Re: architectural photography
2000.10.06 15:30
I think architectural photography is extremely valuable when the architecture in photographs no longer exists but in photographs.
Just over three years ago I went to photograph Venturi & Rauch's big BASCO 'sign' building. The building was then derelict, and I took many 'unflattering' snapshots, e.g., lots of empty beer bottles and a plump vinyl lounge chair providing an interesting domestic tableau just behind the big 'A'. Alas the film did not develop at all, and hence no photographic record and just a memory for me. Almost exactly a year later I returned to BASCO to take pictures again, however, the big letters were that time completely gone. I turned out to be the person informing Venturi's office of the loss.
The point is that 1) many buildings today change radically in short periods of time, therefore ALL photographic records (not just the flattering ones) are important items in understanding the 'life' of architecture most fully, and 2) a photograph of a building that once was but is no more is perhaps the easiest form of virtual architecture invented thus far.
Steve Lauf
ps
The above was written yesterday but the email did not work properly, so it was written before Paul and Richard's posts. In light of the latest posts, however, I add that architectural imagery (photography, photocopy, digital records, etc.) today is very cheap, meaning the notion of capturing a building in the perfect 'light' is nothing more that creating a fetish, an ideal that is forever virtual and definitely not real. You might say that more than anything architectural photographs have patently deceived many viewers (architects/critics) into believing the photograph is the reality.
|