Architectural photography is supposed to be different from the airbrushed images of nude women that are about to disappear from the centerfold of Playboy magazine. But what if an edited photograph of a building doesn't just crop out visual clutter like street lights but alters the contours of the building itself? What should we think about an architectural award that was bestowed on the basis of such a doctored image? — Blair Kamin | Chicago Tribune
In his column, Kamin scrutinizes the recent awarding of an honor award to El Centro, a building designed by Juan Moreno, by the Chicago branch of the AIA. Apparently, the architects provided the jurors with a photoshopped image of the building, notably erasing the clunky air circulation machines that crowd its roof and disturb its silhouette. With its regional awards, the AIA, unlike the Pritzker and other awards, does not mandate in situ inspection by jurors – or at least, up to now.
39 Comments
Doctors can bury their mistakes - FLW said he can only advise clients to plant vines - not anymore - welcome to the age of post building construction design modification - airbrushed like a playboy model - fake as fuck.
I suppose that in this case it depends on what criteria the competition was using to evaluate entries. But photos are always altered and composed to "sell" a project. Even architecture itself is a device that frames and distorts reality. And the public never judges the building alone. They're always seeing it through some lens.
Hey, Nicholas - You made architects possessive instead of plural, Eeks.
Davvid - I didn't get to read the article because it was behind a pay wall, but are you really going to defend doctoring images of build projects to win awards?
Are you saying that it's o.k. to lie to people because they have experiences and opinions?
And, to say that "architecture itself is a device that frames and distorts reality" is meaningless.
Sorry to be harsh, but your comment was super stupid.
anonitect,
I said that its up to the competition to sort it out for themselves. And its up to each of us individually to decide how to interpret representations of reality. You're being naive, not harsh. Architecture cultivates the physical world. Photography, writing, graphic design, web design, lectures, etc etc cultivates architecture even further. Every photo on Dezeen or Designboom has been altered before being served up to us for consumption. Consider the many buildings that no longer exist, or never existed, but continue to influence architects today.
What are you talking about?
1. you didn't say that.
2. "Architecture cultivates, Photography,etc cultivates - what do you even mean?
3. Consider the many buildings... Why? What relevance do they have to an architecture firm doctoring a competition entry?
@anonitect – Eeks, indeed! Thanks for the catch. Typo, not mispelling, I swear!
Anonitect,
Wow.
1. Yes I did. "in this case it depends on what criteria the competition was using to evaluate entries." Every competition establishes rules and criteria for itself.
2. "Cultivate" as in "refine" or "develop" ... I don't understand how that was confusing for you.
3. Its relevant because Architecture has a long history of embracing falsehoods, fantasies and misleading imagery.
Davvid,
With all respect, how does one make an informed decision with inaccurate information?
Nothing new here except the ease with which photomontage can be done, and that's not exactly new either. Before computers there was the airbrush. Before that there was hand painting.
Davvid.
Your initial statement I suppose that in this case it depends on what criteria the competition was using to evaluate entries, appeared to be an answer to an implied question: was the doctoring of images acceptable behavior? That you would even consider the firm's behavior potentially legitimate is problematic.
Point 2 confused me because to say that architecture refines or develops the physical world doesn't really mean anything. Nor does it mean much to say that the other stuff cultivates architecture. Its just jargony babble, and certainly not relevant to the post.
3. It is not relevant because we're talking about a specific act which is obviously deceptive. How does a long history of "embracing falsehoods" excuse the actions of a firm creating a falsehood in order to improve a competition entry?
The article explains that when the air handlers showed up the architect wasn't able to come up with an affordable solution to screen them. So IMO that's a failure of design, and in this case a pretty significant one. I have certainly fussed with photos to avoid or remove things like light poles, but deliberately erasing part of the built structure that you're responsible for designing gets very grey. Also, the view from the freeway seems to be a critical view here.
Also frustrated by this: a commenter on the Kamin article, who is likely NOT an AIA member, first excoriated the AIA for not doing enough for the profession, then demanded that they need to budget for a juror to visit every single building that's a finalist. Which would, no doubt, lead to him excoriating the AIA for spending money on frivolous things like airfare when the membership dues are so damn high already. <sigh>
The fact that the AIA, and most if not all arch publications give awards based on pictures is insane. the quid pro quo dealings behind the scenes would amaze you... Firms hiring "editors" to write articles for them, the same that give awards. Kamin is smartly using this example it to throw shade on the process. Though even a day visit is a bit lacking. The question is, what awards do require site visits? Are there even any?
Even so, most of the judges have an agenda that is different from any community use or need.
z1111, Good question. Competition jurors probably should have visited the buildings.
When the Guangzhou Opera House by Zaha Hadid was completed there were plenty of images being circulated on the web of the awful construction quality. Those photos contrasted with amazing press images and glowing reviews. But at least some of those glowing reviews were written by people who visited the building.
Thou shall not give architecture awards unless thou has visited the building
deliberately erasing part of the built structure that you're responsible for designing gets very grey
Competition jurors probably should have visited the buildings
"Gets very gray" is a little too equivocal for this situation, I think, as is saying that the jurors should have caught the deception. There's got to be a point at which architects get held accountable for deceptive behavior.
Making renderings which show sunlight coming in from an impossible direction to sell a project is sneaky, unprofessional trickery as well, in my opinion.
""3. It is not relevant because we're talking about a specific act which is obviously deceptive. How does a long history of "embracing falsehoods" excuse the actions of a firm creating a falsehood in order to improve a competition entry?"
I can't say if the history of architectural fudging excuses this particular act of fudging. But it does put this action in context.
quondam,
What percentage of the architectural photography on design blogs, on architecture firm websites, in travel magazines, in real estate advertisements do you suppose is doctored?
the greeks used to paint over marble
What kind of architect doesn't anticipate that buildings need air handlers?
I think Donna is right on. Photoshopping out something surrounding the building, like street signs, power lines, parked cars, dead trees, etc. is usually acceptable. But we should draw the line at using digital retouching to alter the image of the building itself, i.e. Adding or deleting features.
At least one juror was quoted as saying they would not have voted for the building had they seen an u unretouched photo.
What about deleting smoke detectors or exist signs?
Why the outrage? Do you really believe any of the pictures you see?
The entire world is built on this - from film to advertising - and you're all worried about some silly AIA award? Everything from burgers and fries to Christie Brinkley's thighs have been tweaked. Architects routinely use photoshop and other digital tools to create simulated realities. There are even awards (and let's not forget commissions!) for buildings that only exist in extreme fantasy.
Photojournalists - paid by the published shot - routinely stage 'events'. One of the most well known is the bandana-wearing teenage Palestine throwing a rock from in front of a flaming barricade. The barricade was built by photojournalists, who staged the whole setup. The Israelis were two miles down the road, out of sight, yet the image made the front page of the NYT.
There is no reality, it's all made up, at least as long as you can pass it off. And if you can't there is a sudden and very brief moment of clarity before the fog envelopes everything again.
Why the outrage? Because to say "ho-hum, that's just the way things are" allows the bar to get reset lower and lower.
And representations do effect people in real life. Just think of all of the girls who develop eating disorders because of the photoshopped models they see in magazines.
What Moreno did, or had his photographer do, was sleazy. He should be called out on it.
Nobody is developing an eating disorder because of some crappy award for a photoshopped building.
Man, you're obtuse when you want to be, Miles.
Architectural dysmorphia?
I'm with Miles on this one.
Huh.
I was looking for an easy example of how distorted representations have actual effects, and Miles' example of Christie Brinkley seemed like a softball compared to doctored images of a Palestinian demonstrator.
My point stands: just because people attempt to deceive us all of the time does not mean that we shouldn't call people out on their bullshit, because their lies have real consequences. Do we really want architectural representations to devolve further into fantasy?
.
anonitect, I've spent a fair amount of time calling out bullshit. At this point in my life a retreat into fantasy sounds quite appealing.
My question is, with today's avalanche of false digital images, photoshop, and flattening of imagery via Instagram into a kind of 2D computer screen background, why would any sane judge or organization (ethically) take any images seriously? Yeah, I get that photography has always been prone to tweaks, but that's not the same as what's happening here--actually changing content. Which is why, once again, the article is actually about how judges need to VISIT THE BUILDING.
Also, I wonder if it's a coincidence that the photoshopped images above in Davids thing are mostly awful, awful as serious architecture.
quondam, I agree with you that the difference seems to be in the intentions of the photoshop artist. But since nearly every architectural press photo passes through Photoshop, I think that its naive to expect a building to exist in reality as it is represented in press photos. The Julius Schulman image I posted (the sixth image from the top) is a highly staged and filtered image of a real building (although Ive never been there, so I'm only assuming).
Here is a press photo of a new Acne Studios store in New York designed by Sophie Hicks:
and here is an instagram photo taken by the photographer during the shoot showing deleted smoke detectors:
an award competition that awards realities; the award is not for false depictions of a reality nor for any virtual realities.
i would question this notion. i don't know that much about the competition involved, but if the jurors are judging based on the material presented to them, it should be obvious to everyone entering the competition that it isn't the building they're reviewing, but rather the presentation material they are being presented.
it's the idea of what the building could be that won the competition rather than the building itself. for a profession so full of mental masturbation, it seems this is far more honest to what we want the profession to be, rather than the alternative of going to the building, walking around, and judging by the actual use of the building.
^really good point.
+++ curt
To me mostly it just comes down to being totally uncool that these architects couldn't pull off a building that they could be proud of without some massive photoshopping and then to make it all the more egregious sought awards for the building with the parts they are ashamed of erased.
It is interesting to me that the Tribune critic didn't even notice the roof equipment at first. It had to be brought to his attention by other people telling him about it, and probably sending him tightly cropped photos of it. Its quite possible that the equipment is actually more apparent in photography than in real life. We often ignore and accept all sorts of visual noise and clutter in real life.
Is curt arguing that we should judge from the "idea" rather than use? Not sure. But that's not how the awards are presented... It's a building award, not a building idea award.... If it's an award for ideas, then every crazy Photoshop is on the table, which is a slide down the rabbit hole into wonderland.
Either way +Kamin for finding this.
I agree with Miles, the outrage is a bit odd, I've seen Wright buildings in photographs, and in person, and the two never agree.
I've been on architectural photo shoots, helped with the shoot, and have mundane spaces go to remarkable photographs, where the photo clearly didn't reflect my experience.
All photography is suspect.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.