Jump to content

Interesting article about architectural photography


Recommended Posts

Thanks, Michael.

 

Interesting but, to me, disappointing take on the subject. Frankly, "must adhere to the following 3 features:" is a veiled way of saying, "here are my rules." Feature (or rule) 2 talks about "simplifying," getting rid of "unnecessary" details. Well, first, I think that may be oversimplifying the matter, since all architecture is far from simple as is all photography. Lots of both are quite complex. "Keep it simple" may work for AA, but not always for photos or art. Just look at baroque architecture, for example, much of which is dramatic, theatrical, and rich with embellishments and not as simple as some other types of architecture. Can't a photo of a building, too, have high drama and complexity? Who determines what elements are unnecessary? Anyway, looking at her own example, I'd say more than simplifying the original, she sterilized it.

 

Here's a link to a page of her photos:

 

sharon tenenbaum images - Google Search:

 

Talk about processing! Looks more like the sci-fi version of architecture to me, even with fairly simplified compositions. Look at her flatiron building compared, say, to Steichen's. Hers is simple enough, but Steichen's less simple rendering captures much more of its character (importantly, in part, because it captures some of its context which wouldn't always be necessary, of course) and is a more interesting and compelling, atmospheric and response-producing photo.

 

STEICHEN FLATIRON LINK

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Michael.

 

Interesting but, to me, disappointing take on the subject. Frankly, "must adhere to the following 3 features:" is a veiled way of saying, "here are my rules." Feature (or rule) 2 talks about "simplifying," getting rid of "unnecessary" details. Well, first, I think that may be oversimplifying the matter, since all architecture is far from simple as is all photography. Lots of both are quite complex. "Keep it simple" may work for AA, but not always for photos or art. Just look at baroque architecture, for example, much of which is dramatic, theatrical, and rich with embellishments and not as simple as some other types of architecture. Can't a photo of a building, too, have high drama and complexity? Who determines what elements are unnecessary? Anyway, looking at her own example, I'd say more than simplifying the original, she sterilized it.

 

Here's a link to a page of her photos:

 

sharon tenenbaum images - Google Search:

 

Talk about processing! Looks more like the sci-fi version of architecture to me, even with fairly simplified compositions. Look at her flatiron building compared, say, to Steichen's. Hers is simple enough, but Steichen's less simple rendering captures much more of its character (importantly, in part, because it captures some of its context which wouldn't always be necessary, of course) and is a more interesting and compelling, atmospheric and response-producing photo.

 

STEICHEN FLATIRON LINK

Many of the images on that page are not hers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Michael.

 

Interesting but, to me, disappointing take on the subject. Frankly, "must adhere to the following 3 features:" is a veiled way of saying, "here are my rules." Feature (or rule) 2 talks about "simplifying," getting rid of "unnecessary" details. Well, first, I think that may be oversimplifying the matter, since all architecture is far from simple as is all photography. Lots of both are quite complex. "Keep it simple" may work for AA, but not always for photos or art. Just look at baroque architecture, for example, much of which is dramatic, theatrical, and rich with embellishments and not as simple as some other types of architecture. Can't a photo of a building, too, have high drama and complexity? Who determines what elements are unnecessary? Anyway, looking at her own example, I'd say more than simplifying the original, she sterilized it.

 

Here's a link to a page of her photos:

 

sharon tenenbaum images - Google Search:

 

Talk about processing! Looks more like the sci-fi version of architecture to me, even with fairly simplified compositions. Look at her flatiron building compared, say, to Steichen's. Hers is simple enough, but Steichen's less simple rendering captures much more of its character (importantly, in part, because it captures some of its context which wouldn't always be necessary, of course) and is a more interesting and compelling, atmospheric and response-producing photo.

 

STEICHEN FLATIRON LINK

 

Thanks for the Steichen image, Fred. Clearly it represents a huge divergence from the style Tenenbaum recommends. When I created this thread, I obviously had viewed the images the link provided. Although I did find her style of some interest, I too found it antiseptic. It seems to me that she's more interested in creating architectural abstracts than "fine art architectural photographs." To me, what she categorizes as "unnecessary details" often render an architectural photo interesting and meritorious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I enjoy and try to achieve is what I think of as "The Blind Men and the Elephant" approach. By photographing details and differing partial views, and then an overall, unusual view or two, finally reveal the structure. I like the same kind of approach when travelling to new places.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An enormously famous quote from Mies van der Rohe, and apropos to this discussion: "God is in the details." Architecture can be many things, and it can be represented and characterized in innumerable ways. Yet, when one comes back to consider it as Architecture, it's real nature is most often defined in how people interact with it, at every scale and detail. A photo of a building is a photo. Only the building is Architecture. One can choose to represent a building in many ways, appealing to a variety of tastes, and sometimes capturing and communicating some important aspect of a building's nature. But, again and always, only the executed, built form, the work of human hands, is Architecture. Anything else is only a facsimile thereof, and should be considered on its own merits as representational art.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, again and always, only the executed, built form, the work of human hands, is Architecture. Anything else is only a facsimile thereof, and should be considered on its own merits as representational art.

I understand what you’re saying and agree that a photo of a building is different from the building and can be looked at differently from the way the building is looked at. Photos and art, however, which are based on real events, people, or things, will diverge in varying degrees from the originals on which they’re based. Some photos, even of the art variety, tend more toward documentary, others more toward fantasy, and lots of places in between. One can shoot a street scene in an attempt to capture the feel and atmosphere of the moment, the zeitgeist, as it were, or just as raw material to create something imaginative and relatively unrelated to whatever the reality was at the time.

 

So, a lot of photography I don’t consider just on its own merits. There are a lot of photos that have important ties to real things where a photographer may want to give the viewer a sense of “what it’s really like” (to whatever extent possible and desired), so I wouldn’t want to divorce photographic art, representational or otherwise, too much from the original source in a lot of cases. Which is not to say it can’t be taken on its own merits in others.

A photo of a building is a photo. Only the building is Architecture.

This may separate the two a little too much, for me, even though I get what you’re saying. A photo of a building is a photo that has SOME degree (sometimes very minimal if at all, sometimes great) of attachment to the building. I think there can be important overlaps between people and their portraits, buildings and their photos. I think we can want, in some cases, some architecture in our photos of buildings, just like some photos of musicians seem to capture the music. And . . . just as a photographer can shoot a building in innumerable ways, as can a portaitist shoot people, a viewer, especially one who is familiar with the building or person, is entitled to prefer certain renditions over others, and not just based on the merits of the photo but on its fidelity to, or at least its handling of, the subject itself.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I typed my previous on my cell phone while enjoying a respite in my fathers' day gifted hammock. Perhaps I'll expand a bit: As an architect I find myself continually wrestling with how best to define good design to my clients and convince them that it is worth their interest and investment. Photography plays a very important role in this, as it is the primary means by which I share architectural concepts and ideas, with the goal of convincing non-believers in the value of the services I offer. The photographs used for this purpose are very explicitly intended to illustrate and convey specific ideas and insights regarding application of design principles, and how they can impact the value, utility, and human experience of the buildings I design. As such, these photos are executed with both documentary and artistic intent. This is one, but only one, common approach to architectural photos.

 

Tenenbaum's thesis appears to be in regards to architectural photography of a very different nature, one in which the forms, textures, colors, volumes, materials, and rhythms of architectural design are abstracted and extracted to a very high degree. She describes her work as "A celebration of lines, curves and tones." Her portfolio contains a number of very powerful images which capture the abstract, sculptural nature of her architectural subjects. Many architects would wish to have their work so well captured and displayed for its sculptural qualities. Still, Architecture comprises far more elements than "...lines, curves and tones." There are many, many fine building, bridges, and other structures which are not so sculptural, and would likely fail to engage well in Tenenbaum's approach. My own position is that there are as many techniques by which to capture architecture in a "fine art" image as there are buildings to shoot and photographers to shoot them. Fred's example of Steichen's Flatiron Building image is but one of myriad examples. Sandy makes another salient point: There are many buildings that, as an entire unit, are perhaps less photogenic or accessible, but which contain fascinating details that are very worthy of photographic exploration. Any assertion that there is but one acceptable approach to any of the representational arts, photography included, is so preposterous as to be laughable. I can appreciate Tenenbaum's approach and work, but it does not make me appreciate other artists any less than does the difference between a Monet and a Dali.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any assertion that there is but one acceptable approach to any of the representational arts, photography included, is so preposterous as to be laughable.

Has someone asserted this?

 

Is it OK with you if some people don’t like Tenenbaum’s photos?

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, David, it was Tenenbaum who set forth the three features architectural photography MUST adhere to. No one else. Tenenbaum. Consider some of our reactions in that light.

 

I posted the Steichen not because I think it’s the be-all and end-all of how to photograph a building, but because I think it’s a good photo that doesn’t do what Tenenbaum says it should.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has someone asserted this?

Tenenbaum appears to do so, though with certain caveats.

 

Is it OK with you if some people don’t like Tenenbaum’s photos?

Certainly. I don't like all of them. Not by a long shot.

 

Consider some of our reactions in that light.

I do, and agree with many of them.

 

I posted the Steichen not because I think it’s the be-all and end-all of how to photograph a building, but because I think it’s a good photo that doesn’t do what Tenenbaum says it should.

Again, I agree completely. Which is exactly why I said:

My own position is that there are as many techniques by which to capture architecture in a "fine art" image as there are buildings to shoot and photographers to shoot them. Fred's example of Steichen's Flatiron Building image is but one of myriad examples.

 

I feel like you're looking for issues in my statement to argue with, rather than trying to understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not arguing or taking issue with anyone but Tenenbaum's assertions that things must be a certain way, her way, to meet the criteria for "fine art". I apologize if my words so completely failed to express my intended meaning. We'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, David, it was Tenenbaum who set forth the three features architectural photography MUST adhere to. No one else. Tenenbaum.

 

Fred, when I read the article, I found that the author actually said, "Great architectural images often follow these 3 features:" That is, "often follow," not "must adhere."

 

As best I can tell, the quote, "...must adhere to the following 3 features:" was yours, not Tenenbaum's. Did I misread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, when I read the article, I found that the author actually said, "Great architectural images often follow these 3 features:" That is, "often follow," not "must adhere."

 

As best I can tell, the quote, "...must adhere to the following 3 features:" was yours, not Tenenbaum's. Did I misread?

The words that stood out to me were:

 

“ . . . there are a few key factors that are necessary . . .”

 

I did translate “necessary” to must.

 

She also says:

 

“. . . need to use the language of geometric lines and shapes . . .”

 

“Need to” also suggested “must.”

 

Again, she starts by saying, “Every person you ask might have a different answer to that question.” [What makes an architectural fine art photo great?] She follows with “However, there are three key factors that are necessary . . .” I took her to be rejecting all the different answers of everyone you ask in favor of her necessary factors.

 

To be fair, she does then go on to say, “Great architectural images often follow these three features,” which can be seen to change the tone a bit.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, I just don't see it the way you do. I think you may be trying to read in things that aren't there. Case in point, you say, "She follows with 'However, there are three key factors that are necessary . . .' ,” implying that this is absolute. I see her being very explicit that this is IN HER EXPERIENCE, but you have dropped that from the middle of the quote. (Her full sentence was, "However, from my experience, there are a few key factors that are necessary for transforming a good image to a great one.")

 

I think you ought to consider whether you may be trying to read in more than what is actually being said. (The line, "I never would have seen it if I hadn't believed it." comes to mind.)

 

I should perhaps say that I'm not a fan of her work (my roots in photography were an interest in recording "reality," in the vein of photojournalism, not adding or removing elements), but to each their own, I guess. She IS promoting her work as fine art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think her experience of those being the 3 key factors is limiting. What’s the problem?

 

If someone says to me, “IN MY EXPERIENCE, portraits are simple and include no distracting background” and they said it in an article titled “What Makes A Great Portrait Photograph,” it wouldn’t matter whether or not she qualified it by saying “in my experience,” I’d still think it was skipping over all kinds of great environmental portrait photographs.

 

Saying “in my experience” doesn’t preclude an author from being challenged if a reader thinks that experience seems to be a fairly limiting factor to the point of the article.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, to be clear, I’m not saying I think she should engage in a different kind of architectural photography. Photographers of all kinds specialize and find niches. I’m saying that if you write an article talking about what makes a great architectural photo, it would be more helpful to readers to broaden the discussion beyond just what you, yourself, do. Otherwise, call the article something along the lines of “My Favorite Kind of Architectural Photograph.”
  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author of the article is a photography teacher. In teaching subjects that combine abstract thinking with skills (e.g. photography), I think a broad spectrum of approaches is often undertaken. On one side of the spectrum is teaching of skills and simple formulae to success. This of course bypasses more independent thinking that has a slow and complex learning curve in favor of quick preconditioning, that prepares (or at least claim to prepare) the students for a professional career. On the other side of the spectrum, teaching would involve exposing the students to multiple contrasting ideas and history of the subject, preferably engaging the students in debates, while the teacher steers the tide of the discussion in the proper direction. In practice, teachers would combine aspects of both ends of the spectrum to provide a balance of both skills and thinking. The author’s approach in this article is IMO, extremely to the left of the spectrum, limiting the discussion to a set of narrowly focused tips or rules that have worked for her and allowed her to establish her comfort zone. I am afraid, many articles on photography that are published and linked to in the popular online sites resemble the one in the OP, catering to the commercialized fine art industry. In many cases however, there are specific expectations from the editors of the sites, as well as the readers/students, making it less of a teacher’s prerogative.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bit of a different take on this--as a photographer and as one that holds a masters degree in architectural history. First, though, this was not an article. It was if anything a short thought-statement piece--bereft of any deep development or content. It attempts to masquerade as something else, but it appears to me as a just a sort of high-brow click bait... o_O

 

The author is honest in declaring the focus of the photography as 'fine art.' This should make clear in everyone's mind that it is not about recordation of the built environment ala HABS/HAER. Under this rubric, the photographer is free to 're-imagine' whatever they like about a scene. I find her BW work very reminiscent of the standard historical renderings of works by noted architects and the platinum/palladium trend of the late 1990s. If anything, Tenenbaum's work is more about engineering than architecture--as in the 'building' modality. I rather like some of them and can see how they would be very attractive in a wall-sized installation.

 

There is nothing really different here than Gerald's regular "photoshop challenge." Many of us manipulate the images far from their 'normal' representation. Guess that we are hanging our carapaces on those nasty old 'reality' and 'authenticity' humps in the road once again... :p

Edited by PapaTango
  • Like 1

 "I See Things..."

The FotoFora Community Experience [Link]

A new community for creative photographers.  Come join us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author is honest in declaring the focus of the photography as 'fine art.'

Many of us manipulate the images far from their 'normal' representation.

Sure, and hopefully neither is used as a defense against criticism. "Fine art" and "non-representational" may be a license to stray from the origins of an image, but it doesn't mean a viewer must accept the vision as interesting, well done, or even remotely artistic or creative.

Guess that we are hanging our carapaces on those nasty old 'reality' and 'authenticity' humps in the road once again... :p

Could be that. Often it just looks to me like playing around with filters and slider bars willy-nilly in the search for art and the service of kitsch, or worse.

 

That's not my criticism of Tenenbaum's work, which I simply find thoughtful but sterile.

  • Like 2
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...