So with Shepard Fairey's graphics vs. metropolitan architecture, what has the most impact? Are both the poster and the building consider images? When the building is photographed it is 3D (real space) first and then converted into flat 2D space. In a world today that is connected to devices that project 2D images (internet, movies, TV) does a person actually have to be in the space to experience the effect? Does the image generalize the real experience?
The bigger question is, what is more effective: a 2D representation of an idea or the actual built 3D idea? Does it just depend on the idea and the context it's arguing, or does the form of the representation not matter as long as the idea/argument is articulated and easy to communicate?
I think space is best experienced in person. Space is experiential and demands a high amount of interaction. No type of 2d representation of a space could recreate the awe of it.
ReplyDeleteNot even trompe de l'oeil paintings could do that. The awe from those paintings don't only come from the space created but the novelty and accuracy of them.
As for the Shepard Fairey painting, I think the size calls attention to itself, but then only immerses the viewer. Could the building become a part of that experience? Not in that instance. It only reads on one side. The painting only connects politically and aesthetically but not spatially.