Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Visual Art
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Good photographs almost always capture a viewpoint that you can't ever really experience in person, even if you are there when the photographer takes the picture. That's what makes photography an art form.
Yeah, I was incredibly frustrated by all the models and photographs and renderings used to visualize this building that - when you walk by it on the street - is mostly just a blank wall of concrete.
I would have rathered a piece of architecture that, let's say, "fit in" with Bellingham's other public arts infrastructure - ie. the Mt. Baker Theatre or the grown-ups' Whatcom Museum.
Instead, they opted to take their architectural cues from the Bellingham Public Library. Which is unfortunate, because - like the Library is now - it's probably just going have to be torn down some forty years into its existence. And no one will protest because by then the windows will be scratched, the paint will be faded, the plastic will photo-degrade and the thing will just be a concrete street wall with a door on it.
Photography is an art form. Architecture is also an art form, and architects usually deliberately include features in their buildings that will look good in photographs because good photos are what get other people excited about good architecture.
blah, blah, blah? thanks for trivializing my chosen art form. And seriously isn't it the duty of an art critic to go on and on about the meaning of a piece of art? I guess photography isn't art to you.
If he can make that boring building look that great, I want him/her to take my portrait!
Jen, I don't get your complaint. He/she did a great job doing exactly what he/she was hired to do.
Basically, I think the building is a poor addition to either the public street or the city's arts infrastructure. It could have been done better, but photos like these we used to make it seem like it was being done well enough.
In other words, the creativity and artistry of great photographers were allowed, in the minds of the building's financiers, to overwhelm the lack of creativity and artistry of bad architects. We see in photographers the power to sometimes discover art and beauty where, at first glance, there is not - in this case, they're discovering art and beauty in a piece of architecture that is not, save for the creativity of those who have the power to interpret it through another medium.
In other "other words," the photographers have to do artistic work to make up for the artistic work the architects mostly didn't do.
was* allowed
FUCK.
At least, that's my opinion.
Besides Jen, if we were calling things out for what they really were, than you wouldn't have a fucking job cause your lame excuse for an alt weekly would fold up and die.
Also, I think her point was that there is some good art at the Whatcom Museum.
However, Jen's photos have pretty much guaranteed that I will never visit this place. Thanks, Jen!
No one's happy to meet that girl in real life and find that she cropped out the 300lb stomach that supported those boobs
That's what promotion is all about. Dumb ass.
Do not publish your writing in any slick magazines or on any slick websites. It only makes me disappointed when I look inside and read your crap!
@36 - Architectural photography has been around as long as photography has, and architects have been using it as a tool in earnest since the early- to mid-twentieth century, both for commercial and educational purposes. To say that architectural photography is only around because architecture now is worse than it was in the past only serves to show your complete ignorance of both subjects. Additionally, architectural photography is predominantly commissioned by the architect for portfolio purposes to represent the project to potential clients - not to sell a completed building. In other words, nobody is trying to sell this building with these photographs.
And @19, no - the photos do not lie.
You people should really try to educate yourself on a subject before publishing criticism of it.
However, when I did actually go to the Whatcom Museum website, I don't see those photos you posted anywhere (if they are on the site, can you post the direct link?). The first one you posted is an exterior shot I guess, and I wouldn't call it "obscure". It's a beautiful image of the wall lit up at night, and since I've seen a few other photos of it, I assume that it's somewhere accessible to visitors. The second one actually looks more like a rendering than a photo, perhaps from the planning and design stage, but actually I've seen other photos from that angle, and they look very similar.
So acting like you were duped doesn't really make sense. Someone took a beautiful shot of the wall, and you're unhappy? Very often, when people take architecture shots, they take them from interesting angles or at certain times of day, because they're creating a beautiful image. They might not include the garbage dumpsters, stop signs or hobos hanging out in front, or take the photo from an unflattering angle. I'm not a professional photographer, or art critic, or architect, but I do appreciate architecture and enjoy taking photos, and have a pretty good eye (or so I've been told). I've taken loads of shots of buildings that are at interesting/unusual angles or in certain lighting conditions, or that show the most interesting part of the subject, because that's sort of the point to me of creating the image, which is what I'm assuming these photographers did. If someone was upset over that, because I didn't shoot the Louvre or Madrid's Palacio Real or Windsor Castle head-on from across the street (with the subject of my photo apparently being asphalt), I guess I'd be rather dumbfounded.
In summary, someone took a lovely shot of a building and it's on the Internet. The museum isn't (as far as I can see) pimping themselves with an impossible glamor shot. It's not doctored or photoshopped or used as deceptive marketing. So what's the problem? If you're disappointed, perhaps you have some issues to deal with. Let people take their beautiful photos. Many of us appreciate them.
When I saw your little profile pic in the Stranger (the one taken at that obscure angle), I thought, "Hey - she looks like she might be kinda cute!". Imagine MY disappointment when I actually saw the real thing...!
Rest assured - I won't be returning to see you at any more of your speaking engagements ever again.
Once again, do your research.
@42 - no you weren't.