PARAMETRIC PARAMETERS

Apparently Patrik Schumacher of ZHA is “not happy” with the rate of “parametricism uptake,” as declared in the headline: see - https://share.google/53psIpscpGpC2Ke02. The full text of the article is reproduced below.

Patrik Schumacher.

But what is parametricism? It sounds like a digital disability strategy; or is it a skydiving programme? It does not seem to be an architectural term, but it is. Here, another site is able to assist with a simple guide to this idea; or might one label it an approach, or methodology?# It seems that Schumacher wants to call it a style; to see it as a significant period in the history of architecture, the successor to Modernism. Is he expecting a new chapter in Bannister Fletcher with this title?

Schumacher dismisses the other architectural categories that have defined various approaches to design after Modernism – postmodernism, deconstructivism, brutalism, high-tech, neo-classicism, minimilism – claiming that they have all disappeared or have been enveloped within the broader notion of Modernism, perhaps its perversion - and boldly declares that his approach, that was apparently named parametric in 2008 for the Venice Architecture Biennale by Schumacher himself, is the next, true, universal architectural style: parametricism will still become a universal architectural style - the great new style after modernism: era-defining. He might like it to be so, and is now apparently showing some frustration with the general lack of excitement for, or interest in this approach. Does one expect Trumpian expletives because of this neglect; this disinterest: “Do it MY way you f . . . b . . . s!”? Does this frustration say something about parametricism or Schumacher; maybe both?

Schumacher acknowledges that – to his own disappointment – parametricism has not yet been widely adopted by the industry, and at the moment is far from a universal style.

Schumacher believes that parametric design makes it ideologically aligned with our computer-dominated current age, and uses this over-simplistic logic – that parametricism uses computers like the rest of us - to argue that it is the meaningful style for our AI era. He explains:

What really drives the proliferation is a good fit with the sociology, economic, technology and dynamics of an era – that is, simplistically: we all use computers. Just why and what this good fit is, or how it might be meaningful for our time, is never delved into. The notion of a good fit brings to mind that relationship between form and function, structure and system, which is the core of Modernism. Schumacher, sounding a little cranky now, blames universities for the slow uptake: They withdrew and went into this woke kind of territory – anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star architecture. One has to wonder why this has apparently been so. Perhaps this was a reaction to parametricism?

Even Schumacher seems aware of the critique of parametricism – that it is pure, fanciful styling based on suave appearance alone, to be achieved at all costs, literally - and acknowledges the problem without apology or embarrassment: early buildings in the style had to use lots of material and complex engineering to achieve a desired look. Unbelievably, he explains clearly how the whole approach was a stylish, bespoke charade; fudged forms:

The first wave of parametricism was just form. On the inside you had hatched jobs of steel frames with cladding on the outside, and between was a huge kind of unaccounted-for pochette [pocket] – it was just surfaces – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html, where the London Olympic Aquatics Centre roof has almost the same quaintly of steel in it as a battleship, all when the Olympics were promoted as the ‘green’ Olympics; and still there are no red faces at ZHA, just the claim for accolades and a new word that will attend to the critique.

HMS Westminster - 3,500 tonnes.

Aquatics Centre roof framing - 3,000 tonnes.

Temporary seating was designed to be removed after the games.

Things are said to be different now. Schumacher explains the change in approach with another ‘ism’:

. . . he points to what he sees as an evolution of the style that he terms "tectonism" – which aims to directly link digital form-finding with physical fabrication and structural engineering.

"Tectonism has more substance and credibility – it is not so easily dismissed as the earlier parametric buildings, which were partly illogical, partly over-expensive, let's say compositionally, artistic and willful. [sic.]

The astonishing thing is that, while Schumacher is clearly agreeing with the critics, and knows the failings of parametricism, he still believes in this self-proclaimed ‘ism’ – the successor to Modernism - noting that it is popular with young architects, as if this might be a good gauge for quality and desirability:

[Even] with all the kind of discouragement from the schools of architecture that just want to talk about sustainability and social justice, all the students and young architects, what they would love to design and build is parametricism.

Is this because of its stylish astonishment; its grandiose, grand design?##

And there are two reasons why. One is because it is the most sophisticated style in the sense of absorbing all the engineering optimisation intelligence.

What on earth does this mean? Didn’t Schumacher just tell us that parametricism was just faking forms, irrespective of the engineering? Still, he continues, regardless of this difference, spelling out the obvious, that if everyone used parametricism, there would be, at least, some coherence, if only in the name:

But also, it is good to be on the same paradigm if you want to build a city together, which functions together, something where there's a coherence with an identity and beauty.

This is the Schumacher solution to today’s chaotic development:

It's not good that the different approaches fight each other, because then you don't generate something larger. All you get is the garbage spill, where everything is trying to be prominent and in the end, nothing is prominent –  there's no hierarchy, no legibility and no logic.

The argument Schumacher presents is a little muddled, solving big problems with what seems so blatantly obvious, when even a collection of his own buildings hardly cohere: more is needed. He clearly wants everyone to adopt his style to overcome the garbage spill development we see everywhere today, while remaining critical of all other approaches that talk about sustainability and social justice and anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star architecture as if one should never do this; suggesting that these are undesirable developments, or that one should not criticise his idea. This comes from a man who reportedly said: The whole system of so called “affordable housing” constitutes a massive interference with market processes that costs our society dearly. + Does he realise that it is paramentricism that might have stimulated this interest in these other matters? The London Olympic Aquatics Centre, and other projects too, highlight the issues – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html. Little wonder that there might be an interest in critiquing this approach.

Schumacher is obviously aware of these inherent problems that he acknowledges, so we now have this new, corrective ‘ism’ to solve/address the problems: “tectonicism.” It seems to be parametricism on a finer scale. Instead of doing whatever to create the bespoke form, more thought is apparently being given to how the structure might itself be designed and constructed as a skeleton that relates to its skin, its expression. Just how this might happen is not clear, but one assumes that algorithms are again involved – to maintain the good fit with the sociology, economic, technology and dynamics of [our] era.

In spite of these efforts to save face, it seems that the primary problem with this strategy is that there is no fundamental inspiration for this approach other than computers; that this design work can now all be done with clever algorithms. The strategy might have length, breadth, and height, but it lacks the depth that St. Paul referred to. Morphing is not meaning, just mangling. There is no essential relationship with purpose or life or other ideas. The work involves itself in its own inner, theoretical relationships, being something like a hyperbolic paraboloid structure – c.f. Tange – that is there in this form because of its mathematical intrigue alone.^^

Hyperbolic paraboloid structure.

St. Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo - Kenzo Tange.

Modernism had its roots in the experience of nature; its necessity and integrity. Wright named it ‘organic.’ Sullivan saw the relationship between form and function, and experience, noting that, for example, the form of the rose, (or apple-blossom or leaf), is the function of the rose, (or apple-blossom or leaf), and vice versa.++ Surely a rose is parametic? Are not fractals involved? Is Schumacher referring to the fractal concept when seeking to make more rational sense out of skin-deep parametricism with tectonism; trying to get more inner coherence? The point is that function is not just practical purpose. The function Sullivan spoke about embodied a mystical understanding and approach. The moon was gold and round before the coin . . . Modernism’s roots lie in the whole of our world and its interwoven necessities; in our very being. One needs to read Sullivan, not for any nostalgic, ye olde worlde history revival lesson, but to understand exactly what he was saying; to seek out real meaning. The cliché cry deforms and distracts his ideas.

Now one wonders: tectonicism? Is Schumacher referring to Lubetkin’s firm or the science of the earth’s crust? Is he living in a world of his own construct, happy to merely forget all references and create his own meaning for his concepts? Is this what parametricism is: his preference for the world that MUST TAKE THE WORLD OVER: that MUST BECOME UNIVERSAL! It is the answer! The desire for global dominance seems to bring to mind some self-promoted world leaders with similar aims and attitudes. Will Schumacher ever accept that parametricism might die out, disappear to become as ephemeral as the other ‘isms’ he talks about; to end up as a defunct and discredited style? The Vitra fire station lesson never seems to be learned, just ignored in favour of delight, neglecting commodity and perhaps firmness too.

While one can sympathise with Schumacher about the chaotic state of our towns, cities, and countryside today, the shambles that they are, it seems that forcing some decorative, analogical, form-making onto everyone so that everything looks the same, curvaciously interesting, and is relevant to our world today because it has all been generated on the computer, seems naive and somewhat arrogant. If we are to have a future, we need to find roots in depth that ground the inspiration is a basic, essential, shared need and ambition, as an enrichment, rather than promote some adherence to a preferred appearance that seems to attract only the indulgence of the flighty eye seeking only thrills and excitement. Little wonder that parametricism is so attractive for airports, stadiums, and promotional buildings that indulge in the amazements of the spectacle: an impressive public display, a visually striking performance, or a strange and unexpected sight that attracts a lot of attention.

Schumacher needs to understand that it is not his happiness that holds sense and meaning for the future; it has to do with individuals and community, where everyday experience is embodied and enriched rather than entertained with deliberate, extreme distractions – a constant WOW! – no matter how these are contrived. We need an architecture that can hold true meaning, inform, and accommodate quietly and gently, that does acknowledge and respect neighbours, fulfilling them rather than competing in the struggle for attention that even Schumacher is aware of as he, without apparent irony, participates with grandly grand gestures that seek to probe and prompt the extremes of perception with excitement and interest.

More and more of this same strategy might give some overall coherence, perhaps, just as a matter of firm fact of categorisation, but this is mere hollow styling. The integrity and depth needs to be understood, comprehended and sensed as being needed; the similarity of the skin only continues the scheming for entrancing the eyes. Sullivan knew this, and wrote about the vacancy of classicism used as a decorative style. It is a real shame that our world grabs pieces and parts that lead to misunderstandings, and creates clichés out of substance. Form follows function is a fact that we need to understand in its fullness and richness; even in parametricism. Form following algorithms; or form following fancy, ignores the core sensibility in a relationship that is explored by Panuk in his Musuem of Innocence – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-architecture-of-memory.html – the resonance of lived experience in context; that complexity of form and function/function and form that embodies wholeness and desire; the beauty and richness poets touch on - ‘I wandered lonely as a cloud . . .’ It is a subtlety that Schumacher also dismisses in his label, 'parametricism' that is a word that is as bespoke as his buildings which all seem to try just too hard to be parametric: Oh! How one struggles to get away from the ‘disability’ association! One could reference the ‘Hadid signature’ apartment block in New York, (yes, the actual signature was used in the sales blurb) – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/04/hadid-in-new-york.html - where one can ponder the unique effort to impose some semblance of things parametric onto a standard apartment block, where ‘interest’ is enhanced by awkwardly staggering levels and developing a series of interlocked swooshes on the fully glazed facade positioned in front of columns irrespective of the interior spaces – bathrooms, living rooms, or bedrooms - all to disable the core modernist expression?

Careful attention to the experience of place and everyday, ordinary living in it, seems to have given way to the drama of the vision that turns residents into actors on display; participants in pure theatre. Parametricism is a hollow whim, not a successor to Modernism. Schumacher needs to understand this so that his disappointment does not eventually overwhelm him. It might be an interesting diversion, and good branding, but parametricism is shaping a void managed by the clever maths of smart computing, without any feeling or awareness of the little things in life, even if parametricism is modified somehow by tectonicism or another ‘ism.’ Paremetricism needs to find its roots in a shared certainty of experience, and necessity, for it to become universal instead of being a ZHA promotional kit, but this will very likely change it into something else.

#

A simple guide to parametricism

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/06/parametricism-simple-guide/

Who gets the seat behind the swoosh?

AI Overview

Parametricism is a 21st-century architectural style and theoretical movement that uses computational algorithms to create complex, fluid, and interconnected designs. Coined in 2008 by Patrik Schumacher, it uses parameters—such as site, environmental data, or user movement—to drive design, moving away from rigid, rectilinear, and traditional architectural forms. 

Key Aspects of Parametricism:

• Computational Foundation: It relies on advanced digital design tools (e.g., Grasshopper, Dynamo) where modifying one parameter automatically reshapes the entire design.

• Aesthetics: Characterized by "continuous variation," "dynamic curvilinearity," and "soft, organic, sweeping geometries".

• Integration: It moves beyond disjointed, modular design to create "elastic, integrated wholes" where all elements are interlinked, similar to natural systems.

• Originator/Proponent: Primarily developed and championed by Patrik Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects, who proposed it as the successor to Modernism.

• Key Examples: Phaeno Science Center, MAXXI Museum, and Heydar Aliyev Center. 

Core Principles & Goals:

• Responsiveness: Buildings are designed to adapt to environmental context and social demands.

• Avoids Repetition: It rejects the repetitive grids and flat planes of modernism.

• Continuous Differentiation: Components in a parametric design vary and adapt, creating a smooth, non-uniform aesthetic.

• Functional Complexity: Aims to handle the complex, diverse needs of modern society through computational efficiency. 

While closely linked with the work of Zaha Hadid Architects, parametricism represents a broader movement seeking to define a new, digitally driven architectural era. 

*

The Tecton Group was a radical architectural group co-founded by Berthold Lebutkin, Francis Skinner, Denys Lasdun, Michael Dugdale, Anthony Chitty, Val Harding, Godfrey Samuel, and Lindsay Drake in 1932 and disbanded in 1939. The group was one of the leaders in bringing continental modernism to Britain.

or

AI Overview

Tectonics is the scientific study of the processes that deform Earth's crust, resulting in its structural evolution, mountain building, and the movement of rigid lithospheric plates. As the "building" mechanism of the planet, this field explains earthquakes, volcanoes, and the movement of continental plates. 

+

https://patrikschumacher.com/for-a-market-led-revolution-in-urban-housing/

##

It is interesting to note how the television programme of this title, Grand Designs, hosted by Kevin McCloud, has stimulated a new interest in architecture. It is a show that chooses quirky projects and follows them through with all of their disasters and dramas, only to end up as, well, a grand design. There is no surprise that young architects might like the hyped, bespoke exaggerations of parametricism. The same degree of excited interest is generated in young students of architecture when a new design programme becomes available. It seems that fanciful projects and whizz-bang computer programmes are like lollies for children – sugar hits: WOW!

^^

Frei Otto’s work can also be referenced here, but his tensile structures have a certain necessity about them, unlike Schumacher’s parametric forms: the forces are the form, as in Gaudi’s work. In parametricism, the form forces everything else, as the hyperbolic shape does too, to functions.

P.S.

After the text had been completed, this critique of parametricism was discovered: https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/11/douglas-spencer-parametricism-opinion/.

. . . and a few days later:

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/13/melike-altinisik-parametricism-interview/

++

"...Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law." 
Louis Sullivan

Sullivan anchors his vision in the real world, touching on that wonder which can be experienced everyday by everyman.

Might Schumacher add: “and the law is the algorithm” – the mathematics of nature: growth and form (c.f. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s book On Growth and Form first published 1917)? It is an interesting observation, but it seems that there is nothing more to parametricism than the algorithm and its functioning; it points to nothing. Here one might introduce the subject of symbolism, and think about the Zen Buddhist story of the finger pointing to the moon:
AI Overview

The "finger pointing to the moon" is a classic metaphor originating from Zen Buddhism—specifically the Shurangama Sutra. It illustrates that teachings, words, and concepts (the finger) are merely tools used to guide us toward ultimate truth and enlightenment (the moon).

With parametricism, it seems that the algorithm and its operation becomes the core centre of attention - the finger - with the moon being ignored, playing no role in the relationships being explored.

The Sullivan reference is not some quaint, nostalgic romanticism, pining for past glories. The experience Sullivan is referencing touches filaments of feeling that extend into many other fields, establishing roots that can branch off into a variety of aspects of learning and understanding that can inform and add depth.

The architect who combines in his being the powers of vision, of imagination, of intellect, of sympathy with human need and the power to interpret them in a language vernacular and time--- is he who shall create poems in stone.

Louis Sullivan

Poems are never forced, not even by the power or panache of parametricism; they wait for the muse - see: HOW POETRY COMES TO ME in the sidebar:

HOW POETRY COMES TO ME

It comes blundering over the

Boulders at night, it stays

Frightened outside the

Range of my campfire

I go to meet it at the

Edge of the light

Gary Snyder

www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/s_z/snyder/onlinepoems.htm

THE ARTICLE

"I'm not happy" with how fast parametricism is being adopted says Patrik Schumacher

Tom Ravenscroft

Despite it being adopted more slowly than he anticipated, Patrik Schumacher believes parametricism will still become a universal architectural style, he tells Dezeen in this interview.

Almost two decades have passed since Zaha Hadid Architects principal Schumacher coined parametricism as a term at the 2008 Venice Architecture Biennale.

At the time, he declared parametricism "the great new style after modernism", prophesying that it would become the universal architecture style of the 21st century. He still believes that it will become the style that defines our era.

"Yes – it is still going to be true and it is already partly true when you look at major projects," Schumacher told Dezeen.

"It's not universal, but it's sufficiently entrenched," he continued. "It's been long-lasting, people still go for it, you still win major competitions and so it is definitely longer lasting than [for example] deconstructivism, which had a run of 10 years and then fully disappeared, or postmodernism, which also disappeared."

Global economic crisis "a watershed moment"

However, Schumacher acknowledges that – to his own disappointment – parametricism has not yet been widely adopted by the industry, and at the moment is far from a universal style.

"No, I'm not happy," he said. "I was very happy with it [the rate of adoption] until 2008 actually."

"I mean, it's strange that when I launched the phrase it was still moving and was confident. It took me a while to realise that the 2008 crisis was in retrospect a kind of watershed moment," he continued.

"We were all going for a number of years still, but it actually, if you look back, it's when it started to slow."

Zaha Hadid Architects' Heydar Aliyev Centre in Baku is one of the most recognisable parametric buildings.

Schumacher believes that the global economic recession, combined with leading architecture schools moving their focus away from digital design, led to a slowdown in the adoption of parametricism.

"By 2015, 16, 17 it had kind of shifted," he said. "There was a lot of retrogression, to some extent less interest in design. There was less opportunity in Europe, Dubai was dead. China kept going. But, overall, it was frustrating."

"By like 2012-13 it was still good, but I saw it kind of fading off, particularly at leading universities," he continued.

"They withdrew and went into this woke kind of territory – anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star architecture."

"I only see modernism and then parametricism"

Schumacher places parametricism alongside modernism as an "epochal style" – meaning that it is era-defining.

Within his definitions, he sees high-tech and brutalism as sub-styles within modernism, while he describes postmodernism and deconstructivism as transition styles that bridged the gap between modernism and parametricism.

"I only see modernism and then parametricism; these are the opposable styles of the 20th century and 21st century," he explained.

"The transitional styles are postmodernism and deconstructivism, then you have apparitions like neo-classicism – what Leon Krier was doing."

"Today's minimalism, for me, is a kind of retro-modernism, a reaction to deconstructivism, [while] high tech is a form of modernism, still in the full-on tradition."

"The right answer to the era of post-Fordism"

Schumacher's confidence that parametricism will eventually become widely adopted stems from his view that the style aligns with the needs of people in the 21st century.

He believes that while modernist architecture was fitting for an era of mass production, the flexibility within parametric design makes it ideologically aligned with our computer-dominated current age.

"These epochal styles are not whimsical or highly subjective, just to be explained out of influences," he said.

"What really drives the proliferation is a good fit with the sociology, economic, technology and dynamics of an era," he continued.

"Modernism was a good fit for that era of category production, and parametricism is the right answer to the era of post-Fordism, computational, telecommunication, et cetera."

As a result, Schumacher considers parametricism's eventual domination of architecture inevitable. The only way he foresees this not coming to fruition is if there is a major shift in how the global population operates.

"I don't expect any other style, unless there's another civilisational transformation," he explained. "There's nothing new, so we should not expect anything else."

"It's still a drop in the ocean"

Although parametricism is not being adopted at the rate that Schumacher hoped and expected, he argues that for some typologies it has become the dominant style, including airports.

"It's still a drop in the ocean, for some reason," he said.

"But I'm looking around the world, and you know, there are a lot of airports, nearly all airports, are parametricism."

For Schumacher, it's logical that the widespread adoption of parametricism will start with the largest, most complex buildings.

Schumacher believes that the majority of new airports, including Beijing Daxing International Airport, are parametric.

He believes that large-scale buildings – such as airports and stadiums, along with entire new neighbourhoods – are where parametricism has the greatest benefits for architects.

"The advantages of parametricism come out the strongest, the larger the project," he said. "Particularly in large mixed-use complexes, or if you're doing city expansions, extensions, knowledge economy clusters, incubator clusters, like our Unicorn Island project in Chengdu."

Schumacher claims that parametricism has evolved significantly since he coined the term, with parametric buildings becoming more complex and refined.

He acknowledged that early buildings in the style had to use lots of material and complex engineering to achieve a desired look.

"The first wave of parametricism was just form. On the inside you had hatched jobs of steel frames with cladding on the outside, and between was a huge kind of unaccounted-for pochette [pocket] – it was just surfaces," he said.

He cites Unicorn Island as a large project where the advantages of parametricism can be seen.

Now, however, he points to what he sees as an evolution of the style that he terms "tectonism" – which aims to directly link digital form-finding with physical fabrication and structural engineering.

Schumacher believes that tectonism makes more structural sense than earlier works and is therefore less of an easy target for criticism.

"Tectonism has more substance and credibility – it is not so easily dismissed as the earlier parametric buildings, which were partly illogical, partly over-expensive, let's say compositionally, artistic and willful," he said.

"They were popular, but in the profession, not respected. I think some of the things that we're doing with tectonism have more credibility, they have more rationality, also, it's good on the sustainability front – how much material you can save," he continued.

"They can be relatively smaller projects, which build up the credibility, and they have a beauty and organic sophistication and clarity and conscious conscientiousness [that means] they're not so vulnerable to critique."

"Young architects would love to design parametricism"

Despite the setbacks that parametricism has faced, Schumacher remains confident that the style, and in particular the sub-style of tectonism, will become widespread.

"[Even] with all the kind of discouragement from the schools of architecture that just want to talk about sustainability and social justice, all the students and young architects, what they would love to design and build is parametricism," he said.

"That's what I take a lot of encouragement from, along with the advent of AI, all these tools, Midjourney and so on. I think this is, for me, is very encouraging."

In fact, he not only believes that it will still become a universal style, but that all architects and educators should be working towards making this happen.

"I'm not only predicting that we will perceive parametricism as a uniform style, I'm saying we should wish for that and we should converge towards this," he said.

"And there are two reasons why. One is because it is the most sophisticated style in the sense of absorbing all the engineering optimisation intelligence," he continued.

"But also, it is good to be on the same paradigm if you want to build a city together, which functions together, something where there's a coherence with an identity and beauty," he said.

"It's not good that the different approaches fight each other, because then you don't generate something larger. All you get is the garbage spill, where everything is trying to be prominent and in the end, nothing is prominent –  there's no hierarchy, no legibility and no logic."

NOTE

23 MAY 26

More articles on parametricism:

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/21/parametricism-architecture-feature/

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/15/dezeen-weekly-parametricism/

MAX DUPAIN – AN EMOTIONAL LIFE

 

Realism alone, he argued, was never enough. He applauded those photographer's 'deep emotional involvement' with their subject, regardless of what it was.  (p.425)

Max Dupain.

The name, Max Dupain, brings to mind images that have been published over the years with this reference as the attribution. In architecture, these are memorable photographs of projects that hold a strength and identity beyond the guile of the image that only further enriches the presence of the work by presenting it in a certain manner as a particular photographic expression. Max Dupain was Harry Seidler's photographer of choice, and specialised in architectural work for the latter part of his career that included commercial and art, or 'exhibition' photography.

His black and white images linger as visions of a stark, somewhat haunting clarity, with a monumental identity shaped by mysterious, rich, dark blacks with elegant, softly graded greys, and firm, luminous, glowing whites that define space and form. Alas, the Ennis book has published only four architectural images. The skill of the photographer becomes clear when one sees a set of more than ordinary snapshots that capture just what is there in the hectic shambles of the everyday appearance. Street View is the most accessible reference here to highlight the difference between the nonchalant snapshot, the world as seen by the passersby, and the considered, selected photographic image.

Street View.*

The great photographer . . . must be able to see 'in a very special way in accord with your whole self, your birthright, your education, your nervous system, your physical being, your reflexes and all that go to make up the intensity of a man or a woman.' (p.418)

The words come up repeatedly in architectural talks where the presenter showing images of projects, photographs that have been taken by the office, notes without irony that "the project has not been photographed yet." What is being said is that the artistry of the professional photographer has not yet transformed the everyday into deliberately orchestrated compositions that delight the eye and brighten the spirit with an enlightened identity. Max Dupain was a master at this. He would plan his shoots after walking around the project, feeling it, sensing the potential qualities he might chose to reveal in his photographs, while figuring out how best to capture his envisaged spirit/essence.#

. . .

great photographs . . . must not be 'mere illustrations of the world scene, but distillations of observations of unique subjects and their impact on . . . [a photographer's] inner-most feelings . . . the interpretation of these elements in his own terms of heart and mind . .   Just that.'  (p.418)

Ennis's biographical portrait elaborates on the artistry that Dupain brought to all of his work, highlighting his commitment to his profession that has made him an Aussie icon. The book, called simply Max Dupain: A Portrait (Fourth Estate, Harper Collins, Australia, 2024), is as clear and certain, and as beguiling as a constructed Dupain image, with its highlights, careful research, and deep emotional 'darks' that define Dupain as a 'complex man.' He said that he kept the three aspects of his life separate: his domestic life; his work; and the world of his own creation - 'his thoughts, his philosophy, and his abstract self.'

Meaning comes from feeling and must not be side-tracked by the intellect. (p.426)

The book is an easy, informative, and interesting read, well written and thoroughly researched. It nearly adopts the structured pattern of Hugh Brody's Maps and Dreams, (Faber, London, 2005), where factual chapters presenting a narrated story of a journey are intertwined with pieces on the mystery of dreaming: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/08/design-as-dreaming-hunt-not-hunting.html. Ennis punctuates some of the chapters/sections with short texts talking about a particular image that is presented as a full page print. It is a shame that this rigour was not maintained throughout the book to include more detail descriptions of and discussions on some of the images spoken about. Perhaps the book could have illustrated some of Dupain's sources, his inspirations, in these in-between slots. The book is full of Dupain images, yet sometimes one goes looking for photographs that have been spoken of or described in the text as being critical to the story, sometimes referring to work not by Dupain, but they are not there. Alas, one supposes that not everything can be achieved in a book covering the breadth of such an intense emotional life.

The published images do give an indication of the general discussion points being made, but digitisation and printing on a soft, textured paper seems to have fuzzed the significant details that the text might be referring to, like freckles, focus, and features. One can see the difference in the images when looked up online, and can only imagine the crisp detail in the original Dupain print. We are told that Dupain was fastidious with his prints. One supposes he might have been somewhat disappointed with the book, but possibly only in regards to the quality of the images.

His (Dupain's) approach was not theoretical or studied, but attitudinal and visual. (p.119)

The book is a delightfully informative read without the laboured stringency of an academic structure/stricture. Remarkably one did not come across any errors - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2024/05/john-dalton-shades-of-style.html and  https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/02/robin-gibson-postscript.html. It is a portrait of a man who disliked academia. The publication elaborates on the complexities and enigmas in Dupain's life and his inspirations and aspirations, leaping about with issues being raised where they need to be rather than being defined precisely by any particular time scale or preconceived sequence. One can sense the dismissive 'Dupain' care, rigour, and clarity in the expressive writing.

The disappointment is that, when architectural photography has taken so much of his professional life, it has been given very little detailed attention in this publication, being treated more as an arty aside while his real 'arty' or ‘exhibition’ work has become the centrepiece of the text. Is it because the general subject matter - beach scenes, bathers, landscapes, flowers, and portraits - could appeal more to the masses who might not be interested in the pictorial exhibits of elitist, stylish architecture? Perhaps this architectural work is another book: Dupain And The Architects? One was written on painter Lloyd Rees: see https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/12/lloyd-rees-and-architects.html. Such a publication would be an intriguing read.

Helen Ennis finishes her 'portrait' with the words:  'No amount of photography on his part, or affirmation of its worth on ours, could ease his restlessness and assuage his self-doubt.' I am a little uneasy with this conclusion. I am only going on what Ennis has written, and never met Dupain, (although on many occasions I had wished he had been able to photograph my work), but these concluding words seem to reveal Dupain as a damaged, struggling, disturbed, somewhat flawed individual: aren't we all? Yet one senses that he was very much in control of things, and as complete and competent as anyone; maybe more rigorous and committed than most.

. . . someone who makes pictures 'for himself, not for an admiring group of acolytes. He makes them, in simple terms, because he has to.' (p.357)

Perhaps his doubting is not about himself, but represents that constant struggle with wonder, respecting it, not wishing to handle it with the arrogance or brash, blind certainty that we see in the egocentric approach by others today, boldly described as bespoke self-expression: MY work. Rather, is this questioning effort a matter of humility, of knowing how fragile meaning is, how easily it is trampled by those who know nothing of it and care only for their own glory and promoted identity?

Ennis has noted that others give meaning; perhaps she meant that others attribute a variety of associations to a work, in the same way that nicknames are given to people, places, and perceptions, saying more about the individual or society than any inherent quality of the subject. Can one suggest that Dupain managed meaning with such care that he never assumed that he had got close to it, let alone captured it, for fear of any unnecessary disturbance and destruction of its elusive, sensitive qualities? It seems that he was not boastful enough to claim supremacy, remaining hesitant; uncertain; with a gently probing search, the quest that tradition identifies as a continuing hunt into nothingness: If you find the Buddha on the way, kill him. Cavafy seems to have summed the situation up in Ithaka:

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.

Without her you wouldn't have set out.

She has nothing left to give you now.

'Nothing' is a word enigmatically used by Dupain.

Dupain's doubt seemed to be such that, even when the Sunbaker obtained its iconic position, (our affirmation of its worth), he never accepted this as being anything more than populism rather than a recognition of true meaning and embodied power. It appears as though he saw the acceptance of this image simply as its being seen as an interestingly different, decorative thing grabbed and used by the masses for their own individual, selfish purposes, as a convenient, celebratory, perhaps decorative distraction with numerous associations, without ever knowing about or caring for any integral beauty, that wonder embodied in Beethoven's et.al. works that were quietly loved by Dupain. Did he see this approach as something like using Beethoven for Muzac or elevator music? Which true artist has no self-doubt other than the self-promoted charlaton who, like a politician, knows no shame? Dupain, it seems, held a searching and questioning coherence/integrity that always respected the mystery of meaning, never assuming he had mastered it, or had come close to touching this amorphous, ethereal 'inner' quality. Was his art not about self-expression, but rather a searching for a revelation, wanting to grasp meaning in much the same manner as the traditional artist, hoping to reveal, at best and at least, just one minute aspect of 'holiness' - of wonder?

. . . as soon as they are made, they are potentially free of their autobiographical, social, cultural and historic moorings, and subject to all manner of uses and interpretations. This again is where complicity is relevant because 'we'  - the photograph's audiences - make the meaning and establish the significance. In the case of Sunbaker, Dupain was only one agent among many involved in its circulation and interpretation. (p.379-380)

Could one understand that he was not restless or self-doubting personally, but was always aware of the full glory and beauty of the unknown, its wholesome wholeness that is so easily destroyed, defaced, when touched? Was this his precious third world? Who wouldn't be restless with self-doubt in this condition of humble respect and knowing care? Who wouldn't despise the masses who treat meaning as bespoke entertainment - as 'interesting' fun and games? Dupain's (Lindsay's) vision of the artist as 'a special type of human being' seems to refer to those who sense something of this mystery and have respect for it, (c f. Dupain discovering the pilot listening to music), rather than to any smug, superior satisfaction in self and self-expression, where the artist is seen as an exceptional being: a bespoke, genius, superman. Dupain seems to have lived and loved for the meaning he could feel, finally acknowledging that there is nothing - nothing that can really embalm it or get close to this mystery without destroying it: killing the thing loved; the found Buddha; leaving one only with the journey. Is this the context of his repeated reference to 'nothing'?

His (Dupain's) approach was not theoretical or studied, but attitudinal and visual. (p.119)

Ennis's analysis of the photograph of the orchid attributes much to one of his last flower images that she interprets, almost nostalgically, as being intimately meaningful to Dupain. Is this pure speculation; making a pattern fit a story, or is it vice versa? One struggles to see the point that might only have been the result of a cunning printing technique or a simple matter of focus - perhaps both - or does the actual print reveal much more that this hazy digital reproduction that presents a fuzz of petals? Dupain was always wary of the intellect.

Dupain was always at pains to make sure his prints were printed correctly, with sensitivity. It was never a matter of a mere mechanical process, a recipe, a formula to follow. Is this why he left the majority of his 'exhibition' negatives to his assistant, someone who might be aware of his intentions? His photography rejected the scientific approach and was rooted in emotions and feelings. Perhaps this is the source of his 'doubting restlessness' - the uncertainty of subtle emotions being appropriately managed; the wariness of abusing/misusing/misrepresenting this integrity; always hesitantly avoiding the arrogance of believing one had captured it.

Dupain might appear arrogant, aloof, with his loner's dismissive 'watching' approach to society, but did this stance arise from his commitment to his vision? Frank Lloyd Wright named this 'honest arrogance' that outshone a 'dishonest humility'; a knowing that brings with it a serious responsibility that demands caution and respect - a constant, agitated questioning, lest meaning is trampled upon by the demanding quest of the self.

Willian Yang.

#

THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LIFE

I am critical of this artistry that becomes the public face of a work, defining for the viewer how the building is to be perceived/experienced, while encouraging others to try to reproduce this photographed visual wonder as something special and brilliant as a built work with a bespoke expression shaping the thing itself, defining it, ready to be further transformed by the photographer into more extreme, exotic images.

The relationship between photography and architecture needs clarification and caution, with an acknowledgement of the sophisticated limitations of this special way of seeing 'an instant' that holds its own substance in its essence rather than being a part of the thing itself. There is a significant difference here: that between the sensing, feeling body experiencing space and place, and the eye of the photographer capturing an interpretation, a manipulated visual image using the thing as its subject matter. One can say that these images are photographs of the architecture, the building, and they are; but they are interpretations of it rather than representing the thing itself that stands in the everyday, stitched into place within a complex context; with particular functions as its purpose. To try to extrapolate the essence of the image as being something to do with the vital quality of the building, is a fantasy that stretches hope just too far.

Yet we do this and come to know nearly everything today through its image as presented to us by the artifice of the photographer who has manipulated identity with tools and techniques that have their own ambitions, whims, styles, and intents - intensities that we hopefully adopt as the stark reality of wonder embodied integrally in the architecture, when it is otherwise, a difference revealed by Street View. So it is that architects say that the project has not yet been photographed - that it has not yet been subjected to the spin of the photographer that is much the same as political spin, and the spin of the advertisement and promotional material, e.g. that of tourism that encourages the everyday to be dismissed and replaced by the balmy glories and expectations stimulated by the photographer's ruse. The photograph is a representation of the building as interpreted by the photographer; it is not the building itself that involves a rich and different set of circumstances held in a living immediacy, not a vision that has been extrapolated and isolated to be held in time by the skill of the photographer to create something that has never be seen before.

Are we living 'the photographed life' where all visions hopes and ambitions are driven by photographs with everyone striving to live this vision? Do architects do likewise: try to create the mystery of the photographed vision in the thing itself, in order to accommodate the photographed presentation of a lifestyle? Influencers use photography to impress: lives seek out the visions presented by them by photographs and videos, and in movies too - things, life situations, experiences, etc., ‘the full catastrophe’ as Zorba said (in the film Zorba the Greek: irony intended).

T.S Eliot: the shadow . . . always falls between the idea and the reality. (p.335)

We are left with the question: how do we re-establish any understanding of meaning and its meaning? How can we know meaning in a ‘Street View’ world?

Meaning comes from feeling and must not be side-tracked by the intellect. (p.426)

POSTSCRIPT

Man Ray.

Man Ray urged his readers to recognise the limits of their own timidity and push past them, disregarding the inhibiting factors 'of shame or of propriety.'  (p.116)

Dupain.

A publication picked up by pure chance in Toowoomba after just finishing the Ennis book: Annie Baldassari, Picasso - Love and War 1935 - 1945 Life with Dora Maar, Flammarion, Paris, 2006 - reproduces some Man Ray images. Here we see portraits with the arm raised as an arc over the head in the same way as we see it repeated in the Dupain studies. There is also the portrait of Picasso with his hand to his face, bringing to mind some Dupain images where hands play an important role. It would have been good to have seen this parallel in the book. What else might one discover?

Picasso (Man Ray).

Norman Lindsay (Max Dupain).

The same book has published dozens of photos by Dora Maar who gets mentioned once in the Ennis book - (p.131); one can see the similarities here too. There are also photographic portraits taken by Pablo Picasso that remind one of a few of Dupain's whimsical images. Perhaps these associations are for yet another book? Interestingly, plates 143 and 145 are line drawings by Picasso that reveal some of the qualities captured in Dupain's work.

A collection of Dora Maar and Man Ray images using cast shadow pattern overlays on their subjects is a technique seen in Dupain's work too. The more one looks, the more one discovers the inspirations. Dare one suggest that Dupain's questioning, his restless struggling, involved the great Australian cringe? Was Picasso's painting of Dora Maar on the beach, Plate 101, the inspiration for the Sunbather?

"Australian art is every bit as good as what happens overseas," Harding says. [Pictured: Birth of Venus (1939) by Max Dupain] (Supplied: National Gallery of Australia)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-23/man-ray-max-dupain-photography-exhibition-heide-melbourne/105790024

Why does this have to be said?

Although Dora Maar is only mentioned once by Ennis, her influence seems much greater than is suggested by this aside, perhaps being on par with that of Man Ray? Given Dupain's apparent problem with women in his profession, (one thinks of Olive Cotton here), might Dupain have had an issue with Maar's work being such an inspirational guide? She was close to Picasso and was involved with Man Ray. Dupain must have been aware of this work and the exciting experimental photographic approach taken by those at the heart of Modernism. Some of Dupain's experimental abstract works look remarkably similar to Maar's work.^

Dupain.

The cover photograph on the Picasso book is a print of a negative taken by Maar. It is starkly impressive. Did Dupain ever experiment with the negative print in this way?

*

NOTE

The Edmund Barton Building in Canberra, Australia was photographed by Max Dupain for Harry Seidler, and can be seen in its context on Google Earth.

Edmund Barton Building, Canberra, Australia.

^

A FEW DORA MAAR PHOTOGRAPHS