Panorama: Architecture in Germany

Architectural photographers’ job is to perceive, understand and communicate architecture to a wider public by means of pictures. Many see themselves here as service providers and not as artists. Klaus Kinold, who celebrated his 70th birthday in May in Munich, belongs to the group of architects who not only have studied architecture, but also succeed in presenting exactly what architects see as essential in their works.

Herr Kinold, a statement which is always associated with you and your approach to architectural photography runs: „I want to show architecture as it is.“ Does this mean one can really photograph a building „objectively“?

There is no such thing as objective photography. But architectural photography is a service - after all, if one could always experience architecture oneself, there would be no need to photograph it. Of course, one cannot completely eliminate one’s own personal style. But actually, I like to imagine the building through the eyes of the architect and not to place my own artistic ambitions in the foreground. This does not mean that one does not allow oneself some freedom when one has fulfilled one’s obligations. But one should not start out with the goal of looking for angles that no one has used until now, with huge ladders or crane trucks. That is not what architectural photography is about. I try to stay neutral. The important thing in architectural photography is the architecture in front of the camera, and not the photographer behind it. He is only an intermediary. It’s a bit like music: one cannot simply ignore the notes and play what one wants. Obviously, there will be different interpretations of those same notes.

You studied architecture in Karlsruhe under Egon Eiermann (1904–1970), one of the most important German architects of the post-war modern period, but were never active as a planning architect after completing your studies, but instead went to work straight away as an independent architectural photographer. Did you perhaps think that you would not turn out to be a good architect?

It might well be that I didn’t have the courage. I have always oriented myself on what is really excellent. Eiermann and Aalto (editor’s note: Alvar Aalto, a Finnish architect, 1898 – 1976) were my idols. It was clear to me that I would not accomplish anything like their achievements. But I was also a passionate hobby photographer. When I was a student, I went on a trip to Egypt and took photos there with the Rollei that my parents had given me when I was a child. The photos were later used by the university in a portfolio in honour of Eiermann’s 60th birthday. Then someone came from Eiermann’s institute and asked if I could make photos for the institute. They had a Linhof and a Leica with repro equipment. This way, I could use the equipment on weekends as well, and photographed for Eiermann and his assistants. That is how it all started.

„If one could always experience architecture oneself, there would be no need to photograph it.”

What part did Eiermann play in your decision to become an architectural photographer?

I learned a lot from him, because we had spoken about my first photos. He had very definite views about photographing as orthogonally as possible and taking the buildings’ axes into account. I have never again experienced someone who analysed photos the way he did and also really sketched and drew on my photos, although I never saw him take pictures himself.

Has your photographic style changed in the course of time? In the beginning, you only worked in black-and-white.

The pictures of the Olivetti Building by Eiermann were my first commissioned pictures, and I would not do them any differently today. In the past, I worked with colour only in slides, and in fact never exhibited them. Not because I have something against colour as such, but black-and-white photography is more abstract and forces the viewer to concentrate more on the image and to try to understand it. But the real reason is that, in the past, professional journals only published in black-and-white. Colour came only later.

What is the role of light in your pictures?

I wait for the right natural light and use the light that the architect offers me. I work with the light that is there. I only use artificial lighting as a support, diffusely, and in such a way that it casts no shadow. Of course, I also work with diffuse light, especially in black-and-white photography. Good architecture is also good in the rain, so why shouldn’t I photograph it when it’s raining?

The recently deceased American photographer Julius Shulman once said that he sought to put a building „in the right light,“ because the architect had also put a great deal of thought into the building. Does this view conflict with your approach?

No. My goal is also to have people say „What great architecture!“ and not “What a great photo!” when they see a photo. Shulman did a lot of staging for his pictures. One can do that, that’s OK, too.

How do you evaluate the quality of contemporary architectural photography in the media?

It is becoming increasingly indistinguishable. But I don’t like to criticise others. My ideals are the architectural photography of the 1920’s and 1930’s. But because the media are screaming for more and more originality, so that they can stand out from the other media, photographers have to follow suit. They have to tease out more sensation from their objects than is really there. If the architecture is good, I don’t have to outdo it or package it. Take Louis Kahn’s architecture. It is monumental. But I don’t have to go there and photograph it as if it were even more monumental than it is already.