WHO DETERMINES THE ARCHITECTURAL PHOTOGRAPH?
MRINALINI GHADIOK
AA Membership Number: 80139
C7HCT000 Historical Evidence and Representation: Photography and Architecture (T1-22/23) | Tim Benton
MA History and Critical Thinking | Architectural Association School of Architecture
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION – the Architect | the Photographer | the Publisher
II. THE PHOTOGRAPHER - Julius Shulman
III. THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE ARCHITECT - Richard Neutra
I. Maslon House photographed:
o Richard Neutra’s view
o Julius Shulman’s view
II. The Photographer and the Subject
IV. THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE PUBLISHER - John Entenza
I. Stahl House photographed
II. The Photographer and the Audience
V. AN ONGOING DEBATE
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION – the Architect | the Photographer | the Publisher
A photograph is more than just an image of its subject; it reflects those who created it. Therefore, a photograph addresses three notions: what is photographed (the creator of the subject), who photographs it (the creator of the object), and why it is photographed (the creator of the objective). In this context, architecture a discipline that relies on the built form as much as its representation—raises the question of authorship and agency in creating architectural photographs. This can be summarized as a complex interplay between the architect, photographer, and publisher.
The architect's intention and vision for the building are crucial in determining the architectural photograph. Design choices such as form, material, and details inform the building’s aesthetic, and therefore, how it is represented. The structure’s relationship with its surroundings determines its context and, therefore, how the image can be composed or framed. In this way, the architect’s role in determining the architectural photograph is primarily that of shaping the subject.
The photographer brings personal perspective and expertise to the process, including angles, composition, lighting and an understanding of what the architect wants to communicate. Additionally, creative decisions and postproduction techniques are employed to enhance or play down aspects of the image as desired. Therefore, the photographer holds more power in the process of making a photograph than just being a mere conduit.
The publisher uniquely impacts the image, exercising the power to demand certain types of architecture or photography to be presented in their media. Their responsibility in selecting, editing, and disseminating the photograph empowers them with deciding what to publish, how to publish, and in what context. Thus, the publisher significantly influences how the architecture is perceived. Their role becomes one of shaping public opinion and architectural discourse.
All three stakeholders are essential in defining the parameters for an image. This essay discusses their collaborations emphasizing a strong relationship between the photographer and architect and between the photographer and publisher. However, a reflection on these interdependencies demonstrates that the photographer holds the trigger, literally and metaphorically, as he establishes autonomy in creating the architectural photograph.
Examined against the backdrop of mid-century modernism in Southern California, this study draws references to the photographer Julius Shulman. His close working relationship with the architect Richard Neutra demonstrates a deep respect for the architect’s vision but also exhibits sheer independence in creating photographs of his works. On the other hand, an analysis of Shulman’s association with publications such as Arts and Architecture, and its editor, John Entenza, illustrates how his modernist ideologies are reinforced by public interest, which influences his work more significantly than the publication’s requirements.
The questions of authorship and the narrativizing of discourse are examined using two sets of canonical architectural photographs—of the Maslon House and Stahl House—where the role of each actor is weighed against the success of the photograph.
…the responsibility of the photographer is to identify the design components of a structure, to identify with the architect the purpose of the structure, [and] his design. Then in the course of providing and producing these design statements, if you [can] come out with an art-like statement, for the purpose of intriguing and enticing the art directors of a magazine, so they get the pictures on a cover perhaps, then you have produced a double-barrelled, a double-bladed, a double-edged sword to attack the promotion process of architectural publicity. And this is what I try to state in the book about the purpose of architectural photography.
1 Julius Shulman. “Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3.” Interview by Taina Rikala De Noriega. Smithsonian Archive of American Art (January 12, 1990). 12. https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-historyinterview-julius-shulman-11964.Shulman, Julius.
In an interview with Taina Rikala De Noriega (1990), Shulman casually condenses into a few statements, the philosophy that has driven his prolific career for more than five decades. Fuelled by an inherent interest in architecture, his motivations also include a self-proclaimed “built-in facility for composition,”2 and post-war optimism imbued with the Southern Californian modern aesthetic.
Although untrained in photography or architecture, Shulman’s work is evidence of a deep understanding of the built form, how it is contextualized in its surroundings, as well as adept composition skills. It can be argued that the lack of formal training allows Shulman to approach his work with unabashed freedom—while others continue to photograph architecture as emblems of design concepts and constructed marvels, he begins to ‘humanize’ his work. Shulman (1990) recalls:
When I began my work with architects and magazines, I observed that very few photographers use people. So, I said to myself, well, my gosh, if I’m going to photograph architecture, I want to show architecture being functional. And I use people in all sorts of ways in my photographs. The moment a person appears in the picture, it entices the audience of the photograph to see another dimension of the architecture, as how the house appears to the people who live and work in the house.3
This comment explicitly clarifies two objectives that drive Shulman – firstly, depicting functional architecture by showcasing the lifestyle of the people who occupy the architecture he photographs; and secondly, engaging with his audience by developing a deep understanding of them and effectively communicating with them. These principles
2 Shulman talks about his ability to compose images without walking about the building or considering various options for angles and views. He explains how he sees what he wants to capture, frames it in his mind, and then creates the photograph, which invariably turns out to be a perfect composition. Ibid., 7.
3 www.youtube.com. “07 VOICE of the PHOTOGRAPHER Julius Shulman.” The Annenberg Space for Photography, (July 13, 2009). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eto9mHoXLYg.
become the fulcrum around which Shulman operates defining his relationship with the architect and with the publisher, pivoted on the reader.
Shulman’s efforts in humanizing his subject matter and the viewing experience can be seen across his oeuvre at times by directly placing people into the frame, as is seen even in the stark, desolate settings of the Synthetics Factory (Fig. 02, 03); or by hinting at the indirect occupation of space through details like an active fireplace, an empty chair, or even crockery laid out on the table all suggestive of inhabitation (Fig. 04, 05, 06). These subtleties inspire sympathy and encourage the viewer to imagine what they do not see perhaps someone sat in that chair or sipped from that glass but has stepped out of the frame momentarily.
Additionally, Shulman frames his photography in a way that emulates the viewer’s perspective. In one case (Fig. 02), he uses a low angle and positions tangible elements in the foreground—bringing the image to a personal scale; in the other (Fig. 03), he tilts the camera acutely into the open space below creating a sense of vulnerability, as if the viewer himself leans over the handrail. A hint of the railing along the bottom corner confirms the vantage, implying the risk of a precarious moment.
Shulman’s photographs are evocative and underscored by a deep interest in introducing people into the photographic discourse not merely as viewers but as participants. He is an architectural photographer but inherently addresses the social aspect of architecture and photography.
III. THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE ARCHITECT - Richard Neutra
One of Shulman’s most significant collaborators is Richard Neutra, who gives him his first break in architectural photography in 1936. Steeped in the modern aesthetic, Neutra, at that time, is well-recognised in Europe, while his avant-garde approach is relatively novel in the US.4 Until now, his houses are photographed and portrayed as any modern European house. But Shulman offers a different approach one of greater perspectival compositions, contextualised surroundings, and dramatic contrasts.5 He understands the architect’s vision and expresses his intentions accurately. Neutra (1969) is not shy to acknowledge this and writes, “His work will survive me. Film [is] stronger and good glossy prints are easier [to] ship than brute concrete, stainless steel, or even ideas.”6
Although appreciative of Shulman’s work, Neutra strongly believes that without the architect’s direction, the photographer would be at a loss for what to do.7 Thus, he ensures he is an intrinsic part of every photoshoot drawing attention to architectural subjects, defining frames connecting the interior with the landscape, suggesting the time of day and quality of light for shots, and even helping to compose frames.8
4 Joseph Rosa, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. (Rizzoli International Publications, 1994). 47.
5 Ibid., 47.
6 Richard J. Neutra. Letter. January 29, 1969. Shulman Archives. Quoted in Joseph Rosa, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View. Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. (1994). 47.
7 Julius Shulman. “The Photographer and Architect” by Richard Neutra. Introduction in Photographing Architecture and Interiors. (Los Angeles, Calif., USA: Balcony Press, 2000). vi.
8 Ibid., vii.
Neutra wants his architecture to be represented as he likes—without any distractions, empty and austere. This is evident in Shulman’s testimony that Neutra “was always insisting that we photograph his buildings before they were complete, [and] before they were landscaped. [And] he was always bringing loads of branches, mostly eucalyptus.”9 This goes to show Neutra’s determination to portray modern architecture in a modern way— like a “machine for living”10—and to site it in the context, he takes incredulous measured to replace underdeveloped scenery with scavenged foliage.
Shulman, in his interest to depict functional or living architecture, follows suit. He also employs various techniques for “dressing the scene.”11 This includes spontaneously inserting landscape where there is none12 (Fig.07, 08), adjusting furniture for better compositions, and even strategically positioning people. Shulman believes that “the photographer is the director and producer of each frame,”13 and therefore, addresses the setting of his photographs like a cinematic stage.
It is clear that both Neutra and Shulman go to lengths to create the ideal architectural photograph. However, while the architect does it to identify his work in a manner that he wants to convey, the photographer does it for the camera lens. This becomes apparent in the photographs taken for the Maslon House in 1963.
9 Julius Shulman. “Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3.” 14.
10 Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. (Reprint, New York: Brewer, Warren & Putnam, 1923).
11 Joseph Rosa, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. 85.
12 “…quite often when a building was completed and photographed for publication, the surrounding greenery was either not sufficiently grown in or the owner had depleted all funds in finishing the house. If these homes had been photographed against a barren landscape, the architecture would have looked unrelated to its context. To remedy the situation, Shulman would place branches on the earth in front of the building and position [them] before the camera’s cone of vision plants and tree branches from neighbouring plots, thus creating a ‘frame’ through which to photograph.” Ibid., 85.
13 Ibid., 85.
I. Maslon House photographed:
Shulman photographs this house on two separate occasions first, in the company of Neutra, and then again, without even as much as informing him. He explains his reasons in an interview with Joseph Rosa (1992):
Neutra’s concept of a house is an empty one. So, when we photographed the Maslon House, he took out all the art and most of the furniture. Never before had I been so offended! Mrs. Maslon granted my request, and two weeks later I went back and photographed the house the way she lived in it.14
Comparing photographs of the Living Room from both sets of images (Fig. 09 (A) - directed by Neutra and Fig. 10 (B)
– directed by Shulman), we see that they follow similar compositions for their viewing angles. However, while Neutra strips the house to its bare minimum furniture, Shulman photographs the house replete with art and artefacts. They both dress the stage, one to follow his style, the other to represent a lifestyle. As a result, there are two distinct photographs that differ drastically in their subject matter, technique and approach. This analysis expounds Neutra’s objective as a pure representation of a modern architectural style, which firmly contrasts with Shulman’s presentation of the architecture as a living embodiment of the modernist lifestyle.
14 Ibid., 51.
Neutra’s intent to present an austere project begins with the readjustment of its interiors. He empties the living room of most of the furniture, art and décor. This offers a restrained canvas that highlights the space as enclosed by deliberate architectural gestures, yet seamlessly connected with the landscape.
In image (A), we see that while photographing the building as per Neutra’s direction Shulman achieves the image of a modern house represented in a quintessential modernist way. The emphasis is retained on the structure and the enclosure it forms. The ceiling and floor planes read as prominent framing devices held together by slender columns. The visible intersection of the horizontal and vertical elements emphasizes the structural system on one hand, and on the other, delineates the inside from the outside.
The camera, placed above eye level, tilts down to give the sense of looking into the room from afar, while the glass façade that dissolves in the corner directs the viewer’s gaze past the threshold and into the landscape, creating depth and lengthy perspectives. This gives an illusion of the horizontal planes converging in the distance.
Inside, Neutra strategically sets components around the room’s periphery to frame an open void in the centre. The floor-length drapes that seem to be fixed in place, bookend the composition. The dining table is pulled aside such that a singular chair implies its location. With its back to the camera, it reads simply as an innate object that occupies space without any suggestion of being occupied. The ottoman and its accompanying tables positioned by the window offer a sense of scale, but very little utility can be ascribed to them. The coffee table is placed in the foreground— devoid of any seating options around it, it is left to be understood as an artefact holding a cluster of objects. These objects haphazardly populate the empty tabletop more a distraction than a call for attention. Thus, drawing focus back to the central void, unassigned by any function.
The carpet becomes an additional layer that emphasizes the emptiness its flattened surface alludes to a change in flooring rather than texture. Pronounced shadows of the table, owning to a light source behind the camera, exaggerate the idea of multiple planes, rather than objects, occupying the space.
The composition of the subject matter in conjunction with the composition of the image itself alludes to an architectural drawing (see Fig. 11) more than an architectural photograph. A clear two-point perspective15 is established with a discernible grid emerging from the intersection of horizontal and vertical planes. Conspicuous edges, articulated architectural elements, calculated furniture placement, and precise shadows align orthogonally within the volume. Even the row of lighting fixtures in the ceiling adds to the understanding of the architecture as a precisely conceived and mechanically produced machine.
Although not incomplete, the architecture seems undeniably chaste and presumably agnostic of function. If unknown, the space can well be read as a hotel reception, lobby or office. The image signifies a well-choreographed moment— a static representation of a building without much allowance for intervention.
15 15 Myung Seok Hyun. “Seeing Architectural Photographs: Space and Time in the Works of Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller.” PhD diss., Georgia Institute of Technology (2016). 115.
Hyun, Myung Seok. Plan of Maslon House, 2011. In Mapping and Touring Through Photography: On Julius Shulman's Photographic Space of Maslon House. The top shows the camera location and the angle of view of (A) mapped onto the plan; whereas the bottom shows those of (B). Note the angles between the picture plane and walls; and the inclusion/exclusion of columns and objects within the angle of view.
o Maslon House: Julius Shulman’s view
In contrast to Neutra’s rendition, Shulman’s photograph of the Maslon House bends the architectural representation towards an inhabited space, implying occupancy, and therefore, altering its perception to that of lifestyle.
In photograph (B), Shulman brings the camera to eye level and alters the angle by rotating it marginally to the right, reframing the composition (see Fig. 12, 13). This brings into the frame a perpendicular wall that establishes a corner and anchors the room on one end. The ceiling and floor continue to form strong horizontal planes, however, vertical elements such as the newly introduced wall, columns, and drapes which have been moved into prominence, break the discipline of the earlier grid and straighten the image to an almost frontal perspective.
16 The relationship between the inside and outside is retained, but, interrupting the continuous threshold with artefacts now distinguishes between the two areas. While the landscape remains a critical feature, it retracts into the background and the views are contained within the interior.17
The positioning of the furniture in this view makes it a negative image18 of (A), Neutra’s view. While in the latter, the centre is empty and the peripheral areas occupied, Shulman sets the couch and coffee table in place of the void and opens up the foreground to the right, where Neutra locates his table (see Fig. 14, 15).
16 Myung Seok Hyun. “Seeing Architectural Photographs: Space and Time in the Works of Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller.” PhD diss., Georgia Institute of Technology (2016). 115.
17 “I engage my viewers so their eyes follow the thrust of the lines that echo in my stills. The viewer is carried into the scene to where I want him to stop, look, and feel (sense) the architecture—not the photograph; it reads by subject matter and composition.”
Joseph Rosa, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. 69.
18 Myung Seok Hyun. “Seeing Architectural Photographs: Space and Time in the Works of Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller.” PhD diss., Georgia Institute of Technology (2016). 117.
Furniture and artefacts are employed to transform the room from an empty space into a volume demarcated with specified functions. The dining table with its accompanying chairs in the distant-ground become one zone, the ottoman along the window becomes another seating area, and the two couches with the coffee table are clearly set as the prominent sitting space. The console behind the couch, on the left, gives proximal context to the viewer and places him within the photograph. No longer an outsider, the audience assumes the role of an actor in the scene.
Various gestures are engaged to humanize the setting sculptures establish a sense of depth and scale, crockery on the dining table, an ashtray on the coffee table, and a glass on the side table imply an inherent occupation of the space. The drapes, that have been repositioned away from the edges, suggest potential movement and personal control over the transparency of the façade. Even the sprinklers in the landscape allude to a person having been there to turn them on and their potential return.
This natural setting is further enhanced using layers of light outside, the sky is bright and defined shadows under the trees become reminiscent of sitting in the shade. Inside, the room is illuminated with a soft glow forming muted shadows that make the ambience inviting. Shulman uses furniture to darken the edges of the frame, while lighter components in the centre hold the viewer’s attention.
The multiplicity of elements works in favour of moving away from a linear visual hierarchy, as is apparent in Neutra’s view. There is an implicit indication of domesticity illustrated through choice, control, and empathy, due to which the viewer transforms from simply viewing the photograph to occupying it.19 This introduces a complexity that reflects more than just the architecture, but also how the architecture is lived in. Thus, Shulman’s approach moves beyond an architectural drawing, and instead, produces a photograph of the architecture, wherein the architecture is considered a lived space.
19 “Shulman’s photographs illustrate occupied spaces whether a person actually appears in the frame or if there is simply an implied presence. This renders the space occupiable by the viewer of the photograph.” Ibid., 95.
II. The Photographer and the Subject
Between the two, Shulman’s photograph creates a more evocative image of the subject (here, subject being the building). But it cannot be ignored that the subject matter of the two images is radically different. While Neutra distils elements out of the space to represent his building, Shulman stages the building to represent architecture.
One can argue that Neutra’s photograph achieves what he wants to show, and therefore, is successful for him. Conversely, one can debate the idea of success. For any photograph to be successful, it needs to be viewed. For architectural photography, the viewing would have to rely on publication, which, in this case, is the primary use of the photograph.
Hence, if the success of the photograph relies on its publication, Shulman walks away with the prize. The inherent characteristics of his image make it ideal for magazines of that time the photograph is an empathetic representation of an aspirational life that speaks with the reader and invites him to become a part of it. This is seen in the widespread publication of the photograph, and the attention it has garnered over the years—also apparent in the fact that it continues to be discussed today.
In this endeavour, Shulman not only alters the subject but also changes the narrative of the discourse, making him the author of the architectural photograph and also a significant contributor to the architectural rhetoric.
Shulman’s contribution to the discipline of architecture is highly relevant to the media. With a common endeavour of propagandising a Southern Californian style and post-war utopian living, publications on the West coast find value in Shulman’s work. At the same time, these magazines become the prime conduit for him to engage with his audience.
Arts and Architecture (A&A), published by John Entenza, is one such popular and influential magazine. Shulman and Entenza develop a close working relationship, collaborating on many projects such as the Case Study House Program (CHS).20
Of all the houses that Shulman photographs for A&A, Case Study House #22 (Stahl House by Pierre Koenig), has gained most attention. Photographed like most other modern residences, the emphasis is on the architecture, the structure emerging from nature and a prominent distance from civilisation.21 However, Shulman’s signature is evident in the presence of people and careful staging of the compositions to imply domesticity.
20 Mid-century USA witnessed new methods and materials, and a new concept of living emerged. The Case Study House Program sponsored by Arts and Architecture magazine in 1945 invited prolific architects to create inexpensive and efficient homes after World War II. Entenza handpicked the homes as per his criteria: they had to be a pleasing subject to photograph, depict the idea of emerging into nature, and strongly suggest distance from civilization. Kelsey Atchison, “Weird Nature: The Unnatural Architecture of Richard Neutra and Julius Shulman,” Thesis, Kent State University Honors College (2015). 9. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=ksuhonors1431085456&disposition=inline.
21 Ibid., 9.
Fig. 17
Case Study House #22, Article in Arts and Architecture, June 1960. 14
Sixteen photographs from this set are composed in an eight-page feature for A&A’s June 1960 issue22 (Fig. 17), which is also published as part of the CSH catalogue23 in 1962. However, in the article, it is interesting to note a conspicuous absence of the one with ‘the two girls’ (Fig. 19). That photograph was reserved and appeared on the cover of the Sunday Pictorial section of the LA Examiner in the following month.24 One of the most published architectural photographs globally, Shulman refers to it as a “mood”.
It was not an architectural quote-unquote "photograph." It was a picture of a mood, and it's what comes out forty years later and more in the statement by Paul Goldberger of the New York Times, in which he recognized that this picture is the embodiment of the spirit which we had hoped--Arts & Architecture, John Entenza we had dreamed that this would be the essence of the ensuing decades, generations, of architecture in the Hollywood Hills. But there's only [one] house like that.25
In his statement, Shulman once again affirms his passion to capture the ‘spirit’ of the architecture and confirms his alliance with Entenza to do so. This image is the apotheosis of both their careers—partly because it is still considered an iconic architectural photograph, but mainly because of why it is so.
22 “Case Study House #22.” Arts and Architecture Magazine. (June 1960). 14–21. http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/issues/pdf01/1960_06.pdf.
23 Arts and Architecture. “Case Study House Program.” Arts and Architecture Magazine. 1962. http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/case.houses/index.html.
24 Mary Melton. “A Shot in the Dark: The Unknown Story behind L.A.’S Most Celebrated Photograph.” (Los Angeles Magazine, December 6, 2016). https://www.lamag.com/longform/a-shot-in-the-dark/.
25 Julius Shulman. “Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3.” 39.
In May 1960, when Shulman reaches the Stahl House to photograph it, he finds it barely complete and unfurnished. He proceeds to open the consignment of furniture and begins to set his stage. He recalls, “I had visualized the composition to the very edges of the overhang on the far right of the camera view, [and] to the edge of the furniture composition inside…and the chaise in the foreground framed the scene.”26
The ‘framing of the scene’ in Shulman’s work is most crucial, as can be seen in the comparison of two photographs of the living room - ((X): published in the A&A, June 1960 (Fig. 18), and (Y): featured on the cover of the LA Examiner (Fig. 19)).
Shulman maintains a similar viewing angle for both—as it addresses all the conditions needed to represent the project as a modern Case Study House. In both photographs, a strong architectural statement is made by the cantilevered roofline that dramatically converges with the floor slab at an imaginary point in the distance. Drawing the eye to that point instantly establishes the relationship between the house and the city as being afar. The immediate context, on the other hand, is treated differently in each case. While (X) reveals the building structure, in (Y) Shulman conceals the bottom edge of the slab by adjusting his camera angle and directing attention to props such as the plant and chaise in the foreground.
Shulman uses furniture to extend perspectival lines, exaggerate massing and introduce a sense of domesticity. He exploits light to prioritize his intention. In (X) he employs one prominent source to illuminate the underside of the
roof overhang, which augments the industrial aspect of the structure. The architectural elements are clearly visible and drive the idea of modern architectural discourse. In (Y), the lighting effect is achieved by a complex process27 and layered with multiple sources to enhance different aspects—the texture of the roof slab, an ambient glow inside the room, a soft wash in the foreground and a dark haze in the distance. This allows for a greater field of depth, as well as depicts a natural ambience.
With the house furnished and decorated, Shulman proceeds to add the human touch asking people to occupy the space. This becomes most critical to showcase the modern California lifestyle and can be described as: “…[the] photograph, taken Monday, May 9, 1960, has the feel of a Saturday night, projecting enjoyment and life in a modern home,”28 with two well-dressed women casually chatting in their living room overlooking the expanse of Los Angeles below.
Although choreographed, Shulman adopts spontaneity to create this image—in staging the furniture, directing the people, and using a candid camera.29 Even the trickery of hiding a light source behind the window mullions30 adds to this.
27 “The girls were placed and the exposure for the city lights was made, approximately 5 minutes at f/22, while the girls sat in darkness. The pre-set lights had been fitted with #50B blue flashbulbs. Just before they were flashed for the interior effect, the girls assumed their poses for the photograph and the hanging fixtures were turned on.” Julius Shulman, Photographing Architecture and Interiors. 82-83.
28 Jeffrey Head. “Creating the Iconic Stahl House.” Curbed. (August 24, 2017). https://archive.curbed.com/2017/8/24/16156818/stahl-house-julius-shulman-case-study-22-pierre-koenig.
29 “I was outside looking at the view. And suddenly I perceived a composition. Here are the elements. I set up the furniture and I called the girls. I said, ‘Girls. Come over [and] sit down on those chairs, the sofa in the background there.’ And I planted them there, and I said, ‘You sit down and talk. I'm going outside and look at the view.’ […] I set up my camera and created this composition in which I assembled a statement.” Julius Shulman. “Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3.” 39.
30 “We always used our own lights to supplement the natural light in the interior, especially in an indoor-outdoor exposure of this kind. To balance out the outdoor light with the indoor light, I set up floodlights so that the glare of my lights would be absorbed behind the mullions and behind columns and furniture in the house.” Joseph Rosa, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. 74.
ii. The Photographer and the Audience
In this case, Entenza and Shulman are aligned in their purpose and objective, which Shulman achieves in both photographs. (X) identifies the house as a modern architectural example befitting its place in the A&A article and CSH catalogue. (Y), also exemplifies modern architecture, but additionally, the life of modern times. Shulman creates an iconic artefact here—an evocative photograph in a provocative setting. He knows his readers and delivers to them what they need, but also stirs their thinking and encourages an aspiration of the Southern Californian modern style.
Shulman fulfils his professional obligation but goes beyond the publication’s requirement to create what he desires. His intervention in ‘dressing the stage’, once again, affords him the freedom to create his subject matter. Therefore, the resultant image is a unique representation of his ideas, independent of direction or requirements. The architectural photograph (X) is replaced by this performative piece (Y) that represents living in modern architecture. Shulman, the director, and producer of the set is now the author of the photograph.
V. AN ONGOING DEBATE
Rosa (2015), in his writing about Shulman, raises the concern that his compositions could be so highly manipulated that they distort the scale of the space. Referring to the Tremaine House in Montecito, CA in 1948, he says:
[Shulman] viewed everything through the lens of a camera. He believed that the scene must be staged for the photograph; staged in such a way that it was impossible to move through the actual space comfortably. The furniture was much closer together and set to appeal the view of the camera. In reality there was not enough room to pass through the sofa and the coffee table, although it appears otherwise.31
It is often debated whether a photograph should represent what there is or the potential of what can be, or as Mike Kelly (2013) asks, “as photographers, is it our job to photograph the home exactly as it is, or do we do our best to make it look its absolute best, given what we've got?”
32
Shulman certainly belongs to the latter category. He has a strong voice, and he expresses it in his photography—be it at the Maslon House, Stahl House or even the iconic Kaufmann House.33 Some of his most famous images that have become canonical in architectural photography emerge from situations where Shulman has fought the odds and composed his frames autonomously.
One might accuse him of distorting space, adjusting furniture, spontaneously manufacturing landscapes, or even simulating wilted flower blossoms with Kleenex.34 But these are part of Shulman’s process to ‘make it look the absolute best’. While this can be argued as presenting a ‘false reality’, that can be countered with ‘poetic license’.
32 Mike Kelley. “The Incredible History and Craftsmanship behind Architecture’s Most Famous Photographs.” Fstoppers. (October 16, 2013). https://fstoppers.com/film/incredible-history-and-craftsmanship-behind-architectures-most-famous-photographs-821.
33 Julius Shulman recalls how he argued with Neutra to take the photograph as the sun was setting: “It's a twilight picture, which is a 45-minute exposure. I had been doing photographs with Neutra at the house, and towards evening, as the sun was setting, I noticed, looking out to the eastern desert, there was a beautiful glow in the sky, and I said to Mr. Neutra, ‘Just a moment. I want to go outside and look at the house from the eastern side of the property.’ I looked at the house and I thought, ‘My God! Look at the twilight developing, and look at the mountains, and the scene which was being created by the changing light!’ So, I quickly ran into the house, against the will of Neutra, because Neutra was insistent that we continue working because he wanted to do more interiors in the house. So, I said, ‘No, Richard, we can't do that. That sky is beautiful, the mountains are beautiful, and the light glowing inside, the exposure values are just right.’ So, I ran out with my camera and my film bag, and I set up the camera, and out of this came this photograph.” Julius Shulman, “Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3.” 8.
34 Shulman recounts an experience working with Ellen Sheridan, editor of House and Garden magazine. He was photographing an azalea garden in Pasadena. They had had bad weather for days and could not get any sunlight. By the time they managed to set the shoot, the azaleas had died. So, as an alternative to the white flower blossoms, they created little tufts of Kleenex and carefully placed them onto the prow of the branches and the leaves, in an attempt to “restore” the blossoms for the photograph. Ibid.,14.
Shulman determines his photographs, and in doing so, not only does he claim authorship of the image, but also becomes the writer of the narrative that the image represents. Therefore, while the architect and the publisher claim stakes in the process, it is the photographer that holds the trigger, literally and metaphorically.
https://www.lamodern.com/auctions/2019/10/modern-art-design/140
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Architizer Journal. “10 Photographs That Changed Architecture - Architizer Journal.” (March 23, 2020). https://architizer.com/blog/inspiration/collections/photographs-that-changed-architecture/.
Atchison, Kelsey. “Weird Nature: The Unnatural Architecture of Richard Neutra and Julius Shulman.” Thesis, Kent State University Honors College. Ohio, USA. (2015).
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=ksuhonors1431085456&disposition=i nline.
Arts and Architecture. “Case Study House Program.” Arts and Architecture Magazine, (1962). http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/case.houses/index.html.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser, 1981. Reprint, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, (1994).
“Case Study House #22.” Arts and Architecture Magazine June 1960 (June 1960): 14–21. http://www.artsandarchitecture.com/issues/pdf01/1960_06.pdf.
Davis, Diane E, and Nora Libertun. Cities & Sovereignty: Identity Politics in Urban Spaces. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, (2011). 180-181.
Elwall, Robert. Building with Light: The International History of Architectural Photography. London: Merrell Pub Limited, (2004).
“Events Archive: Visual Acoustics: Julius Shulman’s Iconic Photography of Californian Modernism.” The Twentieth Century Society, (July 1, 2021). https://secure.c20society.org.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=93&EventId=752.
Head, Jeffrey. “Creating the Iconic Stahl House.” Curbed, (August 24, 2017).
https://archive.curbed.com/2017/8/24/16156818/stahl-house-julius-shulman-case-study-22-pierre-koenig.
Hyun, Myung Seok. “Mapping and Touring through Photography: On Julius Shulman’s Photographic Space of Maslon House.” Conference paper for Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) Fall Conference, Huston, Texas (January 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325111215_Mapping_and_Touring_Through_Photography_On_ Julius_Shulman%27s_Photographic_Space_of_Maslon_House.
Hyun, Myung Seok. “Seeing Architectural Photographs: Space and Time in the Works of Julius Shulman and Ezra Stoller.” PhD diss., (2016).
https://www.academia.edu/36621104/Seeing_Architectural_Photographs_Space_and_Time_in_the_Works _of_Julius_Shulman_and_Ezra_Stoller.
Kelley, Mike. “The Incredible History and Craftsmanship behind Architecture’s Most Famous Photographs.” Fstoppers, (October 16, 2013). https://fstoppers.com/film/incredible-history-and-craftsmanship-behindarchitectures-most-famous-photographs-821.
Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. 1923. (Reprint, New York: Brewer, Warren & Putnam, 1923).
Los Angeles Modern Auctions (LAMA). “140: JULIUS SHULMAN, Kaufmann House | Lamodern.com.” Accessed November 29, 2022. https://www.lamodern.com/auctions/2019/10/modern-art-design/140.
Melton, Mary. “A Shot in the Dark: The Unknown Story behind L.A.’S Most Celebrated Photograph.” Los Angeles Magazine, (December 6, 2016).
https://www.lamag.com/longform/a-shot-in-the-dark/.
Rosa, Joseph, Julius Shulman, and Esther McCoy. A Constructed View: The Architectural Photography of Julius Shulman. Rizzoli International Publications, (1994).
Shulman, Julius. Oral history interview with Julius Shulman, 1990 January 12-February 3. Interview by Taina Rikala De Noriega. Smithsonian Archive of American Art, (January 12, 1990).
https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-julius-shulman-11964.
Shulman, Julius. Photographing Architecture and Interiors. Los Angeles, Calif., USA: Balcony Press, (2000).
www.youtube.com. “07 VOICE of the PHOTOGRAPHER Julius Shulman.” The Annenberg Space for Photography, (July 13, 2009). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eto9mHoXLYg.
