Is it because I’m short that I so habitually take upward-looking photos? I’ve blogged previously about my penchant for looking up: is this a psychological trait or merely a photographic quirk? True, I like the look of sky and love the jutting angles of overlapping eaves…but why don’t I photograph more full facades or even (dare I suggest it) entire buildings? Why the bits, pieces, and random corners; why, given the prospect of brilliant orange flowers against a striking architectural facade, do I almost inevitably shoot the picture from ground level looking up rather than from a “normal” horizontal perspective?
Last year when I met Fred First, he called me on my affinity for odd angles. We were walking toward the North Bridge in Concord, MA, and I stopped to take this picture of a sign hawking the site’s cell phone audio tour. As I started to shoot the image from my usual perspective–askance–Fred winced. “No, shoot it straight on,” he insisted, it being obvious that the thought of a crooked camera angle was as appealing to him as the sound of nails on a chalkboard. I remember laughing and complying…after, of course, I took at least one off-kilter shot. Of the pictures I took, of course the straight-on shot looked the best, but you’ll never hear me telling Fred that.
Perhaps it’s telling that two of my all-time favorite Emily Dickinson poems contain the word “slant”; could it be I simply have an affinity for the Odd? Yes, Fred, signs should be shot straight-on…but to my eye, buildings still look best when shot askance, their lines and angles accentuated. Is it a fitting irony that when I Googled those two Emily Dickinson poems, I discovered that today is the birthday of Frank Lloyd Wright, the undisputed king of architectural angle? I doubt that even a straight-shooter like Fred First could find a way of photographing Fallingwater straight-on; somehow, Wright’s iconic buildings simply beg to be viewed askew. There is in Manchester, NH a house that Wright designed, and inexplicably I’ve never seen much less toured it. Given the way I inevitably photograph even the most straight-up-and-down edifice, though, surely you can imagine how I’d see and shoot angularity.
Jun 8, 2005 at 7:43 am
That first shot looks like how my dachshund must have seen everything.
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 9:30 am
can i go live in Fallingwater? It looks amazing…i love unusual structures like that. I know what you mean about squiffy pictures, i take many photos like that on a wonk, with their angles (not angels as i quite often write!) emphasised by shadows and light.
As usual great photos…
take care
rach
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 9:42 am
Thanks for the tip on the Zimmerman House. I didn’t know a Wright house existed in New England. I will have to check this one out. Considering it’s really only up the road a piece.
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 11:51 am
Oddly enough, my Writer’s Almanac email was on the subject of Emily Dickinson today, too. It’s apparently:
…on this day in 1862 that Emily Dickinson wrote to Thomas Wentworth Higginson asking him to be her friend and her advisor.
(The gist of this event is that despite their lifelong correspondence, Higginson thought Dickinson odd and ennervating.
Serendipity?
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 12:30 pm
On looking up: I passed my mother in height by the time I was 14. I stand more than a head above her and have for years, and there is still a feeling like I am looking up to see her…
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Lorrianne, I believe the reason you shoot photos at odd angles is because you are unique, creative, and open minded. Although the title of your blog is Hoarded Ordinaries, I don’t believe you are ordinary at all! Smiles.
LikeLike
Jun 8, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Leslee, I’ve never thought of comparing myself to a dachshund, but with my short legs & all, I guess that’s about right. ๐
Rach, is “squiffy” really a word? I LOOOVE it! I hereby pronounce myself squiff-ified! ๐
Greg, I believe Zimmerman House is the only Wright-designed building in all New England, so you should definitely check it out, as should *I*. I keep meaning to go but have never gotten around to it (yet!)
Diana, how interesting that today marks ED’s first contact with Higginson! Their’s was an odd relationship: ED thought Higginson was the bee’s knees even though he was an entirely conventional writer who had no “ear” for the kind of things ED was writing. If it weren’t for ED, we’d probably not remember Higginson at all…
Mumun, I will always look up to you both physically & metaphorically! ๐
Lajhen, I guess “unique, creative, and open minded” is a much nicer way of saying “You have an affinity for the Odd!” I’m glad you chose to put such a delightfully positive spin on things!
LikeLike
Jun 9, 2005 at 3:33 am
yes Lorianne, Squiffy is a real word, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary one of the definitions is: askew; awry. Funnily enough the other definition is: slightly drunk! tee hee! I think its a wonderful word, and I think i use it quite a lot! ๐
take care
Rach
LikeLike
Jun 9, 2005 at 7:27 am
Didn’t hear a thing. :-}
LikeLike
Jun 9, 2005 at 8:41 am
Oh, Rach, that’s wonderful: I’m going to start using “squiffy” all over the place, too! ๐
Fred: ๐
LikeLike