My World: It is all about the light

[Michael Nagel]

There are places, buildings streets I might pass once a while and others I return to quite often compared to others. The reason is the light, day and night. Sometimes it is the combination of architecture/setting and the light, sometimes the architecture/setting serves as canvas for the light.

Here is the first set (more to follow):

Blau-Orange




Lights mark the way




Spaceship ready for take-off




BMW-Welt Abends

Best regards,
Michael

[Asher Kelman]

"One of the most intriguing aspects of BMW-Welt is how it relates to the brand architecture of the last decade. Arguably, the era of iconic architecture started with the construction of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao. BMW-Welt represents a parallel strait of iconic architecture: the commercial brand where the iconic qualities are used to promote products of a brand through association to the architecture. This is a history that has yet to be written, but here is a short introduction to the theme." Source

So, is Frank Gehry the architect? At least we see his influence?

Asher

[fahim mohammed]

Michael, I have had time to see your post a few times. The same feeling I get every time.

Simple, clean, precise, functional and timeless elegance of the architecture and that which is within.

Your photography, as usual, gives it prominence.

Best regards.

[Michael Nagel]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

... So, is Frank Gehry the architect? At least we see his influence?

Gehry was not involved, at least there is no trace of his participation I can see.
You can see the team when you look on the Coop Himmelb(l)au website. Just open the project (click on project first and then choose BMW Welt) and click on 'team'. It is located on the upper side of the image frame for the project.

In the next series I will move away from BMW Welt as light is the subject here. I was a good starting point.

Best regards,
Michael

[Michael Nagel]

Fahim,

Thank you. I chose the BMW Welt for the use of light as a start, but did not think that the architecture would overshadow my intention here.

Best regards,
Michael

[Michael Nagel]

Light - reflected on a church and on the night sky with clouds from a cold front that just passed.

Paulskirche

Light - from cars passing below and the street lamps at blue hour.

Fließender Verkehr

Light - reflected on the sidewalk after a few drops of rain.

Abendsonne - Reflexion

Light of a lamp - leading to interesting patterns on the wall and tissue next to it.

Gedämpftes Licht

Best regards,
Michael

[Michael Nagel]

Building as canvas for light (repost):

Industrial Romanticism

Best regards,
Michael

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Michael Nagel

Building as canvas for light (repost):

Industrial Romanticism

Best regards,
Michael

Michael,

for me this is all about the surface that is illuminated or not.

but hey that's just me.

[Michael Nagel]

Originally Posted by Mark Hampton

for me this is all about the surface that is illuminated or not.

but hey that's just me.

Mark,

yes, but illuminated by what? Light I suppose ;)

Best regards,
Michael

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Michael Nagel

Mark,

yes, but illuminated by what? Light I suppose ;)

Best regards,
Michael

But I feel the surface, not the light / shade . So its not all about light for me. :-)

In the last image you seem to use quality of the light to comment on the subject,

[Michael Nagel]

Mark,

Both your and my view are right, just let me explain why:

The point where to draw the line between depiction of light as primary subject and the use of light to illustrate properties of another subject is individual. Both your and my view are valid, none is universally valid.

Just a little food for thought:
Any photo consists of captured light.
The light originates from one or more sources, is reflected or retransmitted by fluorescence and re-radiated to be captured by the lens and transmitted to the film/sensor creating a (latent) image.
This image is displayed either by printing it or be electronic means (screen).
The pattern recognition in the brain paired with the individual experience reconstitutes the image and divides it up into different structures - objects, beings, attaches names to it and establishes relationships (in)between the seen and yourself.
What is the subject, what is background, what are the different meanings?
All this happens in each viewer's brain.

Any judgment of what is what and the order of importance depends on the individual context - cultural, education, personal experience.

This was more the one step backward to get a larger view of it. I know this is nothing new for many readers (Including you I think, so please don't take offense) , but I think it is worth mentioning it at least from time to time.

I clearly enjoy the different views - especially when these are combined with the understanding of the difference and without anybody claiming the the only valid view for himself.

Best regards,
Michael

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Michael Nagel

Mark,

Both your and my view are right, just let me explain why:

The point where to draw the line between depiction of light as primary subject and the use of light to illustrate properties of another subject is individual. Both your and my view are valid, none is universally valid.

Just a little food for thought:
Any photo consists of captured light.
The light originates from one or more sources, is reflected or retransmitted by fluorescence and re-radiated to be captured by the lens and transmitted to the film/sensor creating a (latent) image.
This image is displayed either by printing it or be electronic means (screen).
The pattern recognition in the brain paired with the individual experience reconstitutes the image and divides it up into different structures - objects, beings, attaches names to it and establishes relationships (in)between the seen and yourself.
What is the subject, what is background, what are the different meanings?
All this happens in each viewer's brain.

Any judgment of what is what and the order of importance depends on the individual context - cultural, education, personal experience.

This was more the one step backward to get a larger view of it. I know this is nothing new for many readers (Including you I think, so please don't take offense) , but I think it is worth mentioning it at least from time to time.

I clearly enjoy the different views - especially when these are combined with the understanding of the difference and without anybody claiming the the only valid view for himself.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael,

thanks for the though through response - always good to read things that trigger thoughts, i may prod people maybe to much - but the last image made me do it !

cheers

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Michael Nagel

The pattern recognition in the brain paired with the individual experience reconstitutes the image and divides it up into different structures - objects, beings, attaches names to it and establishes relationships (in)between the seen and yourself.

What is the subject, what is background, what are the different meanings? All this happens in each viewer's brain.

Any judgment of what is what and the order of importance depends on the individual context - cultural, education, personal experience.

Simple and useful as a reference!

But let me add to this to your insight:

Any judgment of what is what and the order of importance depends on the individual context - cultural, education, personal experience. ... and well-made pictures have such preferences encoded in their design to seduce, nudge and direct the reading in a particular direction designed by the artist.


Asher

[Michael Nagel]

Asher,

This is one way it could be expanded. Using the word 'direction' in your addition for Surrealism or Zen-like pictures might require some extra interpretation.

Here are three more:

Bavaria b/w




3x Light




Cast Some Light

Best regards,
Michael