The difference between I guess this and a photograph is it is very easy to see that it is a presentation image and not a photograph.
I love photography an for me its the surprise of film which excites me. This is what makes a photo a photo.
When I take digital photos and on the camera i can change the saturation and contrast of the image, is this still photography? Well yes I say because we have the ability to do this in the traditional sense when developing a film.
Now at what point does a photo become an image?
As soon as it changes the physical line work of the photo?
Does it matter or is it a bit like trying to hide the structure of a building?
Will there be a revolution against the manipulation of images, "We want an honest image". Will super models have no touch up work?
A lot of questions
........ I guess I stand on the line not knowing which way to jump.
PUSH ME
I think it's the blurring of reality and the image that bothers me. When one starts judging architecture based on it's ability to take pretty pictures I think it becomes dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIt puts a focus on architecture to look pretty. While architecture should aim to be aesthetically pleasing there are many other qualities that make for good architecture. Qualities that not necessarily can be captured in a photograph. However if these qualities can't be photographed how does one ever get into a magazine, and get recognized=$$$profit. While readings compensate, it's often that pretty picture that captures my attention and lures me in to read.
I also think as student's we are often experiencing great architecture through images and text more then we are by physically engaging with it. Not only that but in designing we are once again working almost solely through images. So what the hell is architecture? Is it an image or something built, cause I swear I am beginning to think it's all about images. We are going to enter a world with real problems I want to be able to answer with real solutions.
Yes very valid points. Pretty images are a way to draw attention to certain aspects of a design; a feeling within a space, the qualities in which this un built form will feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree we do end up creating a lot of pretty images and not really practicing the art in which to create these qualities in a built form.
I actually would love to be able to take the designs we create further by actually trying to physically give someone the experience in which the architecture design is intended. So how would you do that could it be a model of the space or sounds or some texture to feel while watching a video.
I think because humans are very visual based we seem to present most of our ideas through pictures.
We can maybe take this further in our design presentations by including some different sensory experience for the user to be able to understand what the architecture you have design may feel like.
What is architecture? well I do believe its a definition which is always developing and changing but everyone will have a different philosophy on the subject. Its part of our architectural learning; to formulate your own definition.
While presentations could definately use a break from being purely image based, I think it's our whole learning experience that needs to be freed from the image. I say we take that 6000 dollars that is being asked of us to go see New York, and instead invest it into a piece of land and a whole lot of materials. We start building follys I say. Follys that experiment with atmospheric conditions, sustainability, relationship to site, disassembly/reassembly,etc.
ReplyDeleteYes i like lets talk me
ReplyDeleteCount me in. It could be a nightmare, but it would be absolutely awesome.
ReplyDeleteWell if we are serious I reckon it would take 15-20 people who were giving serious consideration in investing 6000 dollars into New York. However if we are serious and organized enough I wonder if we might be able to make a case to the University to help us invest. Maybe get the university to make some sort of elective out of this experimentation land. Don't know how realistic this is, but worth a discussion surely.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that its one thing creating images of what you want a space to look like and actually constructing a building with these qualities. It would be great if we could practice on a piece of land. I think that we could possibly go to the wellington architecture assoiation and ask them too? They funded Demonstration house did they not?
ReplyDeleteYea would be worth a try. Also we could be total squatters and experiment on some forgotten piece of property. Though that might have legal ramifications.
ReplyDelete6 thou wont get as much, we may as well flag money and try do it for free. isnt that what we are aguing for the future 'sustainable architecture' sustainnable money?
ReplyDeletebut yes I know this is unrealistic we do admitidly need money.
It was interesting reading in the above comment about how we question architecture, but could these sexy images be cased as a form of architecture, architecture expression. I beielive that contemporary architecture is alot, of , hype, talk, paper architecture, with a small percentage of it being built or buildable, so in fact the definition of the subject of architecture is broadened. realistically, If you want to build a house be a builder, the reason why I got into this degree is to do what builders carnt, think beyond the normal needs of a shelter. Could architecture infact be an image? or is there a defined meaning to the word?
Elyse:
ReplyDeleteI think architecture can be an image. As you touched on there is a trend in contemporary architecture(though I believe it has its roots in post modernism) to broaden architecture to spatial concepts that are not necessarily tangible. It's had it's time and place. I don't think the image has much to offer victims of climate change outside of inspiration. We need tangible solutions.
Next semester I want to start dealing with these tangible solutions, exploring social economic and environmental issues.