Due to increased manipulation capabilities, architectural photography has become less about documenting a building in its ‘true’ from and more about extruding a desired atmosphere. With increased understanding of exposure, cropping and the technological advances, which allow an image to be manipulated beyond recognition, how we come to view and identify architectural photography as a source of realistic representation should be questioned, if not challenged. For if we seek to define a photograph as a projection of the truth, rather then acknowledging its artistic freedoms which move it towards a source of representation, then surely contemporary understanding of architecture is under threat. For, as long as access to the ever growing architectural catalogue remains costly and inconvenient, while the sharing of readily available images increases, our understanding of a building’s true form will become lost within a myriad of representations claiming to be truths.

 

Within this essay I will critically investigate the implications of the photographic medium and the extent to which it is used as a projection of reality, without active acknowledgment of its artistic ability and use within a set agenda. The average consumer will flip through an architectural journal or surf through online images and fall into the trap of the idealised imagery presented to them, as Robin Wilson (2006) acknowledges photography is broadly undisputed and often textual criticism is over looked in its secondary role to the image. Therefore not much room is left for consideration or thought that the image has been constructed by someone who has actively studied how to “…design pictures that facilitate seeing, that helps the viewer to see what he (the photographer) intends…” (Zakia, 1975, p13). Still further, one does not often realise while viewing architectural photography that there are scores of books available, such as Richard Zakia’s Perception and Imaging (2007), Leslie Stroebe, Hollis Todd and Richard Zakia’s Visual Concepts for Photographers (1980) and Basics: Architectural Photography by Michael Heinrich (2009) readily available to study and learn how to bend a medium to one’s own will and in doing so present an alternate reality to the consumer as a fact.

“In this sense, architectural photography cannot be equated with documentation. It is also a formative medium that is influenced both by the insights of the photographer and by the architectural perspective.” (Heinrich, 2009, p7)

I will seek to investigate these notions put forward by studying works written by such academics as Brooker and Northey (2008) and Wilson (2007), with great acknowledgement of an written essay by Philip Ursprung (2011) who writes in depth about first encountering photographic work of Saint Benedict Chapel and then later the contrast of physically interacting with the building. Furthermore, I will examine professional and amateur photographs published on websites such as Flicker and Arch Dailey, alongside online journals, of two buildings; the MAC, Belfast by Hackett Hall McKnight (2012) and Peter Zumthor’s Saint Benedict Chapel, Sumvitg (1988).

 

Peter Zumthor’s St. Benedict’s Chapel Sumvitg, Graubünden is a prime example of how photographers have used their tools in order to capture a perceived atmosphere, namely with Zumthor’s direct use of the artistic photographer Hans Danuser. Introduced in 1988, Peter Zumthor’s Saint Benedict Chapel was the consequence of a previous baroque chapel being destroyed in an avalanche in the village of St Benedict. (Merin, G., 2013) Situated in the new site of the village Sumvitg, Zumthor’s chapel is protected by a forest to the rear, with extensive views over a mountainous region from the small perch the introverted chapel sits upon. It was in 1987 that Zumthor commissioned Danuser to photograph St Benedicts and his earlier work, the Protective Housing for Roman Excavations, Chur, Graubünden marking a “…radical shift from a documentary in the style of straight photography of architecture to an artistic interpretation of the architectural work.” (Ursprung, 2011, p172).

 

With the decisive move to allow full autonomy to Danuser to take the photographs as he wished (Ursprung, 2011), the building’s representation took on a deep phenomenological sense that was not previously widely employed within the profession. With figure 1, one can see Danuser’s artistic approach to portray the building’s sense of presence through mystery rather then grandeur or statement, taking another step away from traditional documentation, and is arguably quite misleading as Ursprung later acknowledges. One can further see by comparing figure 1 with figure 2, taken by an amateur photographer, the extent to which Danuser’s artistic interpretation of Zumothor’s work has been established. This has been achieved through means of careful positioning on site and a deep understanding of the three principles to exposure (ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed) and further extensive knowledge when developing the film. By comparing the two images one can further see the reasoning of Ursprung (2011) immediate revisal of the images he had formed within his mind of the chapel from viewing Danuser’s photographs and when being confronted with the reality of the building, “Instead of finding a desolate edifice tucked away... I came face to face with one of the most elegant structures…” (Ursprung, 2011, p 173).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However this revisal of perception did not leave Ursprung with a feeling of deception, rather it encouraged thoughts into the significance of the ‘atmospheric’ or representational qualities of the photograph, accepting that Danuser’s work was one less focused on trying to portray reality, but rather his own perspective of Saint Benedict Chapel.

“…Dauser radically affected the conventions of architectural photography. Instead of photographing a neutral documentation, he perused his own personal interpretation. Instead of reducing the phenomenon of the chapel to a single shot, he in effect divided the building into individual components…these fragments allow viewers to reconstruct the building in their own imagination.” (Ursrung, 2011, p 176)

This acknowledgment of the potential of architectural photography to not be viewed as a form of architectural documentation, but in fact as another medium of representation is also supported by the academic Hugh Campbell in an essay entitled How the Mind Meets Architecture: what photography reveals. Whereupon Campbell investigates the use of architectural photography and the potential impact on the viewer, notably concluding that;

“As sources of information about architecture, photographs are often dismissed as being inevitably partial, deliberately misleading…(But) sometimes it is the very strategies of viewpoint, distance, framing and manipulation that allow the photographer to get closer to architecture’s complex presence.” (Campbell, 2012, p 220)

 

This then poses the question as to why architectural photography should be presumed to just be a form of documentation instead of a further means with which to provide personal representations of buildings. For is it not arguably subject, just as much as any medium, to open personal interpretation and through this openness people are in a better position to attach their own personal meanings to the building being represented? Thus following Heideggerian philosophy (Sharr, 2007), are able to make the image being presented more then a flat, two dimensional object but rather something, a thing that takes on meaning and can then be used to further critique the architect’s full work. However, could it not be justified that within architectural photography a clear distinction should be made between the ‘artistic representation’ and the ‘informative documentation’, which is mainly seen within architectural journals? For arguably a journal as a form of reportage should be kept unbiased and void of personal representations, to inform and not influence. As Robin Wilson (2006) argues, it is not just the photographer’s personal response and desire to express their perception of a building that is represented within an architectural photography, it also expresses forms of propaganda expressed by the architects themselves, editors and journalist alike. Furthermore, Wilson asserts that consumers pay little attention to these proposed undertones, whether malevolent or artistic, and thus do not achieve the critical observations that are needed in door to achieve the level of awareness that for example Ursprung was able to achieve.

 

Considering the points put forward thus far, the photographs presented of the MAC (Metropolitan Arts Centre), Belfast, seem to take a step in another direction, against that of architectural photography trying to extrude an atmosphere. Built by Hackett Hall McKnight (HHMK)(2012) on the newly developed site of Saint Anne’s Square, Belfast, the MAC gathered wide local press coverage due to the limited urban revitalization within the city and wider region (Raymund 2012). Notably it is the photographic work of Christian Richters, which has been consistently used within the journal articles available on the MAC, suggesting that Hackett Hall McKnight had a strong involvement within the publicity of their building. The repetitive use of Richters photographs of the MAC, along with the bland portrayals, bring to light the question of authorship within photography (Wilson, 2006). Are the portrayals of the MAC conforming styalisticlly to the work of Richters, or was it a pointed request that the MAC be portrayed as thus by HHMK? For one can concluded that in this instance, unlike Wilsons mention of El Croquis, that the publication editors had no hand in the images, however critically the viewer should be asking these questions, just as one might do when reading an academic paper.

 

In addition, the photographs used could be described as void from any atmosphere, taken while the building sat in limbo between completion and occupation as seen with figures 3 and 4. This style of photography has been noticed by such academics as Wilson as a convention where the photographer will look to document or even reconstruct the limbo state in order to present the building within an utopian stetting free from having to associate and take part in dialogues regarding economic, environmental and social issues (Wilson 2006).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, even though the photographs are in stark contrast to those taken by Danuser, they are arguably just as misleading; through the neglect to take the photograph while occupied, as occupation would still further add shape to the building. However, unlike Danuser’s somewhat more obvious artistic interpretation, these photographs of the MAC somewhat pose as documentations and as Brooker and Northey (2008) acknowledge; we as the viewers are more susceptible to take for granted as truth, neglecting the pause for critical consideration. Moreover, just because Richter’s photographs are seemingly devoid of atmosphere and personal interpretation, does not negate the fact that his choice of angle crop and the fact that the photographs were taken before even the furniture entered the building, means that the photograph is a clear representation of reality. One can realize the incompleteness of his images when comparing figures 3 to that of 5 and 6. With the later photographs taken at a later date when the building became occupied, surely one can get a better understanding of the building, for the MAC has transitioned into the phase of occupation, not just by people but also by furniture providing a more ‘realistic’ atmosphere.

 

Further yet, the three pictures for comparison have little difference in terms photo editing, granted there are slight differences of exposure and tonal balances, but the presence of people and furniture arguable take precedence over these. Pointedly the lack of people and furniture within the official images would have been an editorial choice on the part of HHMK, as previously stated, all the articles found on the MAC, have the same images. Yet interestingly, rather then HHMK looking to provide a perspective, even if it is only the photographer’s, with the photographs by Richters, they opted to try to document the building and in thus doing so they have fallen victim to the empty, emotionless and sterile image. Furthermore, they have not achieved what they might have wished to achieve in trying to represent the building realistically, rather they have as Wilson (2006) terms it, a false utopian representation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, following the assertions made thus far, would it not be better to then accept that architectural photography is neither a wholly artistic, nor a strictly rational form of documentation (Heinrich, 2009), and one should thus accept the lack of boundaries. Wilson (2006) acknowledges this with his paper At the Limits of Genre: architectural photography and utopic criticism, where he looked in-depth at the work of photographer Hisao Suzuki.

“Rather then seeking to eradicate the problematic between photography and architecture, he forgrounds it…The portraits signal that we are entering into a pictorial discourse on architecture…” (Wilson, 2006, 272)

Thus should it not be as Beatriz Colomina suggests, that we in fact should not look at photography as a reflection of the building as an end product, but rather photography and the image it produces, as part of the process of architecture as a whole (Colomina, 1994). Which then, could it not be argued, from the perspective of viewing photography as not part of an end product, or a means to which to capture an end product, it become somewhat more reliable as a form of documentation? We can see the difference a couple of months, or even hours can mean to a building from figures 3, 5 and 6, and each gives a somewhat different atmosphere, not from technical manipulation but more from levels of interaction, and yet still neither is wholly accurate for any other given day.

 

In conclusion, with increased understanding of photographic principles and technological abilities, architectural photography cannot be asserted as a form of documentation. However, we have found by looking at images taken by Christian Richters of the MAC, that it is not just the case that architectural photography is solely intent on extruding an atmosphere, leading it away from the assertion of documentation, but rather too just by composing an image, the reality of the building shifts. For a photograph can never fully express the state of being within a building, it can only provide visual captions of a single moment. Therefore, would it not be proper to instead offer a completely knew perspective as Hans Danuser did when photographing Saint Benedict Chapel. So that by even an entirely biased perspective, one can undoubtedly be seen as not trying to create a direct representation, or trying to capture a reality and then portraying it as thus, disregarding the fact that photography is as much a medium as pen and ink, as arguably Richters work did. However, perhaps it is more from the works Wilson (2006) and Ursprung (2011) that key points of critically observing images were brought up, and with the images presented in this essay we can fully appreciate the stark contrast in photographic styles available and how they impact our notions of a building.

Thus, considering the influx of images within the architectural industry, and the need to observe them within education and practice, inhibited by the inconvenience and barriers of visiting the numerous new and iconic builds, one should be aware that a photograph is not as it seems. Accordingly, we would argue that there should be a noticeable distinction within architectural photography, a note within the picture to suggest that this is a representation, but we also acknowledge that the viewer ultimately has the responsibility to view photographic work as much as written work, critically and objectively.

 

 

Bibliography

Works Cited

Brooker, G. & Northey, E. 2008, "Framing space: agendas and content in the architectural photograph", The Journal of Architecture, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 117-131.

Campbell, H. 20012, "How the Mind Meets Archiecture: what photography reveals" in Reading Architecture and Culture: researching buildings, spaces and documents, ed. A. Sharr, Routledge, USA and Canada, pp. 211-222.

Colomina, B. 1994, Privacy and publicity: modern architecture as mass media, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; London.Merin, G. 2013, 25 August-last update, AD Classics: Saint Benedict Chapel / Peter Zumthor [Homepage of Arch Daily], [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/418996/ad-classics-saint-benedict-chapel-peter-zumthor/ [2014, 1 January].

Raymund, R. 2012, "Belfast" Metropolitan Arts Centre by Hackett Hall McKnight", The Architectural Review, [Online], pp. 9 November 2013. Available from: http://www.architectural-review.com/belfasts-metropolitan-arts-centre-by-hackett-hall-mcknight/8629276.article.

Sharr, A. 2007, Heidegger for architects, Routledge, London.

Ursprung, P. 2011, "Limits to Representation: Peter Zumthor and Hans Danuser", Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 172-184.

Wilson, R. 2005, "At the limits of genre: Architectural photography and utopic criticism", The Journal of Architecture, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 265-273.

Zakia, R.D. 1975, Perception and photography, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs; London etc.

 

Works referenced

Best, S. 2012, "Theatre of Light", Architects Journal, [Online], , pp. 9 November 2013. Available from: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/theatre-of-light/8630107.article.

Blau, E., Kaufman, E. & Evans, R. 1989, Architecture and its image: four centuries of architectural representation : works from the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, Centre Canadien d'Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal.

Bloomer, C.M. 1976; 1975, Principles of visual perception, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York; London etc.

Currie, G. 1991, "Photography, Painting and Perception", The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 23-29.

Fairs, M. 2012, "Interview: Renzo Piano on the Shard", Dezeen Magazine, [Online], , pp. 9 November 2012. Available from: http://www.dezeen.com/2012/05/18/interview-renzo-piano-on-the-shard/.

Frearson, A. 2012, 13 June 2012-last update, MAC Belfast by Hackett Hall McKnight [Homepage of Dezeen Magazine], [Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/13/mac-belfast-by-hackett-hall-mcknight/ [2014, 5 January].

Gantenbein, K. (ed) 2009, Seeing Zumthor. Images by Hans Danuser, Scheidegger and Spiess, Zürich.Hall, A. & McKnight, I. , MAC, Belfast [Homepage of Hall McKnight], [Online]. Available: http://www.hallmcknight.com/projects/public-buildings/mac.php [2014, 5 January].

Higgott, A. & Wray, T. 2012, Camera constructs: photography, architecture and the modern city, Ashgate, Farnham.

O'Toole, S. December 2008 / January 2009, "Projects of the year", Architecture Ireland : the journal of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, , no. 243, pp. 33.

Pelizzari, M. & Scrivano, P. 2011, "Intersection of Photography and Architecture - Introduction", Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 107-112.

Stroebel, L., Todd, H.N. & Zakia, R.D. 1980, Visual concepts for photographers, Focal, London.Woodman, E. 2012, Mac Belfast by Hackett Hall McKnight, bd online, http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=5035147.

 

Images

Danuser, H. (1988), Caplutta Sogn Benedetg Sumvig (Switzerland), no I of six parts [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/questions-of-representation-in-architecture/5015913.blog [Accessed 04 January 14].

Hyde, R. (2003). Peter Zumthor, Saint Benedict Chapel, 1985-88 [online]. Available from: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryrory/2458140291/>. [Accessed 4 January 2014].

King, L. (2013). 7 [online]. Available from: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/8268561@N03/8488691459/in/photolist-dW7Lei-bkZNYo-byUGfF-byUG4c-bkZPdL-byUGdp-bvVR49-eavvW5-fEAVjJ-eavvPy-eavvBd-eapRqa-eavvd3-eavuWJ-eapSkM-a5tCv4-ejuEFq-e6TwiM-bWPG8N-bQ3QUt-cjiE4j-bAqEGe-bB9cRb-bTtKwX-cNFdU7-brGcRd-bQ3RjB-hoFEcX-bUqQmG-e1k7x1-dVDNtU-dVDNMs-dVydzt-7TsPeW-e1kacL-c36PeU-c36QME-c36Tcd-dK4Jie-ft18EK-fsVFuv-fsWJWT-fsVKDM-ftf6F3-ftdcd9-fsVQ9z-ft1eEK-fsVU9g-ftcD21-ftbx1s-fsYEDT>. [Accessed 5 January 2014].

Richters, C. (2012). [unknown] [online]. Available from: <http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/13/mac-belfast-by-hackett-hall-mcknight/>. [Accessed 5 January 2014]