Cixe y arquitectura arquitectura y ci

PHOTOGRAPHY & DOCUMENTAL 

La documentación de arquitectura se remonta a los inicios de la disciplina.  Durante muchos años, los croquis, planos, dibujos y la pintura han sido las herramientas mas eficaces para la representación de edificios y ciudades. Posteriormente, la fotografía permitió “capturar” los edificios y lugares mas exóticos. En el siglo XIX la fotografía se fijó en la arquitectura, pero mas adelante, en el siglo XX, con la modernidad la arquitectura descubrió en la fotografía un aliado importante y se asoció con ella. En la modernidad, los arquitectos recurrieron a los fotógrafos para difundir su obra internacionalmente, pero, ésta antes jugó un papel clave en la gestación de las vanguardias modernas. La fotografía llegó a su esplendor y excelencia técnica en el primer cuarto del siglo XX y se reflejó en la arquitectura moderna.

Pequeñas excepciones experimentales en el primer cuarto de s. XX empezaron a documentar la arquitectura moderna con el formato video-documental, pero usando la cámara solamente como si fuera fotografía en movimiento. La herencia de la disciplina de la fotografía aun era muy pesada. El principal registro documental era la fotografía. Tras el cambio de paradigma arquitectónico en el último cuarto de siglo, hacia un movimiento contemporáneo de arquitectura, se sigue documentando principalmente a través de fotografías, aunque el documental ha irrumpido con fuerza. Pero éste, simplemente se materializa a través de una serie de lentos movimientos de la cámara, que recorre un espacio, quizás algún picado, contrapicado o enfoque de algún detalle.

La diferencia documental ya se ha iniciado. Pero, ¿a qué es debida? ¿A una diferencia de objetos, es decir, una diferencia de arquitectura? ¿O a un avance de la técnica?

Las variables metodológicas de la crítica de la arquitectura moderna ya no son válidas hoy en día, ya que hablan de mecanismos que poco o nada tienen que ver con las nuevas tendencias y los nuevos procesos culturales y artísticos. De forma que la arquitectura contemporánea no puede concebirse como avance de la arquitectura moderna, más bien supone una ruptura. Según Rafael Moneo, “la arquitectura contemporánea difícilmente puede entenderse como el resultado de la evolución natural de lo que se conoció como arquitectura moderna, cuyo nacimiento y desarrollo ocupan buena parte del siglo XX”. Si todos estos cambios en la arquitectura de hoy con respecto a la moderna existieran, ¿podremos seguir documentando la arquitectura contemporánea mediante la fotografía como hicieron con sus obras los maestros modernos?¿Necesitamos otras técnicas para documentar dichas características? ¿Cuál sería el documento que mejor la describiría? Si la arquitectura moderna se documentó y forjó con la fotografía, ¿es realmente este el mejor documento que la describe? Sigfried Guideon afirmó en 1928 “only film can make the new architecture intelligible!”. Sin embargo los ensayos que se hicieron en la década de los años 20 utilizaban la cámara cinematográfica como una fotográfica. ¿Es falsa la afirmación de Guideon?

La investigación estudia y reflexiona sobre la diferencia existente entre la arquitectura moderna y la contemporánea, a través de 3 casos de estudios, que giran entorno al binomio espacio-tiempo, que engloban cada uno una componente objetual, mediática y contextual diferentes y/o similares. Entre ellos se establecen uniones, vínculos e interferencias. Un sistema de conexiones múltiples estructura el texto.

 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Documentary Cinema of Architecture: Construction of Contemporary Non-fiction for XXI century Architecture 

Documentation of architecture dates back to the very beginnings of this discipline. For many years, sketches, plans, drawings and paintings have been the most effective tools of visual representation. Later on, photography enabled us to "capture" the most exotic constructions and places. In the XIX century, photography was simply used to observe the architecture, but in the XX century, the latter found an important ally in the former and was increasingly associated with it. Architects sought to document their architecture through ceremonious, solemn and reverential images that would promote them internationally. This modern "objectual" fascination was channelled through photography, subsequently reaching technical perfection as a documentary medium.

 

Since its inception, cinema has been an integral part of the arts, a tool used across all disciplines, including architecture, which was a mere setting or a stage in many films and a protagonist in only a few exceptions, such as documentary filmmaking. In the first quarter of the XX century, various artists began filming modern architecture in a video-documentary format, using the camera as a tool to create photography in motion. Thus, the influence of photography’s heritage was still very evident.

 

The methodological variables of criticism as applied to modern architecture are no longer valid today. They speak about mechanisms that have nothing to do with the new trends, cultural and artistic processes. So, the contemporary architecture shouldn’t be analyzed as a development of modern architecture, but rather as a break from it. According to Rafael Moneo, "contemporary architecture can hardly be understood as the result of natural evolution of modern architecture, whose birth and development occupy much of the twentieth century." The one common characteristic between architecture and film is the concept of space. Through the use of space, modern architecture tried to create a universal language that would be recognized globally. Thus, both in its essence and its origin, "architecture is the art of space". In today’s terms, space is a result and consequence but not the starting point of an architectural project.

 

Referring to modern architecture, Sigfried Gideon said in 1928: "Only film can make the new architecture intelligible". However, the tests done in the 1920s used the movie camera as photography. So, is Gideon’s claim false?

 

If there was a paradigm change, that is, if the differences between contemporary and modern architecture were true, Can we continue to document contemporary architecture through photography as the modern masters did with their work? Do we need other techniques to document its evolving features? What would be the medium that best portrays them? If modern architecture was documented and forged through photography, is this really the best channel to describe it?

 

Architects like Rem Koolhaas have used tools other than photography to analyze architecture: security camera images, optical illusions, documentaries, etc, to portray what architecture has to offer.

 

But the architecture documentary has been misinterpreted as little more than a moving picture, a photograph that makes for an interesting visual experience travelling or living outside the building and examining its parts. The usual format of architectural documentary film is characterized by slow camera movement accompanied by classical music, with some general shots of some ingenious construction detail. But non-fiction, through different variations of the story with visual elements, should convey more than a mere image; it should allow us to convey ideas, feelings and sensations, and provide us with experience beyond a simple portrait.

The one factor that has most marked this century has been globalization, resulting in the increase of new technologies, changing the world we live in. Currently, the most valued information is audiovisual. With that, the way we see things has also changed. This new society we live in, hyper-connected and addicted to instant and constant audiovisual stimulus, paved the way for the introduction of contemporary documentary film. The line between documentary and fiction today is so thin that it’s barely noticeable. A clandestine cinema has emerged outside of its commercial counterpart, a product of the new society’s outlook on the world. It has nothing to do with ideologies and is more closely linked to individualism and emotions than commitment and ideas. It is through this medium that non-fiction contemporary architecture should be analyzed.

 

The architectural language and film, although in some ways similar and related, are still very different from each other. The architects don’t use visual language to talk about their work with the same ease and immediacy with which they use the drawings, models, photographs, writing or digital media. The film engages one in a kind of a dialogue that’s far more complex and difficult to understand. Today, filmmakers and architects collaborate much in the same way as photographers and architects used to in the early years of architecture. This thesis examines and reflects on the difference in between modern and contemporary architecture, through 4 case studies where architects and directors work together. The aim is to see if the film camera is changing the way we perceive contemporary architecture just like photography did with modern architecture.

 

Copyright © 2006-2011, Ramiro Losada Arquitectos. All rights reserved.