project. These were all done with a digital compact camera so the
quality is not good enough. They are research images. I was interested
in two themes. One: the signage informing the public about the land
being private. There is a lot of it. On the other hand it's not the
regular road sign type of signage. The plaques are not in your face.
Two: the pavement. The whole private development has been repaved and
the new stones are very different. I believe this is for the purpose
of marking the land, demarcating the territory. This once again is
strong but subtle. I am drawn to that more. I think I will pursue that
path: the subtle ways in which the land has been made different from
the public spaces around it. How the signage is there but not in an
obvious way. It's there in a way the public is unaware but the from
the point of authorities the situation is clear.
Anri Sala and Edi Roma talk about the 'painting over' of Tirana's
streets. Edi Roma, the major of Tirana, made a bold move and painted
the buildings along Tirana's streets in bright abstract patterns. Anri
Sala then made a film or a piece of video art about it. Both projectes
ended up quite well known in the art world. The video is on display in
Tate Modern. The is a recording of a talk at Tate with the video
shown.
This is utopian thinkning put into practice. It's amazing and at the
same time there is many ways to question it. Roma himself is very well
aware there is now way this would commence in a Western society with
all democratic safeguards, planning processes, etc. in place. Tacita
Dean written in her commentary on the video that the way it's filmmed,
with the dark backdrop of the night's sky and stark aritifical
lighting, may refer to the dark authoritarian undertones in the
project.
Roma talks about the poll where people of Tirana were asked two
questions: 'do you like this?' and 'would you like this to continue?'
Over 60% responded 'yes' to the first question but over 80% said 'yes'
to the second. Make your own conclusions.
Anyway, why not paint some British council estate in such patterns?
Utopian thinking is what we need!
Last Sunday I spent some time around Homerton to take some images for
my montage. It also helped me a bit to clarify what exactly I would
like to to for that project.
I would take an image of an estate and alter it to suggest what the
future might look for it. One way would be to suggest it falling apart
- introduce smashed or boarded up windows, plants growing from cracks
in the walls, stains on the walls, etc. Another would be to try to
make it better - clean up the walls, add more flowers in the windows.
I could combine both possibilities in a single image. 'Improve' one
building and 'derelict' another. I could also add some things, like
bars in the ground floor windows and CCTV cameras, to make everything
look menacing. A dystopian version of a future in a way - whether it
stands or falls apart it doesn't go well.
I repeated here the question that Iain Sinclair once asked - what if the Olympic Legacy project ends sour? What if it ends up like the Millenium Dome, way over budget, like a bad hangover after a speding binge fuelled by msiplaced patriotism and real estate speculation?
I suppose this article in NY Times on what's happening to Beijing Olympic site answers the question.
BTW. This image is so cold and celan I could easily be convinced it was entirely created in Photoshop. If it wasn't NY Times of course, because we all know they don't do Photoshop. There is few more of them here - look for the ones by Susetta Bozzi.
public housing in Mexico. Lets take it from there and talk about
public housing in Britain. I am no architect but hopefully it will not
all be babble. Post-war public housing most often meant certain strain
of modernist architecture combined with realities of low cost mass
scale construction industry. Current popular perception is that not
much good has came out of that. Guardian has an interesting video about Robin Hood Gardens, a famous modernist housing estate
in East London's Poplar, which is a good introduction to the subject.
It is quite obvious that a lot of things were wrong with those estates
and continues to be. This is not the whole story.
It is most often the case that the ideas behind that architecture are
blamed for the wrong results. Those ideas were executed in certain
political and economical circumstances (pressure to build a lot, fast
and cheap) and maybe we should consider more carefully to what extent
the circumstances of the execution are to blame too. After all
'modernism, far from being just another chapter in the history of
architecture or the interior decorator's sourcebook, is nothing if it
is not a comprehensive, Utopian social programme'. We are a bit short
of utopias these days. Maybe it's worth rethinking that one? The quote
is from a review of Militant Modernism. I have not read that book
but it seems to be doing exactly that.
I think it's also worth noting that no matter how founded the critique
of modernism may be it's not all that's going on here. East London is
undergoing gentrification in a fast forward mode. Every estate
demolished means land freed for redevelopment and this is in the best
case 25% affordable housing and the rest for sale on open market.
Flawed as it was modernism was a part of real housing policy and there
is nothing to replace that.
I tagged this with montageChris Mottalini has done an
interesting project after you left, they took it apart. He
documented some houses designed by important modernist architect Paul
Rudolph, which are awaiting demolition 10 years after his death.
to strengthen the repetitive character of the architecture. Then I
started working on removing the tree in front of it. After three hours
I admitted I should have chosen the vantage point better before taking
the picture. I should have used the tripod and positioned the camera
straight. I should have used standard lens without barrel distortion.
That was just an excersise but I do intend to use similar strategies
for my project.
Filip Dujardin creates
interesting images based on architectural imagery.
Image © London 2012 from their image library
a while ago i went to this talk about the Olympic Legacy (that is -
turning the Olympic park into a functional part of London after the
Olympics) at the UCL. it was interesting. it had few people from
Olympic authorities, some architects and Iain Sinclair. it went more
or less like this: the managers and architects presented their slides,
maps, visualizations and what not and then Iain Sinclair asked what if
it all turned out like the Millennium Dome instead?
He pointed at a sort of ideological war that the authorities fight
over images and with images. They tightly control the dissemination of
images of the site. They project ideas about the past and present -
brownfield, dereliction, abandonment - and the future - the lecture
was titled growing a new piece of city. The imagery is
infused with this ideology so to say.
This is not only the case with Olympics. The CGI images of future
architectural and urban projects always ivnolved in plitics. They are
a sort of propaganda. They are meant to persuade the viewer. Urban
regeneration is alwasy politically tense process.
I am interested in this ideology of images. I would like to somehow
introduce that idea into my digital montage project. My initial idea
was to take one of those images and try to subvert it. Be a bit blunt
and make the Olympic village look like a scene from The Wire.
Photoshop a floating corpse into one of those CGI lakes. That
unfortunately doesn't fit the brief. Our final image is supposed to be
looking realistic and what I was thinking of would mostly be based on
CGI.
I am trying to bend my idea a bit to fit it better to the brief. I am
thinking of a clash of two types of architecture. For example the old
social housing and the modern glass and steel developments. Multiply
the signs of dereliction of the estates. Polish the glass to the point
where the implied narrative of progress is pushed too far and begs
questioning. Or go in the opposite direction. Rather than showing
derelict estates, refresh them and make the futuristic development
look abandoned and run down.
I would like to examine the privatization of public space. Consider the More London development, which the
new City Hall is a part of. When you walk along the Sotuh Bank it
looks like any other public space. It takes a bit of attention and one
sees all those notices warning that you are on private property. What
is the difference? In public space you are free to do whatever you
please as long as ou comply with the law. Here you are at the
discretion of the landlord and they may not want you to do this or
that and you must comply or leave. Quick google search reveals a rant on London Review of Books blog on More's hostility to
cyclists. The consequences are rather more serious. What if you have
objections to the mayor of London and wanted to excersise your right
to protest? Well, it seems that you may not be able to do so in front
of the mayor's office. It's private land and the security may kick you
out.
There is a number of other prominent spaces in London with similar
character. Bishopsgate and Canary Wharf are two examples I am aware
of. In fact according to Wikipedia
'beginning roughly in the 1960s, the wholesale privatization of public
space (especially in urban centers) has become a fact of western
society'. I would like to examine this process in my process.
Private/public can refer to ownership and this is how I would like to
look at it - public space versus private land.
Here is an image of Charles (source).
I think it is the best known image from Sleeping by the
Mississippi.
Here is a bit more story about Charles. Charles doesn't like this image
very much - 'he doesn’t like the idea of strangers making him out to
be more of a “goofball” than he thinks he is'.
The point I am trying to make is very simple. Every portrait can be
considered to be involved in the public/private
discourse. The subject gives something of their own privacy to the
photographer who in turn makes it public through publication in print,
a gallery or the internet.
Public/private is a very wide theme and a lot of work can be
interpreted in those terms. Alec Soth's Niagara is not an
obvious example but let's try.
portrait. I should say it's often the case with Soth's portrait and
the sort of relationship he establishes with his subject that I have
no word to describe the impression they make on me. Although the
couple are naked, it is an total opposite of the objectifying nudity
of pornographic images (and as Berger would say most of the images of
nudity in the European art). In this image hey are here for the
photographer, and by extension for the viewer, the way they are for
themselves. The second one is a somewhat kitchy view of the falls on a sunny
afternoon. It is not the landscape that Soth is interested in but how
they function in public consciousness. He's after the idea that the
sublime landscape is the ideal romantic setting to be married against. This is where the second image comes in. It's a hotel of the kind that
people visit to get married in. We moved from relationship as a
personal matter to it as a public one -- the institution, the contract
and the ritual. The repeated composition points to the idea of
marriage as a contract between two. I'm sure that it's not an agenda
that Soth is trying to push but rather he's saying that is the spirit
in the air there. On the other hand, together with similar images of
other hotels it forms quite a dire image of the realization of the
romantic Niagara dream. So there it is Niagara as a book about love and the various
takes on it - the private and personal relationship or in the public
sphere of common imagination and institution. I wrote this to show the
various possible interpretation of the public/private
theme. My initial idea is very different from this. It's more involved
in politics and also asking for architectural photography. I do
struggle though - I've been lugging around a medium format camera and
taking images of inanimate objects for over half a year now. I am a
bit tired of that. I would like to do something with people again.
