PHOTOGRAPHY – ARCHITECTURAL PORN

Looking at an image of an actor on a Netflix promotion, a fixed image held on the screen as an interim screensaver while the superimposed text delivered the desired message, it occurs to one how photographs turn everything into observations – things to look at. The image is held there, fixed for one to do whatever with, anything at all - whatever it might be; wherever it might be; to fantasise, criticise, or to analyse, or anything in between or beyond. The subject of the photograph, whatever it is, is transformed into something different, markings or pixels to be seen, observed, scrutinised, manipulated as a ‘thing,’ a representation, in any way one wants or might choose – perverse, practical, or otherwise. Personal responsibility is removed; one can indulge in any participation one might devise; one can stare unreservedly, in a manner that would never be acceptable in real life, or digitally manipulate matters, and remain happily safe, in control, without the engagement of ‘the other’ – remote from Martin Buber’s ‘I-Thou’ enrichment; enlivenment: its mystic, existential challenge. Is this how the ‘star’ syndrome is established – with individuals having studied the photograph, the markings, and having made themselves feel in a certain contrived manner, finding themselves confronted with the real living thing that communicates instead of remaining a numb, personal, indulgent observation; a whimsical wonder: something mentally decorative, for me alone; my enjoyment; my engagement? The ‘star’ becomes the living embodiment of all perceptions as preconceptions; a person, an individual, layered with another’s personal, private predicaments. The ‘star’ is the other seen in a void of contrived understanding.

Is this the problem with architectural photography, where one is likewise removed from all context and place, left to envisage personal possibilities; possibilities personally; perhaps only desirable interpolations, in an indulgent engagement of assumed wonder or otherwise? Here, as with the ‘star’ revelation, the actual experience of the place photographed drags understanding into a reality that is never realised, expected, understood, or wanted. The complexity of the circumstance that is ignored becomes raw and real. The special vision in the reading of the photograph that is itself a unique framing, becomes stratified into a marvellous indulgence that engages personal wonder as positive miracles that dismisses ‘undesirable’ alternative possibilities, leaving the observer to swim in a sea of contrived delight. Hoped-for ‘awe’ prompted by the clever, ‘awe-inspiring’ presentation of angle, frame, and form becomes the stimulating ambition that layers perceptions with impossible possibilities, hopeful fantasies that we grasp at and eulogise, verbally, mentally, and emotionally, creating a hagiographic, phantom world of difference that exists only in the conceptual ether: we experience the ‘architecture’ as a vision, and love our emotional engagement that is embroiled in us. We even speak about the ‘architecture’ as though it might be some secret elixir.

It is this ‘ether’ that one is being drawn into by the photographs; by the mystery of movies; the wonder of a clever image – the photograph. Our era relies so much on photographs that one has to be concerned that the world as we know it is being transfigured by precious, personal perceptions that mislead, confound, and confuse; that create a fake sense of place; a phantom world; 'stars.' Yet it is the photograph that one once looked to for evidence of fact. It is this lingering feel for fact rooted in the photograph that now remains layered into the perceptions shaped by ‘shopped’ images – faked photographs that were never and will never be other than in one’s emotional readings; one’s feel-good, body environment that is sensed as potentially being real or factual. We are being hoodwinked by photographs. Perhaps we need to do away with these images to get a better understanding of our times; to come to know our world? Now nearly everyone carries a camera as a phone; the world is only navigable if one has a mobile phone. Such is its necessity, one is disabled if one does not have one. Images pour out by the millions every day, for others to like; for promotion; for influence; for one’s own importance; and more. Our news is photographs; we learn with images; yet the images are something other, creating individual observers out of thinking, feeling, entities; shaping beings with a singular, unresponsive engagement; changing people into self-centred egotists who care little for others; who see love through the whimsical understanding of ‘nice’ images; who bring this centredness to the real world and act as though it might be normal: ME; as though things cannot be any other way, when they are.

The photograph relieves one of any response; it centres everything on the self, stimulating a transformation that is heightened by the selfie – the image of the self, taken by the self, for the admiration of the self as other. It is like selfish porn; a bizarre interaction that, in architecture, becomes likewise: architectural porn, engaging all the same emotive feelings and senses.

The word popularly referred to is ‘awe.’ We hear talk of awe hunters; an awful situation centred on self-importance. Awe is not the whining ‘awwwe’ or ‘oooooooor’ when looking at a sunset - “so beautiful one could paint it!” It is not a sigh of wonder or a recognition of awareness of 'my' feelings. We are demystifying the world, turning enchantment into a defined and definable statement of expected facts that can be ‘hunted down’; facts that emphasise a self-centred concern rather than touching humbly on, and being truly, quietly enriched by the unlimited, indefinable mystery of being. The photograph of the glorious sunset tells it all: the glory of the blaze is reduced to a picture to be gawked at and to feel good about; observed as a pretty thing - ‘WOW!’ - like attractive architecture. Photography is, in essence, ‘porn,' fixated on the ‘I’ relationship, the eye, not the mystic ‘I-Thou’ relationship written about by Martin Buber or symbolism of the Eye of Certainty.#

Everything is safe for the viewer; there is no risk; there is no exposure of the self; no revelation or understanding of any other; just an indulgence in ME and MY. Porn involves a permissive pampering, playing with ME and MY perceptions, for ME and MY enjoyment. It is the state of affairs with movies and photographs too; and architectural images as well. We are engaged and enthralled by ourselves, our works, our thoughts, our reactions. It is a new narcissism.

Llangollen, Wales.

Newtown, Wales.

The circumstance was made clear when looking at photographs of Llangallen in Wales. The street, the buildings are stunning when viewed as photographs; but the place was experienced as something different. There was a depressing sense of a struggling town that lacked the energy, interest and vibrancy that could be read in the images: it felt flat; less than ordinary; empty; like Newtown too. Life seemed to grind on rather than thrive: but sitting in the comfort of home, the buildings mesmerise and entertain wonder, free from the facts of the experience of place as weather, other people,^ schedules, rules, parking change and times, unfamiliar facilities or lack thereof; the closed shops; tourism; even the feel of the local op shop. One senses more than the picturesque prettiness one can study remotely at home, in the comfort and security of one’s personal space, with time to spare. This is the classic ‘armchair tourist’ syndrome, where unique images are selected for personal perusal and perception – an engagement modified by a double impact, where a fabricated, framed, perhaps photoshopped image is presented for one to drool over all with the very best of intentions, producing what could be seen as a supercharged outcome, an exhilarating vision of hoped-for desire that one can compare with architectural porn. Is all architectural photography really architectural porn? Here the call for Street View to play a role in architecture – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html - highlights the point: the intent of the photograph.

The architectural image.

Street View images.

The isolation from the variety of in situ experience, being satisfied with one’s own indulgence of convenient comfort with no demands on time or any other necessity other than what one wants to consider, creates a happy haven. Along with this distancing, the separation that requires no response - no bodily adjustments to relate to the other either as feeling, perception, or gesture – this circumstance leaves one in a convenient no man’s land, an open field where one can do whatever one wants to do, and to be however one wants to feel or react. One could be drinking a beer; a whisky; engaged, chatting with mates; or happily relaxing alone, all while perusing - seeing what one wants to see, how one wants to see; ready to move on to different images with the slightest whim of dissatisfaction, satisfaction, or otherwise; or to dwell on others with whatever mix of emotions. Everything is left to the individual who is in control of everything, without any responsibilities to anyone else, while looking at photographs, observing and dreaming. This places the individual in the position of the onlooker; the unseen observer; the perve. One can stare at the subject directly in the eye, in any detail, and remain moved or unmoved, holding all the power and authority, in a way that is impossible in real meetings or engagements.

The photograph is controlling our world, shaping the way we see and experience it, while enhancing our selfishness; hyping our self-importance. We even use photographs to engage with ourselves: architects get their works ‘photographed’ for exhibition and their own satisfaction, to be seen somewhat like selfies, where one can see oneself as something otherwise, like a movie star, or a model, etc., leaving one to declare: “WOW! Look at me!” - “Look at MY work!”

The architect sees the work as published photographs, in the context of all the other published images, locating the work in the established aura of print or pixels and its ‘ether’ world, quietly claiming parallel excesses because of the match of the mix as media; placing the work in the scope of history and its commentary, claiming some of this gloss. It is a bit like the ‘as seen on TV’ promo. The situation is similar to that of the artist with work displayed in a gallery, quietly claiming quality and recognition because of the context; and like student work that has been published in the annual review as photographs on quality glossy paper in a weighty book, making the work ‘real’ in the Schumacher way.*

We need to become aware of these foibles, these fantasies that are life changing in a deforming, defacing - refacing - manner. We need to know the ‘game of photographs,’ its rules; its quirks; not to be able to adopt and use them for clever illusions, but to overcome their impacts that are distorting our understanding. We are being led into a fake world, a make-believe world of perceptions and expectations that exists only in the mind, within a different complex reality that engages completely and complexly. Photographs refine and subdivide complex complexions, deforming them by either guile or chance - maybe both? - into isolated packages of determined strategies that reshape and redefine by selectively choosing parts, pieces, and shrewd angles for re-perceptions - to be 'seen as . . . '

Seeing the world or anything ‘as’ removes us from the richness in everyday experience, allowing egos to burst open with ad hoc misunderstandings that only feed on those of others, and others on these. The world becomes a smudged tangle of references, without the rigour of symbolism and its precise correspondences.

The sense of a Zen presence needs to be reinvigorated, not with self-conscious ‘awe hunters’ seeking out an awesome, awful, deliberate ‘shock-and-awe,’ but with an honest openness, where the raw spirit of being is left to sense with a knowing responsibility - the ability to respond; to remember - bringing memory and remembrance to an experience that is open to engage with others and the rich, intertwined complexities of this world, its enchantment.

Now one wonders just how Venturi’s 'contradiction' fits this complexity? Complexities can be contradictory in a mystic manner. Maybe Venturi’s contradictions are too deliberately self-conscious? The pattern of the ‘between’ engages a complexity in a contradiction – between opposites. It is this sense of togetherness that involves responses and responsibilities, resolving differences in the everyday interplay of being, not as a rational game.

Venturi's buildings.

Is Venturi too intellectual, like Christopher Alexander? Both touch on sensitivities that are truly meaningful, but the outcomes seen in their works based on these applied theories are too logical; too considered; too thoughtfully contrived: they lack the spirit and coherence of inspired outcomes rooted in feeling and a quiet understanding, with the body, mind, and spirit acting in congruence in context, not in any thoughtful, 'photographic' isolation.

Alexander's buildings.

One is left wondering why it is that after looking at the photos taken in Wales – in Llangollen and Newtown in particular – one has the urge to want to go there: but one has been there, and was not terribly enthused at the time. One had the sense of places that were not thriving; that were struggling with what one could assume to be the economy and employment issues; there was a lingering sense of depression. The places - both the towns and villages - held a sense of despair; a sense of loneliness; a yearning for something that was missing; that had been there but had now gone. The buildings alone, as photographs, revealed an enthusiasm and wealth that the current circumstances seemed to lack.

Llangollen.

Newtown.

So what was this difference between looking at the images of the place, and being there? One could write about the recorded images with a certain poetic energy, and feel enthused by them, both the individual buildings and the street views – such is their rich complexity, their poetry; but being there one lacked any enlivenment, any excitement with the situation now revealed in the images of the place seen in the comforts of home. On recollection, the camera became a point and shoot exercise, with the eye picking out ‘interesting’ framed compositions and quirky observations. It was an exercise purely driven by the camera itself and the eye; one had little desire or any excitement driven by the place.

It is clear how the photograph turns everything into marks, just as letters on a page but differently. It is important that we manage matters better, rather than leaving them to manage us. Living in a fantasy may have its interests, but we have to know how we are misguided by images if the momentum of preconceptions is not going to establish the basis for our future actions. The problems can only compound if we do not act.

#

Abū Bakr Sirāj ad-Dīn The Book of Certainty The Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, 2015.

p.19, Note 21.

. . . the Eye of Certainty, always denotes direct spiritual vision . . .

It is evidently according to this highest sense that the Sufi Al-Hallāj said:

I saw my Lord with the Eye of the Heart.

I said: ‘Who art Thou?’ He answered: ’Thou.’

*

Fritz Schumacher tells the story of the couple with their child in a restaurant.

The waiter comes and asks what the order will be. The child quickly responds with “a hamburger.”

The mother primly corrects this with a “Two cod and chips, and one small one, please.”

The waiter starts writing on his pad, saying: “That’ll be two cod and chips and a hamburger.”

The surprised child exclaims: “He thinks I’m real!”

^

Jean-Paul Satre; in the play No Exit, 1944 – Hell is other people.

The architectural reference to 'porn' is not literal.

NOTE

'The idea of 'architectural porn' arose in the writing of this piece. Nothing was known of the more literal meaning of this phrase revealed in Google Images as a series of collages that show a keen eye for both architecture and porn. What becomes clear is that the concept of porn written about is not visual, but refers to the position of the viewer, the observer, and the attitudes and feelings involved that are become our understandings.

See:

Facebook - Cool Thing

When Architecture Meets Porn via #Scientwehst