opera house

Architecture is functional, but I don't look for photos of architecture to necessarily convey that functionality. I appreciate David's thoughtful response in the sense of how much a human (or sometimes an object's) presence can provide a sense of scale to a photo of an architectural structure. It's an important observation and tool at the photographer's disposal. At the same time, a photographer might just want to manipulate that scale in photographing the structure, to transform it visually by photographing it. All depends on what the photographer is seeing and how he's using the architecture in his photo.

David, maybe you could recommend some reading on Baroque architecture. I've always thought of it as having much non-functional embellishment, the same sort of way I feel about a lot of Gehry's work. I've long been attracted to such non-functional flourishes, in architecture and elsewhere. But I'm not well-versed enough in architectural design to be much of an expert and wouldn't mind reading about some of the ideas behind some of the non-functional aspects of architecture.

David, I'm sorry that you're once again being put in the position of having to "take sides." That was not my intention, and, as the "functional" thing has little to do with the POW, I'd be just as happy if you didn't respond to my post. Thanks, and I repeat that I'm sorry that it has come to this again.

Julie, I hope you didn't mistake my question for asking David to take sides. I gave him a little feeling for my own take on architecture and simply asked for a recommendation of some books, not even for his opinion on the subject. Are we now in a space where giving an alternative or even contrary opinion about a photo is "taking sides"? That comes across as trying to shut down conversation. I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, Julie.

The human factor and the question of scale are surely arguments for including human physical presence within an architectural photo especially when we want to underscore the functional dimension of a space - if humans are part of its function.

Functionalism in architecture is however quite recent in history. Much older architectural structures were made for societal status symbols (some still are) for religious manifestations of the nearness of Gods or purely for esthetic reasons. "Form follow function" is the main message of functionalism in architecture and it is less than hundred years old. It must be for the photography to identify the "function" of an architectural structure and from there decide the elements to include.

Su's photo I appreciated mainly as an abstract more than an architectural photo, despite the title : "Opera House" which surely announce the function of the space, but still the space has its own non-functional quality and beauty which deserve to be underlined.

I have nothing else to add to everyone else's comments really. The dynamic curve finishing with the figure in the bottom eighth of the shot is very successful, as is the stark chiaroscuro.

Fred/Anders/Julie, I'm gratified to have elicited such engaged responses. A few thoughts: Monumental architecture, as opposed to the prosaic or vernacular, has always been intended to be about more than just people, but still, as human-made objects, regardless their size, lose their meaning when divorced from human intent. Architecture is, by definition, the product of human intellect and craft. So, appreciation of architecture as Architecture (capital "A") implies engagement with some aspect of Architectural experience. Such engagement occurs on the part of the designer, the builder, the user/occupant, and the observer (both in-situ and remote). Photography facilitates and expands our opportunities to engage with and appreciate architecture. Photographs of architecture are, first, graphic expressions of the photographer’s art. They need be nothing more than this. However, where the photographic arts are applied to capture, illustrate, and convey understanding and experiential meaning in architecture, then the images become something more. For me, Su’s image is in this category. The composition of light, dark, patterns, forms, and image structure makes a very good photograph. That this photograph succeeds in capturing and conveying the experience of the architectural subject makes it that much better.

As far as the relationship between architecture and functionality goes, there are some who say that every human-made object, particularly buildings, has a function, even if that function is to exist as a purely aesthetic object. I am not a fan of Frank Gehry as an Architect. As a super-scale sculptor, perhaps, but his designs tend to stretch out past the far end of the form over function continuum. Julie’s experience of the Guggenheim is typical of most Gehry buildings. While Gehry’s designs exist at one extreme of the continuum, examples such as the Golden Gate Bridge fall somewhere towards the other, though not the extreme, end. Fred mentions baroque architecture as an example of non-functional design. I beg to differ. Every element of a cathedral, whether Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, Italianate, Baroque, or any other style was created with a spiritual, structural, cultural, political, social, economic, or aesthetic purpose. There are myriad books analyzing the features, characteristics, history, and purposes of various architectural styles. For Baroque, it was frequently a case of one-upsmanship between competing cities and leaders. The same voluptuous style is reflected in the paintings, sculpture, and dress of the period. Yet, most of the adornment was executed with meaning, just as the Victorian clutter on my grandmother’s mantle was meaningful to her, if not to me.

Coming back to Su’s photo, I continue to appreciate it as both abstract image and representational art. While the “functional” part of an opera house is arguably limited to the audience seating, the stage, the orchestra pit, and the back-stage facilities (all of which directly support the performance and viewing of an operatic composition), expression of the building shell as art in its own right is a well-established tradition. To a certain extent, how the audience experiences the building, the emotions that experience elicits, and how those emotions contribute to the overall art event, are an immutable component of attending the opera. What Su has accomplished is to capture one piece of that artistic experience and share it with us. I find his effort both successful and meaningful, both from a photographic and an architectural perspective. Bravo!

David, I'd say that adornments having meaning (which I have always understood) and their having function are two different things. I think a church adornment having a spiritual meaning or even a spiritual purpose is different from a school hallway which needs to allow for the safe passage of children, probably in groups at a time, or a hospital doorway which has to be wide enough to accommodate a gurney or wheelchair, which I see as matters of function. An aesthetic or spiritual purpose, to my mind, is different from a practical function. I did not, by the way, say that baroque architecture is an example of non-functional design. I said Baroque architecture has many non-functional embellishments.

Anders, thanks for responding to my post of 12/13. Although I understand your point, I must disagree. Without the human element in the image, to me it would become abstract in nature. Architecture is created by people - for people. I see the inclusion of people herein as entirely appropriate.

Michael, my point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing it.

Fred, I can appreciate your differentiating between operational, structural, life safety, and other types of functionality. It is a common and not completely inaccurate perspective. And I will happily grant that much architecture (without the capital "A") suffers from varying combinations of poor design and thoughtless decoration. However, what I have learned in 12+ years of formal education and over 30 years of architectural practice is that the lines between adornment and function are far less clearly drawn than one might assume. This issue speaks directly to the complex interaction of function and aesthetic that sets Architecture apart from the other arts and sciences. Perhaps if we substitute "purposeful" for "functional" the point will be better understood. The width of the doors in a hospital is a plainly functional/operational issue, and their design is purposeful due to that need. However, the wall covering and other finish items can be far more than mere adornment. The leading edge of healthcare design declares that colors, textures, quality of lighting, artwork, even access to natural daylight and exterior views all contribute to healing. The application of this knowledge to design is quite purposeful. To similar degree, the builders of the High Gothic cathedrals made synergistic choices in selecting structural forms and the details of execution. Pointed arches draw the eye heavenward far more effectively than do round arches. It also happens that pointed arches have less of an outward thrust vector, allowing for higher and longer spans. The Baroque certainly adds ever greater adornment to the Gothic precedent, even to the point of a "wedding cake" appearance. Even so, if one looks closely, many of these adornments make a very conscious reference to elements of precedent examples and are otherwise purposeful elements of the design. My point is that the purpose of any building can be and frequently is far more than just standing up, holding out the weather, and safely exiting the occupants. How we, the users and occupiers of buildings, interact and experience those buildings is every bit as important as the more esoteric issues.

Nervi, the Italian engineer, was a brilliant designer who merged the functional and the aesthetic in an unprecedented harmony, very akin to the Gothic cathedrals. There was nothing that forced him, from a purely functional (purposeful) standpoint, to eliminate the extraneous material in his concrete designs until only that which was essential to resisting the lines of force was left. Even the cost of material saved was offset somewhat by the complexity in execution. Yet the pure, refined expression of structure so obtained is a thing of grace and beauty. To the degree that carvings, stained glass windows, and other "adornment" contribute to the purposes of a cathedral, even a garishly Baroque cathedral, then those features are every bit as purposeful as Nervi's concrete.

The features and characteristics of buildings we might be tempted to describe as decoration or adornment are very often the things that speak most powerfully to our inner human selves. Why else do we still prefer stained wood cabinets and furniture to painted metal or plastic laminate? Why are bricks still a popular building material more than 5,000 years after their invention? Why did the Greeks duplicate in carved stone the forms and details of their previously wood-constructed temples? Why do we photographers still mess about with film, developer, and prints? As human beings we are intrinsically linked to our creations, and as a species we crave a sense of connection to and control over our built/inhabited environment.

Returning to the question of the Baroque as embellishment versus function: If the purpose of the design is to express a lavish devotion, impress the natives, or show up the Kaiser's cousin, then the decoration may well have fulfilled its purpose, and in doing so become quite functional. In the same vein, art for art's sake becomes purposeless and worthless except to the degree that we ascribe purpose (function) and value to it. If you want to gadfly this further you are welcome to do so. This discussion is only the very tiniest tip of the iceberg, and we could write volumes about it. I know you like placing people in the position of re-examining their sacred cows. Skewer this one all you want. (Now look what you've made me do, going so far off topic. My apologies...)

There's a difference between people being appropriate to a photo and people being necessary or a quintessential requirement. The first seems reasonable to me, the second seems less so.

David, I agree with you that the lines we're talking about are not at all clearly drawn. And you provide some good examples. I was never one to think that because lines aren't clear, static, or distinct they don't exist. I think there is a continuum from functional to non-functional. I'm aware that hospitals use color as part of a healing philosophy. And I'm aware that spiritual matters can "function" in various practical ways for people. I'm aware that even the most non-functioning seeming work of art can be seen as functional in some ways that make a lot of sense. And yet we still have the concept of adornment and the concept of function, the concept of aesthetic and the concept of utility even though they may overlap and play with each other all the time. Sure, an adornment may please us and in that sense function to aid in our well being. A work of art may nourish our souls. I still see that as different from penicillin functioning to cure an infection. You will often survive without seeing that Monet painting. You will often not survive without that course of antibiotics. I think antibiotics have a stronger sense of function than Impressionist paintings even though I can find functions that art may serve.

You even stated this:

One can't simply dismiss the fact that there are architectural form-over-function situations because one doesn't happen to like them. You can purge Gehry from the ranks of architects and call him a super-scale sculptor to keep architecture in tact as you want it to be or you can allow that there are some architects who think differently and create differently from you. In any case, if we don't want to say there are functional and NON-functional aspects of architecture, we can certainly say there are varying degrees and types of functionality.

But, as this is about a photo and photography as much as it is also about architecture, I think it helps to bring it back to photography, which is not (unless it's part of an assignment or a forensic exercise or a technical manual of some sort) required to incorporate the functionality aspect of architecture if it doesn't want to, just as a picture of a person can be either a very humanizing and personality-oriented portrait or it can be a very objectifying nude study (and many places in-between) or a macro of some muscle and skin which is not even recognizable as part of a person.

I think this photo would be more abstract without the person and I think abstract, non-literal, non-functional approaches to photographing architecture are great, but I think, shot as is, it would be missing something without the person. I think shot slightly differently, especially if the spotlit stage area was omitted, the person would be much less missed than shot as is. From an operatic, theatrical, and musical point of view, all of which I think this photo gives voice to, the person adds to the theatrics and drama thereby also reinforcing visually how the building functions in the world. I think the person adds to the sense of staging I see. I completely understand why you brought up scale and your mention of scale struck a chord with me and made me realize that the person does function that way as well. Actually, it's people, not person.

Now, having said all that, there's plenty of room for another photographer to photograph two down-and-out people shooting up in a corner somewhere, with a lot of this same space shown from a different angle and with different lighting that wouldn't give us a clue it's an opera house or a building of such elegance and design. That's photography for you. It doesn't have to be accurate. It will often simply use (even exploit) real world matter for its own purposes.

i dont know what the elves were up to this week but they captured , nailed, and killed it with their pow choice.. very beautiful aesthetic photo

This photo makes me think, how human presence can transform an architectural landscape. Successful architecture IMO is already posited to represent and trigger emotion, awe, fear, grandiose, bliss, melancholy, you name it. I think, photography can twist, knead, poke, bake, tear apart that emotion, deconstructing the global form into it's constituent parts. Although it surely doesn't have to be the only way. What human presence does to such an image is akin to musical instruments. Placement of people at specific locations in relation to architectural forms has the effect of plucking the string at different positions and creating different tones. A skillfully crafted musical instrument is by itself a piece of art, but when played, the music takes it to a new dimension. As David said, the purpose of the human figures is to give sense of scale and that of functionality of the architecture. A perfectly valid point, but to me that functionality of human presence is of less importance, although I can totally appreciate that point of view. For me, architecture often (not always) represents shapes, forms, color, texture, symmetry (or lack thereof), disorder, and the emotion it conveys through all those visual elements. The human presence enhances certain aspects of that emotional appeal by creating or releasing tension, as I find in this particular photo. Sorry for my half-baked sentences, but this is the best I have come to translate so far from my abstract state of mind.

Supriyo, no need to apologize. You make very articulate points and I also felt the human presence here less for its helping to establish scale and more for other reasons. At the same time, still lifes (including those with musical instruments) have their own ways of expression, communication, and feeling to the point where a human presence sometimes would detract or at least not necessarily serve to enhance or just make it a very different photo. It's interesting and somewhat serendipitous that I just commented on one of your own photos which you referred to as a "portrait in absentia." That photo has its own very expressive use of absence, memory, recall, association, etc.

Supriyo's take is both valid and insightful. It addresses some of the myriad aspects in play when two forms of art intersect, as in this intersection of architecture and photography. When we photograph a piece of art, is the resulting image about itself, about the art being photographed, or some synergy of the two? For the POTW, my impression is that the people provide the perceptual bridge that makes this image more explicitly about the architectural space. Without them its message would be far more ambiguous, even intentionally so. As an Architect I admittedly am predisposed to see images of architecture as being about the architecture. This is why I find Su's image so effective, because it speaks to me about something larger than the image itself. It may not do so for others, at least to the same degree. As Supriyo so effectively explains, there are as many ways to treat architectural subjects as there are photographers and subjects. I think Fred's positions are likewise well-founded. My hope is that we can all appreciate and learn from Su's example to add depth and meaning to our own work.

David, I don't read Supriyo's post as in any way in conflict with your previous. It is the functionality of architecture that embraces human performance/activity. Show me nonfunctional architecture that does what Supriyo describes in a photo. I would like to see an example.

The entire upper half of the Bilbao Guggenheim is completely inaccessible to people. That's nonfunctional architecture. It refuses to be "peopled," as I said in my previous post. If you're seeing people interacting with the building, it is by design.

Julie,

I recently revisited the famous photo by Cartier-Bresson of children playing among ruins. http://www.photographydo.com/img/040c5ca4-

e579-423d-a364-89457556737c/ai/famous-black-and-white-photographers-henri-cartier-bresson.jpg.

The ruins by definition have been relived of their intended functionality. So wouldn't that constitute an example of non-functional peopled

architecture? You can say that the children have transformed the ruins into their playground and thus ascribed new functionality to the

seemingly non-functional structures. However, the structures in the picture were not originally built with children's playground in mind.

Moreover, children are creative enough to transform any structure, man made or natural into their realm. So that's not anything special

about the original architecture.

In general, people among architectural ruins often form interesting photo subjects, although it's not clear how the functionality of the

architecture is manifested through those people in the picture. I myself have several examples like that from San Juan Capistrano in my

folders. What are your thoughts about this?

Lordy, Supriyo. I have such a totally opposite reaction. The ghost of functionality is what makes such a picture powerful. Structures *are* memories for me. What they did/do (frame, contain, shelter, channel, reverence; the nest of a life or family or community) more than what they were/are in the material sense, although the material is integral to the feel of how those verbs perform.

Amongst architects one of the definitions of great architecture is that it remains engaging even as a ruin. I suppose the Roman Forum or the Acropolis in Athens would be appropriate case studies. One of my architecture school projects even was based on this as a design approach. One wonders how much of today's architecture would survive the same test? I think we must agree that Cartier-Bresson's image is not about the architecture, but about the resilience of children and how they adapt to their environment.

Here is another photo, one of mine, the subject of which is an architectural element, but the photo is not intended to be about architecture per se. Instead, this architectural feature offered an interesting (to me) play of light and shadow, texture, materiality, and a contrast between the man-made and the rich blue of the winter sky. I saw all of these elements as intrinsic to photography, so I shot this photo as photography, not architecture. This image is intended to be scaleless, and, I believe, is illustrative of Supriyo's and Fred's points. I may have given the impression of a single-perspective view on architecture in photography, but that was not my intent. In the POTW, I find one example of very specific and successful approach to photography, expressive of the architecture as human-made and human-inhabited. There are so many other ways to view, experience, and photograph architecture, the people in it, and its component parts. This example is simply one more in the myriad possibilities.