We are frequently given selected, itemised images to peruse in architectural publications; it appears to be the fashion. The approach has been written about previously: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/03/architectural-presentation-problems.html. While the cliché tells us that God is in the detail, the self-conscious collation of the published, selected images - the attempt to sense the place - makes the understanding of wholeness difficult. Contexts are removed in the precise framing of the images, and are left for one’s imagination to complete, conjuring nothing that might be detrimental to the suggested vision. The interpretation becomes tangled with the structured aesthetics of the artful photographs that intervene in this piecing together with their persuasive inferences, (c.f. Mondrian/Rietveld above), that accumulate emotions and distract from an understanding free from guidance and another's contemplative indulgence. The circumstance creates layers of readings, feelings, and interpretations that shape a personal configuration of the project. The example here is seen in https://www.archdaily.com/999042/farnham-house-foomann-architects. It looks to be a nice project: one has to remember that this critique has to do with communication techniques that have become commonplace in the profession, revealed here as an example only.
This article presents an unusual collage of images, publishing what look like street views of the project in the set. It has been argued that street views, as seen in Street View, have an important role in architecture: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html. In spite of this admirable exposure, there remains a piecemeal picturing of the whole with a selection of very pretty photographs, leaving one with questions about lived experience. The publication gives a particular viewer’s appreciation of the house for the reader to reassemble as a construct, an approach that seeks to be persuasive by defining a particular way of 'seeing as '
There is nothing 'wrong' with this approach; but one should be aware of it, its limitations and its impacts, since we learn so much more today through photography, and use this fractured, manipulated understanding to shape our assessments that become sources for inspiration arising from an ‘appreciation’ of the work through the images provided to us. The more self-consciously chosen these pieces are, the more opportunity there is to be misled; for one to be given an impression of a project that is fanciful, enhanced with a contrived context and fabricated aesthetic - perhaps as seen through rose-coloured glasses.
It is this potential that remains a concern as it guides expectations into impossible visions with unreal ambitions that generate a fantasy, driving concepts that become ever more remote from ordinary experience and expectations. Street View gives us these everyday, ‘real’ appearances, the passerby’s nonchalant seeing; but here, in this example, one sees that this public aspect too has joined the collection of special parts used to impart what could be seen as 'pampered' information about this house.
This approach to project publicity only drives architecture more and more into the remote, exotic extremes for which it is criticised. We need to get a far better emotional match and functional fit to lived place rather than continue to assemble exhibits for special appreciation, as though one might be in an art gallery, with bespoke arrangements presented of what one might call ‘architectural seeing’: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/11/architectural-seeing.html.
It is always good to see the drawings of a project, even if it is just the plans; they are revealing. Here, it looks as though there was a change of mind: the roof plan of the existing building appears to have been drawn with a hip joining on to the new extension. The view from the street seems to show the junction as a gable roof junction.
The hip junction is an agreeable detail, as seen in Whalsay's kirk : see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2013/02/whalsays-kirk.html
5 MAY 23
STREET VIEW
One did wonder where this house might be so that the actual Street View could be seen. The article only referenced the place as the ‘Farnham House, Melbourne,’ making a search futile. The strategy has worked previously, see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/10/taylor-square-warehouse-variations-in.html and https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/04/wheres-granny-flat.html - but this text gave no clues to narrow down any search other than ‘Melbourne.’
The architect’s Internet site was explored with the hope that a more precise location might be referenced. The projects were opened; it was noticed that each residential project was identified by a street name that one assumed to be the address of the related residence; it was not the client’s name as had been assumed. Scrolling through the images, one eventually finds, yes, the ‘Farnham Street’ House. Google Earth was opened and ‘Farnham Street, Melbourne’ was entered; it came up as ‘Farnham Street, Flemington.’ The aerial view revealed a leafy street only about three blocks long, simplifying the search for a house with a rectangular extension. The expected profiles were soon revealed at number 65.
The project fitted snugly into its context, squeezing in between its side boundaries, leaving a small backyard. Street View was opened. Yes, this was the place; one saw the brick home with the timber-clad rear box with its surrounding brick wall, as seen in the published photographs. Scanning the context soon made it obvious that the side image had been taken from a private lane, and that the image of the front elevation had been cleverly framed to cut out a large tree on the footpath that aligned nicely with the entry gate of the house.
.jpg)
One’s feelings about the ‘street views’ offered in the architect’s set of photographs of the project turned out to be correct. The actual Street View gave one much more different information about the project. One could see the street, the leafy trees, the neighbouring homes, the buildings opposite, all of which become a part of the experience of this place which sits in the broader context of Flemington, with a nearby college and shopping centre. One has to remember that the encounter with a particular place comes with the experience of getting there.
The view on Google Earth revealed the compactness of the siting and its surroundings, and exposed the small area that the extension opened on to. One had been given only a glimpse of this tiny green space from the inside looking out. The wide-angled views looking back at the extension gave no clear indication of the actual scale of the area.
This exercise highlights the issue raised in this piece. These are the Street Views and the site as recorded on Google Earth, showing what one sees when strolling by or when using a drone camera in the area:
A not too forensic perusal of these images shows that at least one of the ‘architectural’ images seems to have been Photoshopped, making one wonder if all the images might have been ‘adjusted’ in some way. It is unfortunate, as this variation appears to display a dissatisfaction with reality, a desire to invent something ‘better’ than is actually there.
If one looks at the street elevation of the project, the front of the house, it is clear that not only has the tree been avoided by the clever camera placement, but that the cables to the front gable, and the television aerial on the chimney have been removed in what looks like an attempt to ‘tidy things up.’ The junction box on the barge board has been cleverly hidden by leaves and can be seen in part only in the detailed viewing. This considered manipulation of an image highlights architecture’s concern with everyday reality, driving the ‘if only’ fantasies that stimulate others to strive for more exotic impossibilities.
The other difference one notices with these ‘Street Views’ is not only the Farnham Street context, but the view of the project that can be seen from around the corner in Marwick Street. Apparently this view of the project did not achieve the required aesthetic intrigue to be included in the set, even with some ‘shopping.’ One has to wonder about an ‘architecture’ that apparently sees itself being better than everything around it, perhaps dissatisfied with the surroundings, seemingly unwilling to be a happy part of its context - not wanting to be seen with it.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.