Sunday, February 06, 2011

JULIUS SHULMAN (PART TWO)

There's so much to say about Shulman's architectural photography. I only scratched the surface last time. Let's take a look at a few more pictures. We'll start with Shulman's take on the Bradbury Building (above) in downtown Los Angeles.


For comparison, here's (above) a color photo of the same building by a lesser photographer. Do you see the difference?

Shulman always managed to find something new to say, even when he shot familiar sites like the Bradbury Building. Other photographers dwelled on the Victorian feel of the building, or on the detail in the beautiful ironwork.  Not Schulman. He saw a sci-fi forest of iron surrounding a great hole in the Earth. Where does it lead? Maybe to the center of the planet. Maybe to a lost civilization.  Shulman prompts us to ask, was the architect manic? Was he a mystic? Was he supremely rational? Should a good architect be all those things or none? The better picture poses questions and hints at stories.


I imagine that Shulman frightened some architects by bringing out aspects of their buildings which they'd have preferred not to emphasize.  The raised deck in this room was needed to give the room a dynamic sweep, but it has no obvious function.

A lesser photographer would have created a diversion, like an acted out cocktail party so we wouldn't ask questions about what the room was supposed to be for. Not Shulman. He presents the room to us in all its ambiguous glory, and invites us to have an opinion about it.  He asks what we think of the notion that a room needn't be defined, that it can challenge us to be creative with it. I like the idea myself.

What's behind that ochre screen? Is that a kitchen? Is this a dining room? Maybe it's a rec room, I'm not sure.  If it's a rec room then it was probably eventually used by its owners for storage...I mean, people accumulate things and most modern architects don't plan for that. That's okay.  Funky storage can be beautiful too. It's a subject that's sadly neglected. I wish I had time to write more about it.


Shulman brought out the playfulness of the best modern architecture. Here's a carport and patio combined. I like the way the patio continues the lines which originate in the house. In some modern houses it's hard to tell where the outside begins and the inside ends.


Wow! Here's a terrific living room, interpreted by Shulman. It's modest and cozy, but it's also dynamic and exciting.  That's a wonderful combination! Today most of the materials can probably be bought at Home Depot...er, or maybe not. That beautiful horizontal beam on the ceiling might be steel.

The people on the patio are casual, the props are simple. The emphasis here is on everyday living. Shulman invites us to speculate on what the quality of our lives and of our thoughts would be if we were exposed to a stimulating physical environment every day of our lives.


For comparison, here's (above) a home designed by an ordinary architect.  A surprising number of architects and contractors are visually illiterate.  Look how awkward and uninspiring the room is. The furniture sucks too, but that's the easiest thing to change. 


Here's (above) Shulman's own house, built for him by an architect friend. I assume this picture was taken from his studio/workroom. It's separated from the house by a small Japanesey courtyard filled with plants and dappled sunlight. Elegant simplicity. Very nice.


Schulman was proud of his garden (above). Over the years he planted anything that took his fancy, wherever there was a free spot. He planted seeds from things that he ate, and even had a giant sequoia growing in there. After decades passed he had a unique forest, right outside his window. What a guy!

BTW: In a comment Jonathan Lyons said he lives in this kind of house and it's cold and noisy.  Fascinating! This is the first feedback I've ever gotten from someone who actually lives the modernist dream. I should mention that Jonathan has a really nifty site called "Comedy for Animators." Check it out:

http://comedyforanimators.com/

13 comments:

  1. I like that idea of making the people looking at the photos to think what it's trying to convey.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:26 AM

    Hey Eddie. Thanks for the great wisdom that you gave me in the other post about this great architectural genius, though I feel like I've taken more from you than I could give back in terms of worldly advice, if you know what I mean. I never knew architecture could be so relevant to my daily life and how I might actually need it when I start working in animation professionally one day (I kinda want to go into storyboarding since I have a knack for really lively drawing and staging, from what some have told me).

    Anyways, I like the unusual color choices Shulman chose for some of these homes. They really add to the modern, progressive feel of these. Too bad we still aren't living in a time where we could live in something right out of The Jetsons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I live in a house similar to those in the photos. They look great, but they're cold and noisy. I should just hang big photos around to feel better about the place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jonathan: You LIVE in a place like that!? And it's cold and noisy? Wow! It never occurred to me til now, but I guess a house with that much glass would lose heat easily. I guess heavy drapes would help in the winter time. Double glass too, but you're making me wonder how practical some of these houses were. I wish I knew what the state of the art in heat retention is now.

    Thanks for writing. This is the first time I got feedback from someone who lives in a modernist house.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't found the few "modern" houses I've lived in terribly noisy. Most have had a fair amount of glass, interior wood surfaces (ceiling, walls, beams), and even extensive cork flooring. With curtains drawn sounds can be pretty muffled - perhaps even more so than in a conventional home with all the drywall and plaster interior surfaces. I do think we each have different tolerance levels for extraneous background static.

    They can lose or gain heat at a tremendous rate by today's standards though. All that single pane glass and minimal roof insulation were acceptable in an era of cheap power. If built today the archetypal modern thin roofline simply wouldn't pass most local codes and you'll often find built up roofs to bump the R value in existing structures. Heavy drapes can help but largely block all the light normally allowed by walls of glass. Double and triple-glazed argon filled windows seem to be de rigeur if you can afford them. Me? I wear a sweater in winter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5:31 PM

    Love posts like this. The "backgrounds" section Most "you can draw cartoons too!" books are so lame, "draw a castle and your character is transported to the middle ages! Draw flying cars in the background and give him wacky sunglasses and now your thousands of years in the future!"

    Seriously, if you just go by the help sections in bookstores or type in "learn to draw" into google the stuff you get is terrible. So many hack ripoff sites that start out with "contour drawing" lessons then some stuff on negative space and just 50 bucks for the rest! I don't know where I'd be without blogs like this and John K's and the network of awesome artists giving away so much knowledge. I'm 17 and this blog has made me completely rethink everything I know about art and cartoons.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Smack: Fascinating! Yes, some of the modernist houses had corrugated roofs. Is that the same fiberglass corrugation that you find on tool sheds and carports? If so, I imagine the heat insulation is nil. And the noise when it rains...imagine what it woud be like to be under a roof like that in a hail storm.

    Triple-glazed argon windows!? Sounds expensive, alright. You and Jonathan gave me a real insight into the problems involved with modernism.

    Lots of architectural styles are impractical in some way. Hippie domes, A-frames, Victorian houses, and post modern living rooms all have high ceilings that make heating them expensive. It seems that every generation is impracticle, just in a different way.

    Anon: Thanks! I'm so glad that this blog is useful to you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:58 PM

    The Getty Museum has a fine collection of Shulman photos. If you get the time, you will easily spend a whole day mesmerized by them.

    I once looked at a late 1950's modern wood and glass home that reminded me of some of those that Schulman photographed and I concur with the observations of smackmonkey. The house was a great visual showplace but was grossly inefficient for present day realities. Relatively tiny vents for both the heating and air conditioning, for example, existed only in the floors. Air conditioning in such a system was virtually ineffective.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eddie - Yes, if it looks like cheap corrugated fiberglass then it probably is. The Lautner house in your first post is up for sale again and I'm certain it has something to do with the fiberglass bathroom walls. Steel is a much more common material though. Some famous examples include the Wexler Steel homes in Palm Springs and the Jones and Emmons X-100. Aluminum was also used as I once found out when I lived a few doors away from an "official" Alcoa aluminum house. In northern climes steel roofs are still employed to shed heavy snow loads and you are correct in deducing that they can be noisy when anything other than a light drizzle is falling from the heavens. By comparison I find a heavy rain soothing when living under a more conventional flat roof structure comprised of as little as four inches of insulation and a torch-down 'membrane". Hail is just damn good fun if you've got the right mind set... and nothing more pressing to tend to.

    While there are many obvious failures associated with modern architecture (especially those that were the result of blatant commercial ventures devoid of any thoughtful input), you must understand the mindset that advocated the use use of so many inappropriate materials. What better way was there for Joe Everyman to benefit from this new architecture than to keep it affordable on his meager salary. Off the shelf materials and standard dimensions (supposedly) allowed this.

    Boy, you hit the nail on the head regarding the impracticality of many architectural styles. I've had a number of chances to live in something, shall we say, out of the ordinary. Tree houses, prefabs, Worlds Fair model homes, geodesic domes, etc, etc. All it usually takes is a ten minute walk thru to come to your senses and head for a tract home in the suburbs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Uncle Eddie - have you heard of this Hollywood tour? (Pretty sure the "Mercedes Benz" plant must be some kind of eucalyptus.)

    BTW, other than liking to draw, I have zero experience in what you do. But I find your visual and story insights fascinating, and your humor delightful. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gordon: The tour looks great! I'd love to take it! Glad you like the blog!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Seems to me that Shulman is an example of the simplest, most straightfoward approach working best.

    Q:What an I doing?
    A: Photographing architecture.
    Q:What is architecture?
    A;Space.
    Q: How do i depict space?
    A: Use Perspective

    ReplyDelete