It is visuals like this, that make me think about the relationship between architecture and photography, in a question of impact and effect: would this landscape, therefore this image, have the same visual impact without the tower? Or even better, would this photograph be any more or less nice, if it wasn't about the building? It's a question I think about every time I come across this kind of imagery and the more I try to find an answer, the more complicated it becomes. In a very simplistic explanation, it feels a bit like the egg and chicken question, which only leads to more questions:
- Do I like the building because I like the photograph?
- Would I like the photograph if the building wasn't there?
- Does a building become more visually pleasing or 'good looking', depending on the way it's been photographed?
What I'm trying to say is, that it's hard (for me at least) to distinguish the architecture from its surroundings and decide what is it that makes good (architectural) photography or good architecture. That's why I can't tell if OMA's De Rotterdam is a good or a nice building, but I can certainly tell how beautiful these photographs are.