You have to see a building to comprehend it. Photographs cannot convey the experience, nor film.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We are creating a unique experience. It's starts with how you see the building from a distance.
But, I would always be thinking of how pictures are constructed and colour, how to use it, I mean you're using it for constructing, makes you think about it, the place did as well.
My family didn't film anything. But then you look deeper and realize, maybe there are photographs, there are things. It's also context: You give something a context, and suddenly it becomes really deep or meaningful footage.
I began to realise that film sees the world differently than the human eye, and that sometimes those differences can make a photograph more powerful than what you actually observed.
I was primarily interested in people, and people in action, so that I did nothing photographically in the sense of doing buildings for their own sake or a still life or anything like that.
When I read something, I picture that scene in that detail. That becomes very similar to composing a photo in real life.
Luckily, many other people tell me how they have had a particular landscape photograph of mine in their office or bedroom for 15 years and it always speaks to them strongly whenever they see it.
Things have to be believable, not in a literal, photographic sense, but in an emotional sense - capturing the essence of the situation.
Images in the 20th century had a unique power where image became divorced from reality, and often more important than reality... Buildings were judged - at least by members of our own profession - more by the way they looked in magazines than by the satisfaction people felt when using them.
A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.