Thoughts, Please?

Architecture is definitely one of my interests, and this place is rich for sure with a lot of interesting architectural elements. As for what I've done to capture it, I'll let interpretation be in the eye of the beholder, and feel there's room for everyone to get what they want out of it without me interfering. Of all the shots, I personally am happy with the light & dark 4:3 crops of the film pics. Each seems to have its own character and are strong enough in their own right, it seems, based on what you guys are telling me. Obviously, I liked them well enough to post them here for your perusal and critique... so there is that.

 

FWIW I did shoot 2 digital images of this location, both of which are crap, frankly.

 

edit: one of the pleasures (at least by my way of seeing it) of these critique threads is the way one (or more) image will spawn further discussion, such as this one about the architectural aspects, vision of the architect, how the images relate (or don't) to that, etc. This really is helpful in my understanding of just what all can be gleaned from a simple photograph, how different people see or feel different things in an image...

it harkens back to the old saying that "one picture is worth a thousand words".

 

Anyway, thanks once again to everyone for your thoughtful critiques and discussion. I really appreciate and enjoy this!

Edited August 23, 2019 by Ricochetrider

Ricochet, since I think my “mutually exclusive” comment might have been unclear, and in light of what you just said, I want to explain what I meant. In a photo like this, there’s potential for BOTH the architect's vision AND the photographer’s to come through. That’s what happens for me here. And, a related point, with a photo like this and, to varying degrees with all photos, I can adopt both a literal and a more abstract view simultaneously, being able to appreciate the architectural aspects while also appreciating the lines, shapes, geometrical relationships, and other qualities in a less literal, less strictly subject-oriented way.

Ed, with all due respect, I don't think that what the architect was looking for is overly material. Rather, it's a matter of what the photographer was looking for.

 

With all due respect . . . So what?

Another instance of agreeing to disagree, Sam.

 

Sam,

That’s disappointing. Instead of dismissing the discussion, I was hoping we could learn from each other. I tried to open that door by saying I may be misunderstanding you. So let me be more explicit in inviting you to walk through the door and explain to me what you mean when you say “...none of the images Ricochet has posted to this thread involve even a hint of the architect’s vision.” Are you not looking at an architectural subject in this photo? If not, can you describe what you see. I am not trying to put you on the spot or be disagreeable. This is one I’d really like to understand.

 

I'll try again. I just don't understand how a photograph like any Ricochet has posted or any other photo with an architectural subject can intend to capture the architect's vision. It may do so, but due to the photographer's believing he has done so, as a matter of fact but not as a matter of intention. The photographer is trying to create a photograph by means of architectural elements.

 

QUOTE="ed_farmer, post: 5774143, member: 3865751"]With all due respect . . . So what?

 

Thanks, Ed.

I just don't understand how a photograph like any Ricochet has posted or any other photo with an architectural subject can intend to capture the architect's vision. It may do so, but due to the photographer's believing he has done so, as a matter of fact but not as a matter of intention. The photographer is trying to create a photograph by means of architectural elements.

Thanks, Michael, for the response. I hope I'm understanding you better now. Since you added the word "intention," that fills in some blanks for me.

 

Yes, I think a photographer simply trying to create a photo by means of architectural elements is one way to approach it. I do think there are other approaches a photographer can have. A photographer might intend to try to communicate the architect's vision and intentions beyond simply using the architectural elements.

 

The building behind the plaza in this case is an example of brutalist architecture. Were I photographing that building alone, I might approach it quite starkly, with strong contrast and avoid any ornamental surroundings. That would emphasize the brutalist nature of the building. I've learned from someone else who's been reading along that the plaza was actually added afterward to make the environment more inviting, since the building itself is so hard and confrontational (which is what most brutalist buildings are about). A photograph could very well convey that intention to be inviting through lighting, perspective, focus, etc. Even having people in the scene might speak more to the intentions of the architect of the plaza. On the other hand, one could highlight the contrast of the plaza to the building and photograph them so it didn't seem inviting at all, which would go a little bit against the intentions of the architect, but would certainly be a valid way to photograph the scene.

 

IMO, photos use a language, a vocabulary in order to communicate. So do paintings. We get a strong sense of the intent of an Impressionist painter from his soft strokes and pastel colors. How do I know what my friend's intentions are? I study his actions, his words, his behavior. Photos give off those kinds of things as well, through light, shadow, perspective, focus, grain, etc.

 

Michael, again, thanks for your response which helped me understand. It was that understanding that was more important to me than agreement.

Very interesting!

 

I was drawn to the contrast between the sharp radius of the canopies and the arc of the building, the gentle lighting in the plaza with its pleasing circles mirrored above and below, VS the stark, staring lines and rows of windows, and angular base structure of the building against the vertical lines of the canopy posts.

 

Beyond any intent, obvious, specific, or otherwise, I just like off beat and unusual visual dynamics (among other things). Things tend to leap out at me (always, everywhere- it’s a little exhausting, frankly) and I then try to capture whatever it is I think I see.

 

I can’t say I had any intention at all of honoring the architect’s vision... I would guess that, to “honor an architects vision”, one might have to know the architect and his/her work?

 

But doesn’t any photograph of any architecture pay at least a little homage to the subject itself? I mean, I’m drawn to certain types of architecture, it’s one of my life interests. I tend to notice things like this because I’m generally looking- not necessarily for photographic subject matter, but because I’m aware of architecture in every landscape, regardless of setting. I enjoy certain styles of architecture, and this covers a couple bases at once, with great juxtaposition.

 

It does makes sense that the plaza was added to cheer the place up a bit, and the overall effect is dramatic indeed.

Thanks, Michael, for the response. I hope I'm understanding you better now. Since you added the word "intention," that fills in some blanks for me.

 

Yes, I think a photographer simply trying to create a photo by means of architectural elements is one way to approach it. I do think there are other approaches a photographer can have. A photographer might intend to try to communicate the architect's vision and intentions beyond simply using the architectural elements.

 

The building behind the plaza in this case is an example of brutalist architecture. Were I photographing that building alone, I might approach it quite starkly, with strong contrast and avoid any ornamental surroundings. That would emphasize the brutalist nature of the building. I've learned from someone else who's been reading along that the plaza was actually added afterward to make the environment more inviting, since the building itself is so hard and confrontational (which is what most brutalist buildings are about). A photograph could very well convey that intention to be inviting through lighting, perspective, focus, etc. Even having people in the scene might speak more to the intentions of the architect of the plaza. On the other hand, one could highlight the contrast of the plaza to the building and photograph them so it didn't seem inviting at all, which would go a little bit against the intentions of the architect, but would certainly be a valid way to photograph the scene.

 

IMO, photos use a language, a vocabulary in order to communicate. So do paintings. We get a strong sense of the intent of an Impressionist painter from his soft strokes and pastel colors. How do I know what my friend's intentions are? I study his actions, his words, his behavior. Photos give off those kinds of things as well, through light, shadow, perspective, focus, grain, etc.

 

Michael, again, thanks for your response which helped me understand. It was that understanding that was more important to me than agreement.

 

Sam, I think I get it now. Sometimes I can overanalyze, which might have placed a roadblock against understanding how a photograph can convey an architect's intentions. I appreciate your efforts to help me destroy it.

I was drawn to the contrast between the sharp radius of the canopies and the arc of the building, the gentle lighting in the plaza with its pleasing circles mirrored above and below, VS the stark, staring lines and rows of windows, and angular base structure of the building against the vertical lines of the canopy posts.

 

Beyond any intent, obvious, specific, or otherwise, I just like off beat and unusual visual dynamics

I do think this gets conveyed, perhaps best in your original which shows more of the building and its scale and establishes contrast by using the top of the frame to highlight the umbrella edge against the building. Given the comments and your reaction, you may not have gotten that quite right for yourself, but I still think your original instinct may give you the best way forward if you do reshoot, which doesn't necessarily mean using the same framing device as much as keeping in mind what that and the inclusion of more of the building accomplishes.

But doesn’t any photograph of any architecture pay at least a little homage to the subject itself? I mean, I’m drawn to certain types of architecture, it’s one of my life interests.

Possibly not.

 

A photographer might shoot a structure he hates in order to show just how awful it is. A photographer might feel neutral about or even like a building but choose to use it in a menacing or derisive way in a photo for whatever reason. (One can put some things one likes in a very unflattering or even disrespectful light sometimes.) Likewise, a photographer might hate a building but shoot it in as beautiful a way as possible, an example of a beautiful or liked photo being distinct from a beautiful or liked subject.