux of a probably trillion dollar economic activity: architecture is very much the servant. It's hard, especially for an architect, to come to grips with this order of things, but it is in fact so. Designing a space around particular instagrammic scenes, as per client's request, is an everyday occurrence. It has it's benefits, people more willing to go out on a limb, try something different, but usually they wanna be different in the exact same way everyone else is different, so...
Photography is what popularizes architecture but also what distorts peoples expectations and makes buildings seem anticlimactic in person. Personally, I think photography is a scourge of many fields and architecture perhaps most prominently among them. Most of what is good about a good photo is about framing, what is in the frame and more importantly about what is outside it. It also has a lot to do with the lens and the specific conditions when the photograph was taken, a painstaking study and setup. All of this is antithetical to architecture: there is no frame, there is no possibility of a single climactic viewpoint that is preceded by blankness - it's a continuum, it's a temporal experience with that which is outside the frame very much playing the role with the subject matter. A photograph has it's own agenda and it's relationship to the architecture is like that of the movie trailer to the movie: it's there to sell things, not necessarily tell you the truth about that which it represents.
Photography in the 21 century especially has on the one hand raised awareness about "capital A" Architecture more broadly and has elevated expectations of the average client. However, on the other hand it has also led, through social media, to fads, homogeneity, abandonment of local identity etc. Because of it's marketing potential and sometimes explicit purpose, especially for commercial buildings (and even private which is on AriBnB and such some of the time) photography is starting to dictate goals to architecture. All this is transferring the focus of architecture on the visual, on mere appearance, that what can fit in a frame. This is robbing architecture of it's other dimensions, literally and metaphorically, since architecture is about atmospheres, sequences, transitions, temperature, smell, sound, haptics and so much more. All this is creating an unhealthy trend of superficial architecture that is oddly scenographic / photogenic but shallow and underwhelming in person - which robs the field of architecture of credibility, that it is indeed able to capture and convey something special through manipulation of built environment.
My hope is that VR technology, which is far superior to photography in conveying the "architectureness" of architecture, will become more popular and in time remedy all the downsides of needing to rely on a medium that literally lacks several dimensions. Conveying architecture through photography is like broadcasting a symphony through Morse code.
I feel like you might be attributing too much to photography. As the video shows, highly constructed photos of architecture have been around for years. What's changed is the platforms that it's consumed on, the quantity of it being produced and the algorithms that promote the most liked images in a sort of exponential way. I think this is more damaging to architecture than photography itself, and I think architects have a certain responsibility to their clients to push back and remind them what's actually important in a building. Finally, I agree that photography can never convey the whole experience of a building, but architects still need to have a way of showing people what they do, and photography is still the best way to do it, despite the existence of video, VR, AR, 360 imagery etc. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future, but I don't see photography going away any time soon. Humans are naturally lazy, and are much more likely to be impacted by an iconic image that grabs their attention in seconds than having to put on a headset and make the effort to virtually look around a building. That interest is most likely to be sparked AFTER they see an image (or perhaps a brief video clip).
@@mdhazeldine I don’t think I’m attributing too much to photography, in fact even though it’s impossible to ever prove I think the influence of photography, of images, can hardly be overstated even if tried.
I agree with most everything of what you said: I marvel and despair of how misleading and penetrating the image of a thing is compared to the thing itself. I’ve compared photos to tweets before: it’s the brevity, the vagueness, the generality that invites us to pour into it our own gestalt without really noticing how much of ourselves is borrowed for the thing to work. We mistakenly think the pithy part came in the thing, while the pithy part is just us reflected to ourselves: the impressive thing about photos is the elegant slight of hand where the meaning is borrowed from us and presented back at us without us ever noticing. One could level the same accusation at all art with some justice but to me some things, photography maybe foremost, is most obviously the culprit. I think that anyone who’s fallen out of love with images can’t but look with some sort of mistrust and some disdain upon it’s conjurings which were so seductive and now seem crass and dishonest.
I really wish more architects, more people in general became fed up with images and acquired a taste for presence, for solidness and materiality of things.
My personal view is that it is not photography that is a problem, but the distribution and consumption of perfect images by students who may not possess the adequate critical faculties to separate image from process and making buildings with 3D space just makes it worse because the image - or sequence of images- becomes the only point of reference and the interplay of senses that determine the perception of architecture, are removed from its making
This is a great discussion, and on UA-cam of all places. As an architect from Kerala, India in the initial stages of actively promoting my partnership firm’s work to bring in more clients, I fully understand and agree with the original comment, and also the reply comment here.
But what I would like to point out is that in a region like mine where architects aren’t yet fully ‘understood’ in the modern sense of the profession (in my sincere opinion of course) by the public in general, the promotion becomes even more of a visual affair than it ideally should be. So what we as a firm are trying to do is focus on those small percentage of potential clients who are actually aware (at least to some extent) of the ideal role of an architect and of a work of architecture, in relation to the context (location, climate, cultural background, first principles and so on).
Having said that, I personally would still be attracted by a stunning photograph of visual medium of an architectural project located in a different far away region that I won’t experience for myself anytime in the near future. This type of visually impressive presentation, however exaggerated, is probably the easiest way a project can be ‘promoted’ to anyone who is not physically visiting the place and experiencing it in person. But if there was some way the temporal experience can be better conveyed, like say a well made short video, that might have an even better impact on the viewer. Just my 2 cents. Cheers
A... An actual essay in the comment section
It’s my birthday AND I get a Stewart Hicks video with special emphasis on photography in architecture? Excellent!
HBD!
Happy birthday!
@@freerkderuiter8822 thank you!
@@3g0st thank you!
@@L0wBap thank you!
This. This right here.
This is why I went into 3D rendering. Photography inherently frames a space in one aspect or dimension, and seeing something outside of that perspective ruins the illusion or experience. It often disappoints us when we actually get to experience the subject. But viewing a space in 3D, as if you were there, removes these issues.
You can adjust for the time of day, for the shadows of trees, for buildings, for weather. You can view spaces from real heights, from an infant’s to an adult’s to a wheelchair-bound person’s angle of view. You can design the space with the world and client more in mind, and make edits on the fly before committing to a plan. A client can WALK THROUGH THEIR SPACE, and easily realize how it will feel once it is built.
They can decide a hallway is too thin or a kitchen too cramped, choose the kind of furniture they want in their bedroom and see it there, realize that maybe that cold brown living room paint would be better a nice warm hazel to match that new cream 2-seater.
Architects already make models physically and often basic mock-ups in 3D programs for banners and webpage advertising of their future spaces, why not go the extra step and give us a walkthrough?
Not only does it save time after the upfront investment in building the basic model to be edited, but it can also justify an extra cost on to the consumer for the extra edits they’ll realize they’ll want to make, because those edits now will save THEM time and money down the road once they start decorating their space.
It’s a win-win for everyone involved, yet many architects push back against investing in this future because they don’t understand the appeal of VR or want to pay the costs for/learn how to 3D renders.
VR/3D renders show exactly what's visible, in mathematical way, and is surely a great tool to develop spaces. But bringing over a feeling of a building, or anything for that matter, is something else. A good drawing of an interior can express the overall feeling, the ambiance. It leaves space for imagination. The same with good photography.
"many architects push back against investing in this future because they don’t understand the appeal of VR"
don't worry: they will lose. the genie has left the bottle, for better or worse.
I think you're missing the whole point, its about aesthetics.
@@sos10 Sure. Lousy architectural photography stinks. But VR is fake and it looks fake. Nothing compares to well executed digital architectural photography.
@@genesmith4019 You'd be surprised to know how realistic cgi can look
Great video Stewart! Loved how architect/buildings actually help created photography. I've always enjoyed how Slim Aaron managed to capture people around/in buildings
Good one!
Most commercial architectural/real-estate photography is highly manipulated in photoshop. The camera lens is curved and you are transferring straight 3 dimensional lines to a flat 2D image. Your perspective, parallel and perpendicular lines like walls, ceilings and columns will feel off to the viewer. These lines are corrected digitally. Buildings IRL also have minor imperfections no matter how brand new they are. So they are touched up like models on magazine covers. The frame of the photo is important too. If a photo is going to be used on a magazine, catalog or brochure, the building’s proportions are considered for what final layout the image will be used. So sometimes furniture, plants and other features are moved within that particular frame. Sometimes multiple photos are stitched together too, as sections of buildings have their own lighting requirements. There are so many tricks of the trade it’s fascinating. Like how there are food stylists to photograph food, there are ways to make architecture more beautiful.
Photography and architecture are both very technical by nature but the truth of either of them is shown when the artistic side comes to the fore with real talent. In both fields, the artist makes something beautiful to behold.
I’ve always loved some of the older buildings in my city, the decrepit ones and the cozy styled ones. I’ve never been able to take a good photo to encapsulate what the buildings make me feel so I never save them, but I do think about the buildings from time to time
I wrote a thesis about this back in the noughties when I was still in university. As far as I remember it's remarkably similar to your view here in the video.
My favourite is Hélène Binet - essential and intense black and white, using film. With a new exhibition at the RA in London, winter 2021!
Good one. Very beautiful.
@@stewarthicks Thanks Stuart. Your channel shows how architecture should be presented on You Tube - serious content but accessible. Yes, some beauty, and rational thinking, are much in need over in Brexit-battered Britain. We will see how architecture responds to our current politics of Trump-like, xenophobic self-isolation.
I like photographs of Shaker buildings, especially the spiral staircase at the Shaker Village at Pleasant Hill. The design rules were to be strictly functional but also to be as "perfect" as possible. As a result, the buildings and interiors and even furnishings have a lightness (no extra materials, no decoration) and symmetry that are very pleasing. Another type of photo I enjoy is long shots of Levittown and similar developments. I find them surreal, with their curving streets of identical houses. I noticed yesterday that a neighborhood nearby has begun to build new houses again, and sure enough, one street is a string of identical facades - I really did a double-take.
You might be interested in reading a book called "Stillness and Light: The Silent Eloquence of Shaker Architecture" by Henry Plummer.
I’m soo glad I bumped into this video, being a lifestyle photographer and having closest of friends who are architects, I’ve always taken interest in architecture and architecture photography.
so happy I found this channel recently, combining my passion for photography and architecture in such a concise and well presented way ❤ thank you for another great video!
Thank you! Glad you're enjoying the channel.
This illustrates the problem that architects are too obsessed with producing art, instead of producing a practical building that is pleasant for its' users and fits in its' surroundings.
Ooooh! I want more on photography and architecture. Loved this episode. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom.
I really enjoyed this video! I fell in love with photography at an early age, and it was through photography that I fell in love with architecture. Thank you for another excellent video!
This is a neat one! When I first watched, I thought about the booming community of photographers on Twitter. They do not seem as admissible to the convo as I would like. Briscoe Park's eye suggests alienation from his monolithic subjects; meanwhile, the more personal perspectives of Joey the Photographer seem closer to Shulman's exhibiteed work, though it remains in line with the absence of life evident in what pops up in my feed. Thank you for this food for thought!
now i know why i loved taking photos in constant mobility
Thank you for these exciting and gap-filling videos. This one especially resonates with some recent thoughts crossing my mind regularly.
The more spaces i get the honour to shoot, the more places well shot i get lucky to visit, the stronger the hypothesis:
good spatial design just can not be grasped by photos.
First it felt like some unjustness of the universe, or any childish misconception :) Still, slowly, a point started to be made, in defence of the universe -
photos are at least 4 "dimensions" less than any sensitively well done space (smell, time, temperature, sound, roughness, the 3rd spatial, generated biodiversity, etc. make up a place, not a picture) -
resulting in the soothing revelation:
there are fantastically shot photographs, there are wonderfully shaped spaces, and they have nothing in common.
Even if they bloom around the focus of the same house, their object is drastically different.
A good photograph evokes feelings.
A good piece of space evokes freedom.
What a nice video! It could just be driven by my own background as an architect/lighting designer/photographer, but it definitely feels as though this could be a whole channel unto itself.
One thing I think it's worth highlighting is the motivation behind us when we photograph architecture. I relied on commissions from architects to pay the bills for a few years, and when shooting in that way, you are very aware that what you're often trying to do is properly explain the spaces and the projects at which you and your camera have been pointed. Your skills for observing what's in front of you are needed, but you also have a responsibility to capture and represent the ideas that formed those spaces in the first place. It's that balance, of on the one grasping fleeting moments or unique observations that excite your artistic impulses against, on the other hand, attempting to fully explain an entire project and celebrate how the physical form expresses its functions... that balance was what I always enjoyed the most.
...But it's definitely also interesting to photograph spaces when you're NOT being paid to do it. It feels like you have the freedom to celebrate exactly what you find, and not just what the designers would WANT you to show. I think that's where Shore's efforts mentioned in this video get their strength. His eyes were hired to observe and reflect, and even celebrate, but he'd not been specifically asked to sell anything.
In the book “Eyes of the Skin,” Pallasmaa talks about the dominance of the visual in architecture due to the way many of us consume it-through photography both physically, in magazines, and digitally. But architecture is also felt, heard, smelled. The visual being primary doesn’t necessarily mean better. On a similar note, I have also heard that the rise, or perhaps perseverance, of modern minimalism may have something to do with looking at architecture through a small photograph or on a screen-the detail (or lack thereof) looks proper and beautiful at such a small scale, but the actual building is 1000x bigger, so in person it feels lacking. We also design on a small screen, so our perception of what the scale really is is skewed.
This is my new favorite channel - thank you so much Stewart.
Doode, never once in my life I would thought arch pictures could be so interesting and beautiful. This was an amazing video
One of the best yt chanels about Architecture. Thank you for quality content of your videos.
I enjoyed the photography that went against conventions the most. It is masterful when someone has full command over the conventions of a given skillset, then flips them around on their head.
It was Picasso who said "Learn the rules so you can break them".
As an architectural photographer myself, thank you for bring attention to the craft. I was very aware of Shulman, Stoller and Baan, but I didn't know about Shore, so I will have to look him up!
Awesome! It's a very robust topic that I'm sure to revisit sometime soon.
Interesting about Stephen Shore, I thought he was a travel photographer. Didn’t realize he was commissioned for architecture too. I saw a group of his photos on exhibit, the food was a stand out ( not because I have been taking photos of food before social media). The exhibit I visited in 2017 was called “On the Road” at the Art museum right at the edge of the University of Texas.
To only take one photo of your subject takes a lot of balls
One of my favourite architectural photographers is Hiroshi Sugimoto, and particularly his striking black and white images of the homes designed by Luis Barragan. There is an atmospheric, ethereal quality to the photos which is quite unexpected when photographing something hard-edged like a building. The way in which he frames the image turns them into abstract compositions, with overlapping planes of light and dark.
Good one
Excellent video! In the thumbnail picture of the comparison, the one on the left, the color picture, also has a narrow deck or a skirt going around the building, the original picture does not. I'm guessing this was added probably some years after the original photograph was taken. That small wooden deck changes that building dramatically from an inside looking out view. I remember seeing this photograph as a child. I grew up in Massachusetts so this kind of architecture just blew my mind. LOL I love this picture I could talk about this picture and the way it was taken and the architecture for at least a couple of days. Thx for the video. I ended up living at one point on Laurel canyon Blvd and Ventura Blvd, l gotta to finally see this 1950s and 1960s architecture.
Amazing content, thank you so much! First time on this channel, clicked because the subject is relevant to my interest, I'm the opposite of disappointed!
The flash picture of FLR's Falling Water in your presentation was the first time I was made to consider the the relationship of photography to the design itself. Ever since I was very young I wondered about the practicality of the placement of that building, (and many others). Logic getting in the way of art.
Well said. I suspect FLW often grumbled about his clients' "logic" getting in the way of his "art."
That second photo you showed is also incredibly important. For those who aren't aware, it's a 1838 photo by Louis Daguerre & is the oldest known photo of a person (there's a guy getting his shoes shined towards the lower left.
This is so so awesome video. Love architecture myself and stunned to see how it can manipulated through photography
A great video you've made. It's interesting how each photographer had his own way of shooting. There is no right or wrong in photography, unlike architecture, the methods of constructing an image are entirely in the hands of the creator.
Great one Stewart, I have been waiting for this one. I've been long a fan of Julius Shulman and I would point anyone interested in finding out more about him to the documentary Visual Acoustics. It gives a real insight into how he worked (the answer is he had more patience than I ever did). It was great to learn about Iwan Baan and Ezra Stoller, who, embarrassingly, I had never heard of. I have to confess, though, I have a hard time considering Stephen Shore an architectural photographer. In case you didn't see it Architizer did a story entitled 10 photographs that changed architecture. Some of which are a little puzzling.
Even outside of modernism, the photography/architecture dynamic is strong. Wallace Nutting’s photos were part of the Colonial Revival. And the relationship of photography and architectural preservation and conservation is multifaceted.
Love it Stewart, would love to see more on photography especially walker evans, William Christenberry and the Bechers
If you’ll allow, I would like to make another comment on your video.
I am in an industry that has zero to do with architecture or the personalities that drive certain bits of the world of architecture forward.
That said, I’ve always had a more-than-passing interest in certain aspects of architecture… primarily related to mid-century modern or Isabelline styles.
I’d just like to say that your professorship really shows through in your videos… in my opinion. Your videos truly are, at their core, well-reasoned and very thoughtful essays. The visuals are certainly icing on the cake.
Thanks for doing what you do. All the best!
Thank you so much!
As a trained photographer and architecture enthusiast, the built environment is one of my favorite things to photograph. I've always like to approach shooting architecture in both the grand style of Stoller; focusing on curves, patterns, negative space; and also the simple style of Shore and how Baan shows how humans interact and coexist with the built environment. In large structures I enjoy contrasting the scale of people compared to the large spaces and elements. Lately I've been finding myself photographing bridges, structures that are often passed over unrealized, and rarely do we find ourselves underneath a bridge. Even the small overpasses are epic in scale compared to the human form.
I imagine you do it as a hobby as there is no real way to make money of that right?
Iwan Baan is one of the people who inspires me the most
Amazing and unique topic of a video. Keep doing what you're doing Stewart!
I thought it was rather interesting that we casual observers use the phrase, take a picture. The photographer used the phrase, make a picture. I think this kind of parallels the discussion about photography as an art form.
Interesting! I can see Todd Hido's roots in Shore's work
4:06 I've never been more impressed at an architectural choice as Neutra's reflection roof. At least for a relatively simple idea that's easily integrated into the building that has so much impact. That house is pretty impressive overall. The reflection "pond" or roof, just adds an extra element. I feel privileged that I get to drive by that house at least once a week or two. I always take note, and never take it for granted that I'm driving by a masterpiece.
I'm on my second year of photography (with architecture as my theme place) and your content was actually rich of information I wanted. Xx ps.goodlooking 😊
A timely video. I’ve been diving into the pages and frames of New Topographic and liminal space photography, which was introduced by Robert Adams.
Great research! Really lovely to watch this video!👌🏻✨
Very good video!
There is no doubt how much photography is important in portraying architecture, but truly good architecture should draw your attention positively from every angle and light, I dare to say it should do it even if it was in a ruined state
Fascinating... I'm still obsessed with Stoller and Shulman, but I love hearing about how architects interact with photographers in different ways.
Nice pace and informative. I like the style of your productions.
Hey Stewart! Love your videos. I am a Building Construction Science student at Mississippi State University. I like architecture a lot, and take many architecture courses at school, but found myself more interested in building rather than designing. To the best of my knowledge there are few, quality videos on UA-cam about what’s it’s like to be a general contractor or other people involved in projects. I was wondering if you would consider making a video about the entire process of a project, or a broad overview of the process of how a design is realized. I think it would be really interesting, and you’d be one of, if not the, best content creators to talk about this.
so happy that I had found this channel, sub.
It's all about time,space,people and stories ! ❤ Robin Shibu - from India 🇮🇳
Interesting enough that I stayed even after the second description of a building as heroic
Great subject and great content as usual, thanks for producing this! It's delightfully thought provoking. Have a nice day :)
Thanks, you too!
The reason the front thumbnail picture looked better, wasn't emphasis on the camera, it was a brand new build at the time of 1957, rich orange and red autumn toned chairs. A big bright open window casting the indoor lighting outside as well, Jade green flooring carpet, with a brass analogue radio. Rich plant life with orange/yellow dazzling lights.
Great video as always Stewart. Well done.
Thank you! Means a lot coming from you.
@@stewarthicks you are the super star here.
nice - looking forward to viewing more of your pieces
0:59 that one is actually the first photo of a person ever
Rory Gardiner's work is exquisite!
I would love to have Iwan Baan's carbon footprint.
I love the work of Hedrich Blessing. He is an architectural photographer like Ezra Stroller, who favors modern buildings. They seem idealized and celebrated, and always describe the building beautifully.
I really love your channel, much love
Thank you!
Thank you for this info.
Great Video,
Thank you
Thanks for sharing this aspect of architecture. I still prefer economical sustainable housing as a frame for more creative and beautiful end products, but it's important to know these experimentations.
I read somewhere that norman jaffe, always had photography in mind and usually changed things on the spot when they were constructing the building to fit the image he was picturing. apparently he always walked around with a camera and checked every angle for the sun and wind but most of all composition
As a huge Modernism fan, Shulman is definitely one of my top favorite photographers.
Archotecture and photography are two very different art forms with very different goals.
Archotecture is all about experiencing the space both inside and out where photography is all about that one moment it time, that one viewpoint with the light just so.
All that being obvious, in the cases under discussion, the photography is about selling the design, the architect’s vision.
The harsh reality is always waiting in the shadows.
Shanghai Tower seems to be a contemporary example of form over function too, with very little usable floor-space inside the envelope.
Perspective and motivation come together in the pervasive conventions of real estate photography of interior spaces, which seems to involve horizontal "stretching" to near-panoramic (but just short of demanding acknowledgement?) proportions.
This IS architectural photography for most people, including the agents who take, alter, and upload these millions of images (and engage in the introduction or deletion -- digitally or otherwise -- of furnishings and decorative elements) and the buyers and sellers (who have or will view and inhabit these spaces). All of these people must, at some level, feel the coersive, even corrosive, aspects of the disconnect between physical and represented architectural space.
It's easy to laugh off the more egregious examples of a cynical industry ploy (see: "airbrushing" bodies to conform to supposed ideals) but the tendency here is worthy of note -- and possibly an artists' intervention!
This is quite an interesting video Stewart! :)
Fun fact: If you visit Case Study House #22, you'll find a set of footprints embedded outside along with an explanation that this is where Julius Shulman stood to shoot his iconic pictiure.
Oh cool
Is it worth it? I've been wanting to visit, but I feel the cost of entry is rather steep, plus it's not like I'll ever photograph it anywhere near as well as Shulman did. I did visit another Pierre Koenig house, CSH #21, which is smaller and lacks the spectacular setting, but is a more interesting design IMHO. Of course, it was empty and closed to the public, so I didn't go inside, but at least I could see it from the outside without a ticket.
@@jc3drums916 We saw it as part of a program we were involved in, so I don't know how much it actually cost. I find a lot of these homes were built cheaply - that was part of the design - and they haven't aged that well. What looked innovative and fresh fifty hears ago doesn't feel the same today.
Wolfgang Sievers was a German Australian industrial and architectural photographer who’s work is worth studying
Thanks for the suggestion!
Loved the video, now I want to buy a proper camera.
Fun stuff. For a good read on the transformative relationship of photography and architects, Cervin Robinson’s: Architecture Transformed is required reading. That, along with William Mitchell’s: The Reconfigured Eye - a discussion of “visual truth” and our perception of the world through the frame of photography.
Thanks for the suggestions!
I have a book (unfortunately now in storage) of Ezra Stoller's photos of the Yale Art and Architecture Building, designed by Paul Rudolph. The photos were taken shortly after the building went into use, and Rudolph appears in several of the photos. In this particular instance, Stoller seems to be getting away from the perfectly composed photos you refer to, at least for some of the interiors. Students and instructors appear everywhere in the photos. The architecture studio is a god-awful mess. Offices are shown with messy desks and ashtrays filled with cigarette butts. My favorite photo is of the library, with an exhausted student shown fast asleep at one of the library tables while all this activity is going on around him. (Flashback to my days in grad school.) I suspect Rudolph wanted him to show the rooms in use, as I know this isn't Stoller's usual modus operandi. I love these photos!
Sounds beautiful and fascinating! I'll try to find some of these...
Actually, I still photograph architecture with film. And it is in a large format camera. (I have three.)
This is work that I have been doing for clients since the '70s.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
BTW, early photography aren't necessarily made just to see the buildings. There are people moving around in them, but you either don't see them or they are ghost images. After all, you can't empty urban streets of people just to get a photo. I think there is actually a clamp behind Lincoln's head to hold him still; this was often used.
love it, that was fantastic
Excellent. A near perfect presentation.
Thank you!
Hello. Great video. Can you provide more information on the wooden wall art behind you in the shot? It’s very nice! Thank you.
People thought I was weird for wanting to take pictures of buildings and not portraits of people.
I always thought it was great paying more to the photographer than I made in commissions.
That photographer's carbon footprint is insane.
As always, an excellent and thought provoking piece. Sorry you didn't mention my favorite architectural photographer Marvin Rand.
Great suggestion. I'll have to do a follow up video.
That sudden end tho! ;-)
You missed the last "is a house" from the book title, but of course I got more out of the video than that. I think great architecture can not be accurately photographed. The best buildings are always better in person, and the average or bad buildings are always a disappointment compared to their enhanced photos.
You know Shulman's case study house photograph was 2 exposures and the "models" weren't really models, I think one of them was the architects wife & the other the owners wife.
I photograph lots of new houses. Most of them are pricy but they are still tract homes. It's very easy to lose track of the idea an architect or designer painstakingly worked to create a building of which they could be proud. Most of the time I like or hate a house when I walk in the front door. Mostly I've learned to loathe a 10' X 10' bedroom in a 5,000 sq. ft. house.
Ernie Brown's Eichler homes, are on top of it's class..
Stewart, you should do the same for Architecture Films, since the liminal Koolhaas Houselife by Bêka & Lemoine everything has changed. And thank you very much for this one!
Informative video indeed… i think the pursuit insta worth shots, be it real or renders is a pervasive action that has led to students lacking rudimentary design skills
As an arch student my main was goal was to get a cool render but through training and teaching from the University of Michigan I definitely see that my idea was stupid lmao. I see now it's more about mass and space and how everything interacts with itself while just getting a good snap just leads to a boring design constrained to a single photo
@@Gerud0 Fantastic , when you start to perceive the intricacies of design it becomes more fulfilling than getting those hero shots
As my teacher said "if you can look at the cool parts in one view" it's not really that great
I enjoyed, liked and subscrived 👌
leaving a remark in the discussion section
Cool video!
Thi video is a Masterpiece.
You show and teach us photography and architecture through their courtship to their marriage. Then you show us their baby, the state of both arts today.
Thank you.
I loved this video
Wow, a real Imperial star destroyer caught by an ancient camera