[froggo]

Came across this artist's works recently and I must say I have mixed feelings about it.
There is a book which collects 100 of these images of his and markets it as showing how architecture interacts with its environment. But how can we truly know how the architecture is interacting with the environment if we cannot see the style of the architecture itself? Is it simply the mass of architecture that interacts with the environment or is there more to it than that?

A part of me feels that if that was the intention, would it not be better presented as diptychs, where on one half of the screen we see the building there, and on the other side we see the building removed, yet we can also see the totality of the environment behind it not just a silhouette of white emptiness(what it would look like if the building had never been there to begin with)?







I would like to assume that the artist concocted this thought-provoking idea with pure intention, but it becomes apparent to me that he may possibly have been seeking for novelty, as he entirely negates the efficacy by transferring the form into the media realm, by images such as this proving that he may have missed the point of his own art;

[Potemkin]

Some guy actually makes a living doing this shit?

[froggo]

Seemingly, you yourself could make a living doing something like this Potemkin, anyone can, especially since the artist did not even comprehend his own stumbled-upon artistic force(since he failed to do it, as I have mentioned in the OP, in the more sensible way), and also he bastardized it by allocating it to the mundane... however, in order to reach a status where you are permitted to take the easy route in production efforts, first you must get the credentials and have the networking skills... cutting out the pictures is the easy part; to be at the point where you can get away with cutting out pictures takes years


I will give the man credit in one regard; if he had not used the technique of silhouettes, there could be a different aesthetic impact. The lack and dissatisfaction which comes from viewing the pictures forces the mind to assess what is dissatisfying about it. The urge to discover what is dissatisfying leads to the questions surrounding the role of architecture and the environment.
How he thinks that a similar critique could be aroused in the mind by using the technique in a film-shot is perplexing.

[Potemkin]

Seemingly, you yourself could make a living doing something like this Potemkin, anyone can, especially since the artist did not even comprehend his own stumbled-upon artistic force(since he failed to do it, as I have mentioned in the OP, in the more sensible way), and also he bastardized it by allocating it to the mundane... however, in order to reach a status where you are permitted to take the easy route in production efforts, first you must get the credentials and have the networking skills... cutting out the pictures is the easy part; to be at the point where you can get away with cutting out pictures takes years

Very true. And this could be said about many professions, even non-"creative" ones. I've encountered lots of duff solicitors and duff accountants in my time. They've passed all the exams, yet somehow everything they actually do is idiotic shit.

I will give the man credit in one regard; if he had not used the technique of silhouettes, there could be a different aesthetic impact. The lack and dissatisfaction which comes from viewing the pictures forces the mind to assess what is dissatisfying about it. The urge to discover what is dissatisfying leads to the questions surrounding the role of architecture and the environment.
How he thinks that a similar critique could be aroused in the mind by using the technique in a film-shot is perplexing.

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Lol.