This talk was the one I found to be most valuable and most in tune with where I’m going. His discussion around the utopian ideals of architectural photography are exactly what I’ve been grappling with for my end of year project (and from the looks of things probably longer).
Most of his talk revolved around Hisao Suzuki, the photographer for the Spanish El Croquis journal. But his background research is in architectural utopias.
Photography is the primary means of discourse in architecture. The text is secondary or in some publications banished entirely.
Photography specifies the use of architectural artifacts.
Photography was used as a modernist propoganda
Utopias are useful only as textural enquireis not as a basis for social change.
Architectural photography is the literal translation of utopia - “no place”
How do we distinguish between those who repeat the canonical formula from those who are mindful fo the genre, its limitations and its critics.
Moores Utopia - has disjuntions; breaks in its logic. Moore seemed to self aware of the impossibility of utopias and has put in these litterary disjunctions purposefully.
Suzuki puts himself, the almost constant companion figure of his editor and where possible the architects in the frame. The authors of the final image often appear as anonymous loiterers. This is reflective of the nature of multiple authorship in the final image. His work starts to take on aspects of environmental portraiture. (though my point was that there is little personality in many of his images… unless this is deliberate again)
Suzuki seems to highlight some aspects of the discourse but also his work strengthens the canon. The portraits hint at a self awareness but the images are still the typical eye candy.
Photography could and should be used to highlight the blindspots in architecture, not cover up for them.
