dave_bernard

It's a very dicey thing when a photographer seeks to make fine art while relying strongly upon the presence of standing architecture in the image. The colors chosen by the architect, the patterns, the textures, the dimensions, the scale... and very much so, in this case, the rendering of light, are all creations of the architect(s) centuries ago.

The image is often beautiful. But given beautiful architecture, a record snapshot could look beautiful.

I often see a similar reliance on the work of the architect in fine art photographs of stairways, of archways, of landscapes.

We often look at such photographs, and admire the skill of the photographer. But is the photographer's vision only derivative, relying upon the artistic vision and creativity of the architect?

Aside from the interesting discussion of the questionable scale of the people, this is a technically competent and quite striking image. But the shapes, the forms, and very much so the lighting, are all competent recordings of the real genius and originality apparent here, that of the architect.