Porthouse Antwerp, 2017 – (c) Joel Tjintjelaar with Phase One IQ3 Achromatic 100MP
Why even bother making a distinction between real estate (or commercial or conventional – I will use all those terms to denote the same type of photographer in this article) architectural photographers on one hand and fine art architectural photographers on the other? Who cares?
It’s not a major issue, of course not, but I’ve experienced many times that other architectural photographers have assessed my work or other fine art architectural photographers work, with different criteria than the criteria I’ve used myself when creating my photos. Making comments like: ‘he (me) doesn’t do justice to the building‘ or ‘you (me) don’t do justice to the architect‘. Etc. Well, try to be educated then, because that’s not my intention!
A more conventional approach to the same Porthouse in Antwerp (c) Joel Tjintjelaar
Traditional (commercial) architectural photographers, glorify the building/structure and its architect, not the photographer
Allow me to explain why (and be educational).
This is what ‘conventional’ architecture photographers do:
- shoot architectural photos in a technical correct way
- shoot architectural photos to promote the architectural object: the architectural object is primary, the photo is secondary
- the photo should glorify the building/structure and its architect, not the photographer
That’s exactly what I don’t do, except for the ‘technical correct approach’. Even if I can admire architecture and its architect, when shooting my architectural photos, both architect and architecture are less important, sometimes even completely irrelevant. I’m shooting a specific building because its lines, its shapes, address a specific aspect of what I want to convey as a fine art photographer. Sometimes this specific aspect is a predominantly aesthetic one, sometimes a more emotional one. In any case it’s not to be taken to glorify the building or its architect.
Fine art architectural photographers, express and promote their artistic vision, not the architectural object or its architect
This is what I do as a fine art photographer shooting architecture:
- shoot architectural photos in a technical correct way or in any other way I deem appropriate
- shoot architectural photos to express my personal view on the world, using architectural objects literally or as a symbol: the architectural object plays a role in emphasizing my artistic intention, but is always subordinate to the artistic vision.
- the photo should express and promote my vision, not the architectural object or its architect
The Eye in Amsterdam by famous Dutch architectural photographer Iwan Baan (c) Iwan Baan.
My fine art interpretation of the Eye Amsterdam (c) Joel Tjintjelaar
Pepper (c) Edward Weston
Ligurian Sea (c) Hiroshi Sugimoto
That’s why I find it important to be referred to, in interviews, publications, public execution/stoning/beheading/whatever, as a fine art architectural photographer, not as an architectural photographer.
Conventional architectural photographers are not less or better than fine art photographers using architecture, they have different intentions. But what fine art photographers can learn from the conventional architectural photographer is a better technical control and a better understanding of the architect’s intentions, while what conventional architecture photographers can learn from fine art photographers is to blend aesthetics and their personal intentions in such a way with the architect’s intention, that it transcends the commercial aspirations and becomes art as well. Julius Shulman, considered to be the greatest architectural photographer of the past decades, was a typical example of that. His personal vision was decisive in promoting the human aspects of modern living in California Mid-Century modern architecture.
Case study house #22 by (c) Julius Shulman – one of the most famous architectural photographs ever taken.