this is brilliant. what is it… a building?
It is a building, on Market Street in San Francisco CA. I forget who owns it or who is in it though.
Is this a good photograph or a brilliant architect? Isn’t the building that is fascinating and how it capture the light. The only talent of the photographer is to have noticed it. I never understood why a photographer would take the credit for the work of architect.
George. With good photography the subject is always interesting. The photographer does not take credit for creating the subject. What the photographer does do is find new angles and great lighting that highlights the subject and makes it even nicer to look at and ponder. I think Mr Hawk has done that in this instance.
The why does he credits the image with his name and not the architect’s name. After all, 90 % of the work and talent came from the architect, no ? If I take a picture of a picture, does that make me a good photographer ? I think there is a double standard here where photographers do not like to be ripped off, but then proceed in doing the same with architects, sculptors and other creation made by other human beings.
I agree that naming the architect would be nice, simply because people want to know where the building is and who designed something so wonderful, but a talented photography is able to make someone else’s creation look outstanding. it goes without saying that the photographer isn’t taking “credit” for the design s/he captures. i took pictures of a butterfly… should i add, “butterfly designed by God”?
bad example, i know, but you get my point. he’s not “ripping anyone off”. i think the architect would be proud of this image.
WordPress and plainscape theme.