I posted this partly because I saw the architecture thread the other day and this photo collection reminded me of that, so I figured it'd be worth sharing. This is very much art. Whether it or not it's well executed could probably be an argument by itself. There is no denying though that the photographer chose deliberate angles to show the buildings and her photos have deliberate compositions. To take things one step further, she's definitely manipulated the photos to bring out certain colors and I think it's in an attempt to bring out various details of the buildings. The final results show an attempt to be creative and illustrate the beauty of the buildings, and I really do think they're beautiful. I think they're beautiful because I think she did an amazing job capturing the characters of the buildings. "Hidden Beauty #1 London" is a dichotomy of tall and top heavy, like it could tip over any minute, but at the same time the weathered concrete looks strong and sturdy. "Hidden Beauty #23 Berlin" has a great contrast between the red and the white of the building and the white of the building and the blue grey of the clouds behind it. I can see something I like in every single picture. They're beautiful because they're big and imposing, but she makes them seem accessible and apreciable. They're beautiful because they're strike me as old and faithful, like your dad's old tools that can still get the job done despite the patina. They're beautiful because the grey buildings have earth tones that bring a sense of peace and comfort and the painted buildings have a personality that you known makes them stand out from their grey neighbors. These buildings are pieces of art themselves, pieces of people's lives. The photos are pieces of art, containing pieces of art and people's lives. They're certainly better than some things I see in art museums.
I appreciate your response. Thank you. BUT. Yes - she chose rectilinear and centered. She basically... I mean, look. Here's "Hidden Image #15, Berlin." Dig into it a little (which I did, because it's her least bad photograph) and you discover that it's the Czech Embassy, built under the DDR. So, on the one hand, not "hidden." Not at all. Literally the top hit when you type "brutalist architecture Berlin." But also, when you cruise Google, you get images like these: ...that's just the first page. This shit offends me as a photographer. It's not art, it's some dreary Instagram bitch with a rich uncle with a gallery. Literally every picture on this page is better and they're just the author's shots to illustrate the stuff he likes. And I've taken architectural photos - for money - but it would never occur to me to think they were "gallery worthy" and my shit is better than this.There is no denying though that the photographer chose deliberate angles to show the buildings and her photos have deliberate compositions.
I actually agree with you whole heartedly. That's why I made this statement . . . I don't know much about art, but I like it. I don't know much about photography, but I appreciate it. I wasn't defending her art as extremely well executed, but I was defending it as a deliberate attempt to illustrate the buildings which I think she did a good job. The composition of her photos is about on part with the composition of the buildings I drew in my drawing class in high school. Neither touch what I see in magazines like National Geographic. That said, I kind of like her simple composition because it let's the buildings speak for themselves. It's probably a bit of a double edged sword I guess, because on the one hand there's less to appreciate, but on the other hand, it gives you the chance to focus on just one thing and maybe appreciate it a little more. What do I know though? I go to art museums and I spend my time looking at dolls from Africa, rugs and furniture from Asia, and anything else like that that catches my attention. My time spent in the European art wing is often short and against my will. I'm Donny and I'm out of my element here.Whether it or not it's well executed could probably be an argument by itself.
Anybody can have an opinion about art, and anybody can disagree with that opinion. And yeah - she illustrated the buildings, but so does Google Streetview. Worthy of note - she presents every photo against a stormy gray sky. Is that somehow more honest than a blue sky? It's my opinion that the bar for architectural photography is drearily low, but these pictures don't even clear it.