the pandas are moshing

October 31

+

ekstasis:

austinkleon:
David Schalliol, Isolated Building Studies
A smart comment by the interviewer for ArchDaily, Sarah Wesseler, about his work:
There’s been a lot of discussion of late in the architecture community about how to deal with existing building stock and how buildings should relate to their context. Most architectural photography, however, doesn’t seem to have much connection with these issues, for the perfectly valid reason that it’s generally a commercial product designed to make an individual project look as good as possible.
This comment made me think about the architecture photographer Julius Schulman, and how uncritical the documentary about his life was about this point.

I had a professor who very strongly believed the problem with modernist architecture (and, by proxy, modern understandings of architecture) is that it’s designed to look good in photographs and not in three dimensions. For anyone who has ever felt isolated in a minimalist, Danish-Modern, etc. room, anyone who has ever felt the oppressive weight of some cavernous convention center, go back and find a picture that of that space. see how much warmer it looks, see how inviting it seems. Pictures don’t have a one-to-one correspondence with reality.

austinkleon:

David Schalliol, Isolated Building Studies
A smart comment by the interviewer for ArchDaily, Sarah Wesseler, about his work:

There’s been a lot of discussion of late in the architecture community about how to deal with existing building stock and how buildings should relate to their context. Most architectural photography, however, doesn’t seem to have much connection with these issues, for the perfectly valid reason that it’s generally a commercial product designed to make an individual project look as good as possible.

This comment made me think about the architecture photographer Julius Schulman, and how uncritical the documentary about his life was about this point.

I had a professor who very strongly believed the problem with modernist architecture (and, by proxy, modern understandings of architecture) is that it’s designed to look good in photographs and not in three dimensions. For anyone who has ever felt isolated in a minimalist, Danish-Modern, etc. room, anyone who has ever felt the oppressive weight of some cavernous convention center, go back and find a picture that of that space. see how much warmer it looks, see how inviting it seems. Pictures don’t have a one-to-one correspondence with reality.

Page 1 of 1