It was only on
reading the headline that the phrase was recalled; its inferences
quietly reverberated in the memory of some recent writings.# One had
forgotten this catchphrase that has become a part of our language, a
common term for the unspoken aims of seeing, especially in
photography, that is revealing. Indeed, one now recalls landscape
vistas being regarded with great satisfaction, described as being
beautiful enough ‘to photograph,’ or ‘to paint;’ sometimes it
is said that the view ‘would make an ideal postcard.’ The
proposition is that the recorded image, produced as painted or
printed, has to be different, in some way special, presenting ‘a
perfect picture.’ It is a circumstance that reveals a particular,
bespoke ambition to achieve something flawless – something
‘picture-perfect’ encapsulating some mysterious, emotional,
unspoken visual ideal.
The Oxford
dictionary tells us:
picture-perfect
/ˌpɪktʃəˈpəːfɪkt/
adjective NORTH
AMERICAN
completely lacking
in defects or flaws; ideal.
‘a picture-perfect
summer day.’
The promise of the
clever headline was that the winner would not only enjoy the perfect
holiday, whatever this might be, but would also be in a ‘real’
picture-perfect environment too, as revealed in the published
photographs of the brochures. One sees such ‘picture-perfect’
places identified on the roadsides of tourist routes, marked
locations from which photographs can be taken – ‘viewpoints’
offering strikingly ideal, ‘camera-ready,’ picture-perfect
perspectives.
Does this halcyon
vision with all of its expectations have an impact on architecture?
We know its consequences in architectural photography, best seen in
the dislocation between the preferred published image and the
everyday Street View snapshot taken nonchalantly in context; see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html. With the world having more cameras than ever before, and constantly
communicating with photographic images, the experience of
manufactured ‘perfection’ is so ingrained in our understanding
that we do not even give it a critical thought; it has become the
expected norm for everything. It is this way of seeing that perceives
things freehand as a sloppy mess, rather than anything usefully
informative or expressive, let alone as ‘art,’ unless it is
‘branded.’^ One could see the situation much like one desiring a
‘partner’ who is a ‘perfect’ AI construct: an astonishing
concept, but see below.* The search for the ‘ideal appearance’
has changed from an innocent recognition of experienced beauty sought
to be recorded, to the careful self-conscious manipulation of the
selected image, ‘adjusted’ to fit a preconceived ideal.
The professional photograph.
Having this ambition
that prefers the ‘picture-perfect’ presentation has its impacts,
not only with the creations of fakes, fabricated images, but in the
reading of the ‘ideal’ and the establishment of the expectation
that such unique perfection can be achieved, replicated in new work,
be this in illustrations, or in the ‘real’ everyday world. So it
is that we see architectural projects being photographed
professionally in order to achieve this outcome, to have things that
are especially ‘picture-perfect.’ Designs come to be understood
and considered best as photographs rather than as liveable spaces and
places that tend to be a little messy – a let-down; imperfect, even
if this be just dust and spiders’ webs, or a book ‘out of place.’
Are our eyes and our expectations guiding intentions with aspirations
to create new, picture-perfect buildings, structures that are shaped
for startling, uniquely styled appearances rather than for the
enrichment and happy accommodation of the lived experience?
Does the search for
things picture-perfect drive the intent that seeks to highlight
singularity in architecture: see below+ - that desire the make
something special, something differently bespoke; something that has
no confidence in its ‘spoiler’ context, wishing only to stand
self-centred, alone, isolated, ready to be photographed or to be seen
with the photographic eye. Such an approach to architecture only
enhances disconnections rather than providing life and its living
with an integrating fabric that can act as a subtle catalyst for
contentment, without generating division with hype driving divisive
envy in support of individuality and identity.
We seem to forget
the call of tradition to be wary of creative, ‘original,’
personal expression. These indulgent declarations were never seen as
anything good or positive; this distinctiveness was perceived as an
unnecessary distraction, a distortion, a perversion, both misguiding
and irrelevant. We can see the impact of today’s interest in things
personal, where nothing has any relevance or value without a name;
and if the name is fashionably preferred by the media, it holds value
- extraordinary monetary value if nothing else: while Francis Bacon’s
paintings were pulling in millions, those of his talented colleague
were only claiming a few thousand pounds. We need to put our efforts
into communal values that might help unite rather than separate us
into individual, self-interested, ‘creative’ beings. Persons and
personalities only drive division when, more than ever, we need
integration; an interest in wholeness. The difference can best be
envisaged by referring to the stars: the humbling and exhilarating
experience of the wholeness of the night sky, compared to the
humiliating adoration demanded by ‘stars’ as defined by
Hollywood, et.al., people who seek to stand alone posing for
admiration and adulation. In a court deposition, Donald Trump claimed
that he was a ‘star.’
Architectural renderings.
We make our
architectural renderings ‘picture-perfect;’ but while everything
we produce as illustrations might represent flawless ideals, we do
live in a less than perfect world. Our buildings have contexts, and
we come to know them intimately, both functionally and emotionally,
as we layer them with a shambles of meanings and memories; and our
concerns and hopes; such that, as ‘lost places,’ - see: Returning
to Nothing: The Meaning of Lost Places, by Peter Read, Cambridge
University press, Melbourne, 2009 - we lament their passing even
though they are never picture-perfect: there is always more here than
the ‘less’ of modernism.
Harry Seidler interiors.
Yet architects still
aim for an ‘ideal,’ typically talking about getting the work
‘photographed,’ when it has already been snapped by themselves,
apparently with the aim of capturing something not seen by the eye.
Some architects, e.g. like Harry Seidler did, appear to prefer their
work to be seen as photographs, apparently wanting to look at them as
such everyday, with selected arrangements for ordinary living being
those chosen to be photographed: one might explain the situation as
having the ‘architecture’ picture- perfect, always ready as the
lived, camera image, replicating the photographic appearance in real
life.
Here we are asked to
live the photograph; and we see buildings designed for this reading,
creating photographic ideals in formed place and space – all
‘picture-perfect,’ as seen in the photograph. One can see the
situation more clearly when one thinks of the actions taken to get a
place ‘ready to be photographed.’ The removals and rearrangements
that were once physical, are now able to be ‘shopped.’ Knowing of
these contrived manipulations, we need to assess the impact that this
strategy has on us and our well- being. The world is now talking
about mental health more and more. Is this because we are being asked
to live photographically, with photographic expectations, in social
media as well as in architecture, being constantly unable to meet our
own, programmed intentions; the elusive ‘fake’ ones - the ones
that have been stimulated by picture-perfect images that leave us in
a state of constant dissatisfaction, with no contentment whatsoever,
ever? It is a sad and seriously concerning state of affairs that has
everyone striving for, yearning for, impossibilities, or behaving as
actors performing picture-perfect roles being snapped as reality in
promotional, influential selfies. It is like everyday cosplay.
Perfect teeth.
Perfect scrambled egg.
The picture-perfect
world is problematical. It is becoming more dominant daily, in all
aspects of life. We need things to change; we need to become aware of
the beauty of things ordinary in a Zen way: ‘Before enlightenment,
chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.’
We need to learn to love ‘natural’ imperfections: a fractured
rock; a mossy rock; a broken plate; a hand-shaped tea cup; a cloud; a
grimy wall; a worn pair of shoes; . . . and do away with the pretence
of fabricated expectations that demand ‘creative’ singularity.
Alas, even these
extreme expressions have been taken over by the picture-perfect world
that indulges in slick, clever difference as picturesque deformities.
We need the lived experience of these things; the exoteric feel of
flesh and blood, not the esoteric glow of light and slight of hand.
We need to feel the world again; experience its wonder, its ordinary
enchantment, not that astonishing perfection framed by the illusory
lens. This does not mean that we develop an interest in quirky
photography, that approach which reveals strange, chance events,
poses, occasions, and other ‘funny’ matters ‘for the record,’
ready for social media’s delight that will ‘get the Internet
talking.’ We need a new quiet humility and honesty, and more; but
these words alone are too easily manipulated to support one’s cause
with cunning spin. It is life that needs attention, with its being,
its wholeness, lived as a contented enrichment.
Royanji Temple, Kyoto.
#
The headline in
Google News:
WIN a
Picture-Perfect Holiday with Bupa Travel Insurance
See:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/05/itemised-viewing-architectural-eye.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/04/impossible-dreams-dangerous-paradise.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/04/on-perfectly-framed-photographs.html
and
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/03/architectural-presentation-problems.html
^
One has to comment on
older techniques that now look naively crude, like the cardboard
models and coloured renderings of building projects that were the
norm in the 1960-80s, and looked spectacular when originally
presented. The photographs of these when see with today’s eyes show
rough cuts and scribbled lines that now annoy, and are seen as
clumsy, messy work lacking the slickly suave sophistication of the
CAD presentation that comes with the startling ‘look no hands’
prefection. In the same way, freehand detailing that was far more
informative than any CAD detail, and could be produced much faster
than any CAD document, is now considered dodgy, unacceptable as a
legal document. One wonders how Shakespeare’s work might be
received today with its scrawling texts.
*
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgpzp8/a-diy-coder-created-a-virtual-ai-waifu-chatgpt
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/could-an-ai-hologram-really-be-better-than-a-wife-some-men-think-so-20230420-p5d208.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21893564/married-my-ai-chatbot-replika/
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/i-love-her-and-see-her-as-a-real-woman-meet-a-man-who-married-an-artificial-intelligence-hologram-1.6253767
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/man-love-ai-powered-sex-28240509
and
https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/27/alice-levine-surprised-after-meeting-man-and-his-sex-doll-life-partner-18345041/amp/
+
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/05/architecture-is-not-singular.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2020/02/villa-mairea-city-of-solitude.html
and
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/architectures-two-remote-islands-too.html