Arthur Erickson: 'You have to see a building to comprehend it. Photographs cannot convey the experience, nor film.'

You have to see a building to comprehend it. Photographs cannot convey the experience, nor film.

Arthur Erickson, a renowned Canadian architect, once stated, "You have to see a building to comprehend it. Photographs cannot convey the experience, nor film." This quote encapsulates the idea that the true essence and understanding of a building can only be fully grasped through direct observation. The importance of this perspective lies in the belief that photographs and films, while serving as valuable tools for documentation and dissemination, fail to capture the holistic experience and presence a building holds.In essence, Erickson emphasizes the limitations of these visual mediums in encapsulating the multidimensional nature of architecture. A building's interactive qualities, such as the play of light and shadow, the textures and materials used, and how these elements blend with the surrounding environment, can only be fully appreciated by being present in the physical space. Photography and film, although capable of transmitting some visual information, lack the immersive experience that one gains by being physically present in a building.However, beyond this straightforward interpretation, Erickson's quote opens a philosophical discussion about the nature of perception and comprehension. It prompts us to question whether understanding something requires the direct sensory engagement of our physical presence or if other mediating tools can achieve a similar level of comprehension.On one hand, Erickson's assertion aligns with a philosophical standpoint known as direct realism. This position argues that our perception and understanding of reality are dependent on our direct sensory experiences. According to this line of thought, the most accurate appreciation of a building (or anything else for that matter) can only come from firsthand observation, as it provides the unfiltered and immediate sensory input necessary for true comprehension.On the other hand, proponents of mediated realism argue that comprehension does not solely rely on direct interaction. They assert that our understanding of the world can be augmented and enhanced through various mediators such as photography, film, and other forms of representation. Through these mediums, we can still gain valuable insights into the essence of a building, albeit from a different perspective. Photographs and films, while unable to recreate the complete experience, can capture and highlight specific architectural features, details, or spatial relationships that might not be immediately apparent to the naked eye.This philosophical juxtaposition allows for a deeper exploration of the interplay between direct experience and mediation in the field of architecture. It highlights the potential benefits and limitations of using various media to transmit architectural knowledge and inspire others.In conclusion, Arthur Erickson's quote, "You have to see a building to comprehend it. Photographs cannot convey the experience, nor film," underscores the significance of direct observation in truly understanding a building. It emphasizes the limitations of photography and film as mediums of representation, while also sparking a philosophical discourse concerning the nature of perception and comprehension. This debate between direct realism and mediated realism prompts us to reflect on the various ways in which we engage with architecture, and how we can harness the power of different media to deepen our understanding and appreciation of the built environment.