Should photojournalistic standards of “truth” be applied to architectural photography?
Alex Fradkin, Tim Griffith, Mark Luthringer e David Maisel discutem no Critical Mass o recente incidente de Edgar Martins com o New York Times.
Realistically though, images that are less than flattering to architecture are simply not viable these days. They are potentially damaging commercially. They are less likely to get published by the design press that relies heavily on funding from advertisers with vested interests. No-one wants to see aluminium panels rippling badly in raking light. No-one wants to see the awful concrete rubbish bins along a facade because the developer/client was too cheap to purchase the ones suggested by the architect. No-one wants to see “For Lease” signs in a supposedly bustling retail center.
His comment about not employing post-production techniques was made over a year ago and to my knowledge has not been restated. Change and experimentation are an artist’s prerogative and part of the recent controversy surrounds that statement he made in 2008. Clearly he has changed this policy, but has made an unfortunate choice in the wrong venue to show his new methodology. Comparatively egregious, the alterations degraded the final works and were somewhat amateurish and easily spotted. At least if you are going to fall on your sword, make it for a truly worthy cause and do it well.
Entretanto continuo(amos) à espera das respostas do próprio Edgar Martins sobre o assunto, em resposta a um email que lhe enviei Edgar Martins gentilmente respondeu que em breve me daria a sua versão dos acontecimentos. Continuo pois a aguardar.