Is photographing architecture art?

>>2901019

there is good and bad art. this is bad art.

OP here again. I forgot to mention that my friend says you can be sued for publishing a photo of recognizable architecture. Also you can be sued for publishing photos of someone elses' graffiti (The city of montreal is currently suing shuttershock for exactly this)

File: falling-water-fall-house-L.jpg (4MB, 3578x2800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3578x2800px

>>2901019

I'm not gonna comment on the whole "is this art?" thing for obvious reasons, but I'll tell you that if architects did not have photography to showcase their work they wouldn't have any work. Also, photographs taken of architecture often exaggerate or accentuate features in favor of the architect's work, which is why architects rely on photography to show it.

Personally i don't think someone taking photos of architecture should be necessarily proud of their "work", but it should be realized the importance of photography to architecture, especially in modern times.

Pic related, the human eye doesn't render reality like this.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4760
Image Height	3725
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2006:05:31 10:05:31
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3578
Image Height	2800

>>2901025
>you can be sued for publishing a photo of recognizable architecture
depends on the country/state, and how 'recognizable' something is (registered landmark etc)

>you can be sued for publishing photos of someone elses' graffiti
only if it is legal (commissioned) otherwise said party must demonstrate that it is their work (and no illegal graffiti writer in their right mind would do that)

>>2901053
>>you can be sued for publishing photos of someone elses' graffiti
>only if it is legal (commissioned) otherwise said party must demonstrate that it is their work (and no illegal graffiti writer in their right mind would do that)
That's what i thought but apparently not where i'm from (montreal). Apparently if it is illegal, it is then the buildings property (as it is their wall) so you'd need to ask the building owner for permission.

>>2901083
holy shit what kind of retarded laws are that?
if you photograph a building from public property its a public photo

>>2901025
You can be sued for basically anything.

Around a year or two ago there was some hullabaloo about Euro countries implementing something like that (just googled up an article for you: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136945/Absurd-new-EU-law-mean-ll-face-legal-action-taking-pictures-famous-landmarks-Photos-punished-breach-copyright.html ), I think that didn't pass/got struck down though because it's pretty fucking ridiculous.

As for the whole "is photos of someone else's work art", heh, might want to look up our old friend Richard Prince for a hearty discussion on what exactly is and isn't art (you won't find any solid answers, but you'll find amazing amounts of butthurt).

>Is photographing other people's architecture really a form of art?

No contemporary photography is a form of art.
Photography replaced figurative representational art. Rendered it pointless.
All that was left behind was fantasy and experimental aesthetics.

Welcome to the never ending, nauseating, stream of observations which photography dryly spits out by the million each day as it stands on the face of true art without even realising its transgression.

>>2901019
literally who gives a shit. arguing over the definition of art is the apex of academic navel gazing.
Make a thing people like. Done.

the word "art" no longer has any definition. instead, I implore you to define "success" and use that as a gauge for photographs.

Can success come from photographing another work of successful art? Yes.

this isn't a question worth thinking about. do what must be done.

Yeah sure whatever.

I will say that if the photograph inspires people to go to the building in person, then it has done some good in the world.
Truly experiencing architecture is much more than visual meal.

>>2901106

Unless you're kidding (which I won't doubt), can you elaborate on this further? To say that photography completely replaced figurative art is a rather bold statement, however I'd like to see a defense of the matter as it is a rather interesting argument.

File: The_Sydney_Opera_House_at_dusk[1].jpg (1MB, 3008x1692px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x1692px

>>2901019
>an architects work is made exaclty to look as it is from every angle
Doesn't hold. A photograph gives a significantly different impression from observing the same angle irl

Also. I'll call bullshit on the entire line anyway. I don't know shit about architevture, but in my uneducated mind it seems that most famous pieces of architecture are meant to give off some holistic impression

Pic related. The greatness here is clearly in the wholeness. The guy didn't give a shit what impression it'd give someone to stand on the roof and stare into the side of one of the shells

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D50
Camera Software	Capture NX 2.2.4 M
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	862
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:09 23:59:-1207959552
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3008
Image Height	1692
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	400
Image Quality	RAW
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	HIGH
Focus Mode	AF-S
ISO Speed Requested	400
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Tone Compensation	AUTO
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	35.0 mm; f/2.0
Auto Focus	Unknown, Center
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Color Mode	Landscape sRGB
Lighting Type	NATURAL
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	23588
Image Optimization	SHARP
Saturation 2	NORMAL

>>2901182
>Yeah sure whatever.

Ah, the mantra of the dilettante

>>2901102
Well if it's an unremarkable building than you're right. But if there is branding on it, or it is of noticeable architecture, then apparently you can sue.

>>2901200
Sure is.

But for real, I'm in an arch program right now.
My professors have a whole slew of film photos they took decades ago on their own global tours of works that they use for an arch history class, but they themselves say that, ultimately, the photograph does not come close to representing the holistic experience of a work.

Now, again, different goals.
Photographs as art - well, I would say that photographs of architectural works are not art.
But the art of photography is another matter, and indeed, the act of photographing architecture is art.

Which is more important? The process or the project? That question is the same across multiple disciplines of design and art.

>>2901205
>I would say that photographs of architectural works are not art.
>the act of photographing architecture is art.

So the act of taking photographs of architecture is art, but the photographs that result from that act are not works of art.

okay.

>>2901019
I think there's something to be said for somebody who takes the time to do it right, shooting at the right time of day, nailing the perspective, and doing a good job at PP.

It takes a little more work than most probably realize.

I wouldn't call it art. I don't think that it matters. But when people debate photography as art they're debating it's validity. By saying "photography isn't art"a lot of people mean "photography is garbage". Oh well.

File: DSC_5497(capitol square).jpg (983KB, 2592x3872px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 2592x3872px

if architectural photography isnt real photography im fucked because thats pretty much all i do

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D80
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4906
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:08 18:33:23
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: seuss.jpg (87KB, 449x447px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 449x447px

>>2901239
...that building just doesn't look right.

File: DSC_5487(web).jpg (207KB, 795x1193px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 795x1193px

>>2901242
its perspective corrected during raw pp. I dont have a tilt lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D80
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4906
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:07 17:58:48
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2901244
I figured that. It might just be the way the windows/not windows are interacting there in the middle, but it just doesn't seem right. Did you do a full perspective correction or just the verticals?

>>2901052
So photography is just a tool to record architecture? I guess if you want to "commit" to that argument, you might have to claim that all photography is just a recording tool and not an art form.

Anyway, I'm getting lost. Back to the point: normally I'd agree with OP's friend that photographing architecture is non-art or just regurgitation of art but I saw this album recently that makes me think otherwise.

Take a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/s7vn/sets/72157669681265745

On some of the photos, the photographer is taking the architecture and highlighting different lines and shapes very closely, essentially making it "his own". So are his photos his art? I'd argue yes. And surely you could argue against me that the guy is still just taking pictures of the architects detail work by focusing in. Who are we to say that the architect payed attention to these details or angles and wanted us to interpret it that way? I'm not sure, it seems I'm more lost now...

>>2901214
We have architects like Peter Eisenman who argue that the latter is more important. His buildings, then, are cool when you look at the design process and the steps taken to reach, but are terrible to live in. Half of them are structurally unsound and need reinforcement after a few years. Leaking, material mismatch, etc. are prevalent.
Everyone hates his guts, myself a bit too, but we can't deny his own choices, and the beauty of his procedure.
Of course, it always falls to the individual to decide whether or not their work is art or not, no matter the much that pisses me off sometimes.

>>2901318
>Eisenbro

you know its his birthday today

>>2901319
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MY FAVORITE ASSHOLE
legit had no idea

File: images.jpg (14KB, 396x371px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 396x371px

If marcel gautherot's photos of Niemeyer's Brasilia aren't seem as art then photography should just die.

File: eisenbday.jpg (47KB, 512x638px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 512x638px

>>2901321
yeah one of my friends is actually hanging with him tonight.. lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	AJ
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2901205
Hey fellow arch student, where you studying?

>>2901328
That's just too perfect.
Well, we might debate over photos of architecture
but photos of architects are even more important
>>2901330
Cal Poly. You?

File: IMGP8564knowltontarp.jpg (372KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 4288x2848px

>>2901337
I went to OSU, which had its own Eiseman Wex center, (as well as convention center downtown, which is hated)
>>2901330
>>2901205

but we do have Knowlton, which is a great arch building to study in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-r
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6.7 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:31 04:32:45
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	1.5 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: 25219940570_f2211b0d1f_z.jpg (128KB, 421x640px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 421x640px

>>2901339
Another coincidence!
The Knowlton definitely looks cool to be in.
I've put OSU campus on my college poor-man bucket list as a place to visit on future roadtrip.

Our arch building is a concrete imitation of the Lloyds of London building.

>>2901019
It's up to the photographer to introduce something in the image that isn't present in the building alone.

Check out Mir. I get that they're arch-viz so not really photography but you can get an idea of how bringing in other elements can compliment the architecture.

http://www.mir.no/work/

File: DSC_0721.jpg (758KB, 2637x3956px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 2637x3956px

>>2901348
you have an interesting building. Id highly reccomend OSU's campus as a whole, lots of variety in architecture and space planning, and stop off at Knowlton as well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	764
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	202 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:22 12:13:56
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2901337
Did my undergrad at UBC in Vancouver. On a "sabbatical" of sorts before going for my Masters somewhere in Canada in a few years. Tuition is simply too insane in the US considering the field's entry salaries. Cal Poly has some cool sounding studios from what I've seen.

>>2901102
Canada actually has a ton of retarded laws and an even more fucked up legal system than the US

File: _98A2877-Edit.jpg (752KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1600x1067px

>>2901019
>>2901025
I don't know if it's art, but it pays the bills and puts food on my family's table.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	75 dpi
Vertical Resolution	75 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:11 10:13:28
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2901328
Oy gevalt, look at all that waddymelon and imagine how this must have triggered the schvartze. What a racially insensitive putz! Where's your decency, goy? Don't be a schmuck, it's 2016, use your brain, not your tuckus. Shalom

>>2901316

Lol did i even say any of that? fucking straw man to the tenth degree

>photography
>art

pick one and only one

File: 50510290.jpg (110KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 400x400px

>>2901525
Because you say so?

No.

File: vertical.jpg (840KB, 2592x3872px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 2592x3872px

>>2901239
Friendly tip: I would remove the sliver of a building on the left of your image and even the white and black structure on lower left -- eye distraction.
The verticals are slightly off on your image. I use the Distort tool in photoshop to fix my verts
In case you don't know, you can turn on grid in photoshop with shortcut CNTRL + '
You can change the color and size of grid at edit>>>preferences>>>guide, grid styles

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:12 09:02:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	3872

>>2901587
thanks for the suggestions. i'll give it another go in ACR

It's the same as photographing people. People are there, you don't create shit.
Anyway with creating people whether you direct them or go find them on the street it's a bit more difficult but always nothing changes.

So if architecture isn't art it's the same for the rest of photography.
(Said the guy who hates architecture photography)

>>2901052
It must be fucking noisy living above that waterfall

File: 132a4e85195f3cd6d10864fa602d1b32a2c30d9e[1].jpg (456KB, 1000x616px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 1000x616px

>>2901944
>Fallingwater or (((Kaufmann))) Residence is a house designed by architect Frank Lloyd Wright in 1935 in rural southwestern Pennsylvania
http://www.archfoundation.org/2013/11/fallingwater-frank-lloyd-wrights-architectural-masterpiece-restored-with-help-from-a-save-americas-treasures-grant/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	120 dpi
Vertical Resolution	120 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:12 17:53:37
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	13.25 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	616
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	877bf6fc5174244ac7656258dc040ade

>>2901102
America has similar laws. They're more technicalities than laws. Lots of grey areas. Would need a good lawyer to make it stick.

File: soupcan.jpg (652KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2000x2000px

>>2902628
No, we really don't.

The main reason you see trademarked products not used in things like tv shows isn't because they're worried about getting sued (not because that can't happen, it can because you can literally be sued for anything in the US, doesn't mean it won't be thrown out of court though), but because it's free advertising.

You can't get away with charging pepsi for product placement and then have people wandering around with coke products.

It can be.
Unless it's Zaha Hadid
t. arts & design student

>>2902630
The reason you don't see products used is because it would take more time to get a brand or model release than it would to just cover it up

Also because most of the shows that do that already have specific product placement and they're not going to show lots of different brands to draw people away from the main product their advertiser is trying to sell through them

The question of whether something is art or not is as tedious as it is unanswerable. What's more interesting is, are the photos of any worth? Do they elicit some form of reaction? Do they capture a moment in time, larger than life, and transport the viewer to it?

most of the time no

File: 13893565067_80df595de2_c.jpg (62KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 535x800px

>>2902686
You might actually be able to help me out

What does this image make you feel? It's not mine but I'm curious as to what your answer will be

>>2902686
>What's more interesting is, are the photos of any worth? Do they elicit some form of reaction? Do they capture a moment in time, larger than life, and transport the viewer to it?

sounds gay. i prefer art

>>2901019
I've been to (and inside) the building in that pic and honestly I thought it was really weird looking. The surrounding area really doesn't help much.

The definition of art primarily hinges on decision making. Paint on a canvas is nothing until someone decides it's something. That asshole who bought a toilet and submitted it to an exhibition made art in so doing.The decision makes it art.

So, if you are attempting to create art by means of photographing buildings, then your productions are inherently art. Whether or not they are good art is another debate.

For example, Duchamp the toilet bandit is now considered a pioneer in the avant-garde movement because it was a bold and novel thing to do and it was subsequently interpreted as a statement on the nature and bounds of art theory (whether that was the true intent or not).

Now to the question at hand: can photos of architecture do the same thing? Yes. Do they inherently? No. What's the difference? Generally novelty; that is, whether or not your photo adds anything to the conversation.

Are you an photographer or a stock photo technician? That is the nature of the question of artfulness, though creating art, the all-encompassing idea, is very easy as it is generally defined today.

>>2904393
about 65% correct

>>2901019
Doubtfully.

The thing with architecture is that the discipline is very similar to photography. When you photograph good architecture, you find that the architect has already taken care of the spatial composition for you. If the architecture is good, you only have to get decent exposure, and you're guaranteed to have a good photograph. Essentially, an architecture photographer is someone who takes credit for the architect's hard work.

Because of this, I wouldn't really call architecture photography "art". I guess it's a different case if your photography manages to capture some aspect that the architect had originally "missed", but in 99% of the cases(as is also the case OP pic), celebrated architecture photographers just show whatever the architect drew. It's like photocopying a famous painting and then claiming credits for the original work.

>>2902700
sorry for the slow reply. I'll just try and write down off the top of my head what I thought about the image, if that's of any use.

I like the sense of scale in this, a child playing on their bike is a pretty familiar image, placed in front of that imposing, featureless, building, it's an interesting contrast. It's a little bit depressing, to think about the insignificance of that one child, or any one person living in a huge city. But it's also uplifting to see that people are taking these spaces as somewhere to play. Even if they're alone.

>>2904554
Now can you imagine if the child wasn't there and explain, as if it was just the structure

I know this sounds pretty weird and I'm not baiting you or anything I just have some ideas I want to work out

>>2901025
You can be sued for literally anything. It doesn't mean you're gonna lose.

>>2901052
I mainly agree with this. photography definitely has utility in this context as it can draw attention to certain aspects of the design, a form of appreciation or perhaps criticism. And it is the role of the photographer to decide how to appreciate or criticise the design.
A photo can't come close to capturing the experience of being at fallingwater, as is true for the most successful monuments. The fact that it's long exposure has made no difference, it's still not nearly as good. The photo could be seen as a form of communication or documentation of the building for those who aren't there, in which case it is not art. Alternatively, the photo could be seen as art, in which case the main contributor is definitely the architect and not the photographer.

>>2901194
There is as much genius in the detail of that building as in the general scheme. Again, true for most successful monuments. Most architects consider a wide variety angles and views of the building during the design process. Everywhere you look, it has been intended to have a certain appearance.

Architectural photos where the photographer can be seen as having a big artistic role would probably be where the photographer has found a particularly creative angle and therefore rendered the building in an unfamiliar way.

Also the photographer could probably be considered the main artistic contributor if the building itself is not spectacular and the photo is.

>>2904558
i'm not entirely sure what you want, but maybe if you told me, it'd guide my response too much, so, i'll just play along.

Without the child, it's less of an emotional response. The shape of the building is interesting from a geometrical point of view - it reminds me almost of a large cruise ship or a sail. Overall the picture's actually pretty abstract, especially as the exposure, or just the building material, seems to remove any imperfections from the building. You can appreciate this picture just on the basis of the interplay of the shapes.

Still, there's the contrast between the mysterious, monolithic building, and the nearby apartment buildings. It's not as strong a contrast as with an actual human but the large sail building still feels like this alien structure intruding in a more normal residential scene. Obviously there's the geometric contrast with the curved building vs. the blocky apartment buildings.

I find myself wondering what the building is - some kind of stadium? It doesn't feel like it's designed with humans in mind. With that one grated window it seems like it would be an unpleasant place to be inside.

Idk. I'm trying not to stretch too much here. But it's been an interesting exercise regardless to just write down some notes on a photo rather than just look at it for 5 seconds and move on - which I definitely would have done if not prompted. It didn't particularly grab my attention at first.

>>2904578
Thanks

>>2901242
Bareel distortion is a bigger faggot than Sugar.

>>2901194
Hey, that's pretty noisy for ISO 400
What the heck

>>2901019
if stacking a few bricks can win a turner award, then yes in spades

>>2901019
>My friend was recently arguing that an architects work is made exaclty to look as it is from every angle
This statement is completely fucking retarded.

related, interesting story: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/photo-credit-negatives-bauhaus/

basically makes the case that photographs of 2D art is just a recreation of that art and not owned by the photographer, but a photograph of 3D art is art in itself because of the creative work put into it by the photographer