

Architectural photography: Audiography
ArchDaily serves as an excellent reminder that current architecture is slave to its image. Most architects seem content if their buildings look great a set of photographs. And if it looks like the rendering made before it was built, even better.
I have several concerns with the practice of architectural photography. For instance, having to produce buildings that look like their renderings has been a source of lamentation for many architects for some time now, but there seems to be a new, perhaps equally nauseating problem emerging. In the case of these images, it seems the photographs are attempting to look like computer renderings. These and other photographs are almost certainly being photoshopped not only for exposure and colour corrections, but also to correct design omissions or construction errors. They present a fantasy that is masquerading as reality. Surely not all of the photos on ArchDaily and other publications are falsified, and I’m sure that very few of them are significantly different from reality, but how can we tell anymore? Who knows how much is real, or how much is fake anymore?
This gives a person all the more reason to visit the building in person. Anyone who’s visited a great piece of architecture knows that the experience is quite different, often much greater than that of seeing it in photos. This is not only because the third and forth dimensions (depth and time) are absent from the images, but also because touch, taste, smell, and of course sound, are also absent.
So why not include sound in online building publication? Appending an mp3 file of a recorded walkthrough of the building wouldn’t be difficult, and would give a much better impression of the space and allow a virtual experience of the architecture that is far more compelling and informative than a simple image. Or why not publish buildings as short videos, now that youtube and vimeo allow such high qualities, so that the sound and images go together?
Since I own both an HD camera and a 4–channel field recorder, I might as well begin the trend. I’ll document a series of buildings and post them on the internet, just as architectural photographers do, except I’ll do it with sound, with possible video or photographic accompaniment. I’ll be an architectural audiographer. I’ll start with famous Toronto buildings, and some not–so–famous ones too. I might also include the odd urban environment or landscape too.


ArchDaily serves as an excellent reminder that current architecture is slave to its image. Most architects seem content if their buildings look great a set of photographs. And if it looks like the rendering made before it was built, even better.
I have several concerns with the practice of architectural photography. For instance, having to produce buildings that look like their renderings has been a source of lamentation for many architects for some time now, but there seems to be a new, perhaps equally nauseating problem emerging. In the case of these images, it seems the photographs are attempting to look like computer renderings. These and other photographs are almost certainly being photoshopped not only for exposure and colour corrections, but also to correct design omissions or construction errors. They present a fantasy that is masquerading as reality. Surely not all of the photos on ArchDaily and other publications are falsified, and I’m sure that very few of them are significantly different from reality, but how can we tell anymore? Who knows how much is real, or how much is fake anymore?
This gives a person all the more reason to visit the building in person. Anyone who’s visited a great piece of architecture knows that the experience is quite different, often much greater than that of seeing it in photos. This is not only because the third and forth dimensions (depth and time) are absent from the images, but also because touch, taste, smell, and of course sound, are also absent.
So why not include sound in online building publication? Appending an mp3 file of a recorded walkthrough of the building wouldn’t be difficult, and would give a much better impression of the space and allow a virtual experience of the architecture that is far more compelling and informative than a simple image. Or why not publish buildings as short videos, now that youtube and vimeo allow such high qualities, so that the sound and images go together?
Since I own both an HD camera and a 4–channel field recorder, I might as well begin the trend. I’ll document a series of buildings and post them on the internet, just as architectural photographers do, except I’ll do it with sound, with possible video or photographic accompaniment. I’ll be an architectural audiographer. I’ll start with famous Toronto buildings, and some not–so–famous ones too. I might also include the odd urban environment or landscape too.
Stay tuned.