Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UN-Essay After Image
UN-Essay After Image
How buildings are experienced visually is, and will always remain, central to architecture, but the
topic of the image is almost impossibly loaded. Yet architects have inherited a discipline that mixes
the constructive and the reflective, progresses through words as much as through works, and must
therefore address this delicate subject, beginning with the question of why it should be considered
so delicate in the first place.
We attempt to specify some of the problems of the architectural image, such as the processes
leading to its commodification. One predicament is the pervasiveness of signage; images give rise
to signs, but today signs have come to control images. Whether as visitors to architectural sites or
as readers looking at pictures, we are habitually confronted with repetitive, flat, empty images.
These images are even situated stereotypically; it is often the outside face of a building that is
photographed and becomes loved. But why should the face of a building always be on the outside?
Why, for that matter, can the face not be replaced altogether by a moving picture gallery, a changing
kaleidoscope of images?
We question, too, if and how we can replace the manipulative, one-dimensional image with
something far more advanced and intangible: the after image, the one you take home with you, an
inexhaustible, ever-renewing composite of perceptions, memories and thoughts.
No design, no style
The question of image is rarely confronted today. It is the most suspect terrain of the arts and is
therefore avoided. Image in all forms of art, including architecture, has been abused too much,
reflecting, justifying and inciting commercial manipulation, oppression, and even violence. But
circumventing the issue of image can result in a discursive tour de force, imposing a silence on the
topic of the work produced while pursuing an intense, but imperspicuous, alternative discourse.
Architectural communication can appear self-absorbed, and jargon-laden by outsiders. Even those
with connections to the profession are regularly exasperated by the hermetic attitude of architects
who insist on carrying out an impenetrable conversation amongst themselves and refuse to address
what everyone sees.
The problem with talking about the image of architecture is that it is both hard to describe and
dangerous to fixate. One of the pitfalls of the image in architecture is that it quickly becomes defined
in terms of style; all efforts to rethink the image in art are turned into architectural styles with
disturbing ease. The syntactical rudiments of these styles are fixed with exaggerated force because
an entire industry, with its own inexorable procedures and regulations, is amassed around them.
Once the relentless downward pull of manufacture and distribution has taken hold of a facet of
architectural imagery, it, in convergence with the processes of mediatization, turns the image into a
black alter ego, a dark, nihilistic shadow of itself. Every detail is broadcast almost as soon as it is
invented, and turned into the dcor of another, shabbier performance than the one for which it was
originally intended.
Ruptures with previous styles become new styles; the dissonance and asymmetry of modernity
are frozen into style, in the same way that the order and symmetry of neoclassicism had been. In
this way, the formal elements and methodical relationships that compose a style eventually pose an
ontological problem. For if, as we believe, the role of architecture is to make us see ourselves and
the world around us in a new way, then the idea of the architectural image frozen into style is a
disaster. Its effects are diametrically opposed to our aim of intensifying the gaze, inspiring thoughts
and images, and making it attractive for people to linger and return to the places we make for them.
Style makes the image of architecture all too familiar, and causes people to turn away in boredom
and disgust. Trying prevent their work from becoming frozen into a style in the face of the avalanche
of industrial and media-driven misappropriation, architects strong sense of alienation reverberates
in almost every word, spoken or written.
that its complex history, including discord and failure, is well known and closely associated with its
image.
Consequently, it seems to us that icons, and not just architectural ones, are not consciously
designed at all. The construction of an icon takes many years, occupies many media, and yet
reverberates with a continuous message or theme. Given these conditions, it can even be
questioned if the architect should want to be involved in the construction of an icon at all. The
spectre of Albert Speer is never far away. Even in the most democratic and enlightened societies,
negative icons resound, kept fresh and alive in the public imagination through television, print media
and the internet.
image construction without essence, capable to transform itself into any guise, identity, or form; a
surface for projections of all kinds. The constructs of architecture are like a face in that they speak to
us and change continuously in response to internal and external events, yet contain no
predetermined narrative.
constructs. The reality of such figments is fuller than that of a concept, idea, or notion, which are
vague and verbally articulated. Figments, on the other hand, have a whole history, moving from
narrative to narrative, interacting and fully formed. They are explicit, existing in a realm in between
the representational and the actual.
When we design, you could say that we create new figments. But we call these unbuilt projects
designs (rather than figments), because they are already too real. They belong too much to the
everyday world. There have been architects, like Piranesi or Constant, who have devoted
themselves to creating a figment world of architecture, a strong and imaginative reality.
But we think that all of us have brief glimpses of figments all the time; they reveal themselves to
us at moments when one reality level falls into the next. The potential for the design of figments first
occurred to us when we considered the moment a digital camera moves automatically from one
captured moment to the next half-captured one. The resulting image is partly generated by the
framing of the previous (conscious) instant, and partly by the automatic (unconscious) mechanism
of the camera. This figment moment suggests an architecture at its fullest, dissecting the
construction, while being loaded with effect.
Conclusion
The need for the architect to balance long-term vision with the opportunity-driven experimentation
that is at the basis of the design model is complemented by the turbulent equilibrium between
thought systems and the visual world. The close collusion between structural, conceptual and visual
thought systems persists in architecture, as in art, to this day. Like Andy Warhol, we tend to take a
positive view of business-art, and extend the depersonalized vision this notion implies to the many
real and virtual aspects that touch architecture.
Seeing architecture as both thought-made-spatial and business art has provoked many of the
questions posed here, and has sparked our investigation of the image, its construct and its potential
as a source of displacement, changeability, signification and sensation. Rather than condemn the
inescapable image, more prevalent than ever, we believe the answers is to generate multiple and
surprising after images by strengthening each images logic of structure, spatiality and vision.