Monday, December 4, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- Isaac-Zhin Teng
- I'm a freelance architecture graduate living under water coloured skies.
7 comments:
I have one criticism and it is naive. Why are there no people in the photos?
Dear Han,
It's far from being naive. In truth, it is one of the most difficult questions to answer.
Flip through many architectural books or periodicals and you'd notice the absence of people, cars, animals (maybe), etc, etc. Often people have asked; Why does the very structure that gives birth to life and in return is nourished by it seem so want of people, when it is represented through photography.
I am not the exception either. While architecture is about life, I also think that one of the best ways of appreciating a place is through solitude. In the field of photography, it often translates to the absence of people who'd otherwise ruin a scene where one needs to contemplate things on a one to one dimension.
Nevertheless, people are included when 'necessary', as in images related to very public spaces; forecourts, museums, airports, train stations. I presume that in these places, the 'clutter' that people bring to imagery is too immense, that it can almost be neglected - that it doesn't really distract contemplation anymore.
Helene Binet, a photographer of Zumthor's architecture (see article below - "Sense then (maybe) Form")although not the only one, once said in "Peter Zumthor: Works and Projects 1979-1997"
"I have rarely included people in my photography of architecture, probably because I do not feel the need to do so. I want to offer the viewers the opportunity to experience space by abstraction, through the manifestation of the phenomena of light and reflection and through the creation of virtual spaces."
I agree with Helen Binet, if only in principle. Care is obviously taken to reveal the form of the building interior.
It is interesting Binet calls a space without people an "abstraction". This ties back to the idea of the camera as objective observer; her audience is "viewers". Clearly leaving people out of architectural photos is an aesthetic choice.
A corollary to your idea of contemplation may be an appreciation of composition. Movement breaks composition. Since people are only at rest in their beds or coffins, does that mean it becomes hard to appreciate composition if your photo includes people?
I imagine so. This is your clutter. The first scenes of 28 Days Later are sublime because we see Tottenham Court Road, Leicester Square, Covent Garden, all without people. That people are necessary in these scenes brings immensity to the image.
I want to hear what you have to say about architecture being about life.
Dear Han, principles are easy to hold as always, but the how is sometimes something 'other'.
Yes, I find the word 'abstraction' very alienating too. Somehow, in the same sentence, she mentions words like 'phenomena'. These aren't abstract things, even though we might first imagine it (but this can only be insofar an extension of real memories). I didn't quote her because I agree with her.
I don't think I agree with you that, "movement breaks competition". I hope that was not how you interpreted my argument. As a photographer and an architect I would say that movement is a very integral component for many buildings.
Furthermore, it's a stretch to say that people can only be at rest in their coffins, as even walking is a restful activity, and is 'restful' enough to be photographed.
Perhaps I should clarify myself. I don't think the camera is an objective observer. Evidently it is held by a person, who wants to compose a picture already. A photograph is (to me at least) already a vision in tension, between what the photographer sees, and what the viewer thinks he is seeing.
It is not an objective view.
As for the absence of people. Many architects, including me don't include people in our images because, in a way, the eyes are already in the view itself. We see what we want to see, and clearly architectural photography is trying its best to display the architectural mood of a place. This takes a higher priority than people, unless the architecture demands it, as in train stations, stadiums, museums etc etc.
Perhaps you don't see people in most of my pictures because, I like architecture which celebrates solitude (houses, memorials, gardens, churches). I am attracted to the way one can 'commune' with a piece of an inanimate object, or trying to imagine through my sketches what it feels like.
This 'silence' is commonly employed by many designers when designing 'some' places, because it's almost like being depressed or relishing a particular object of affection, it's private even though it may and can be public.
This is one way of perceiving the essence of things, and I don't think it flies in the face of the concept that architecture is about life.
For example, when I took the picture of the window at the convent, I wasn't implying 'this is how a window looks like'. Its my interpretation of how that window touches me. So I see the fixings on it, the view that one sees when it is open, and how the light at dusk glows very meekly on its glossy painted surface. Also, I like how the hinges are collecting a lot of dirt, and a re slowly rusting. These already contain some traces of life, the wear and tear caused by the environment...so people are not necessarily seen, but the effects of them are evident, in my story.
Also, please forgive my typing errors, as I am rather tired of editing my comments, although I should.
Zhin,
Very interesting comment! Could you elaborate on what you mean by "architectural mood"?
When you say, "the eyes are already in the view," are you saying your photographs are as you would see it if you were physically present at the location?
If not, you'll have to explain that one too. If it's not too much trouble.
It should also be mentioned that if I am allowed to say shit like "brings immensity to the image" too often, I be strung-up for crimes against common sense.
Post a Comment