Today we tend to think more critically about photography as an imitator of reality. We're more likely to see it as just another mode of representation, a "truth effect." We intuitively understand drawings as representations, but most of us learn about architecture through photographs, and it's easy to forget that they, too, are interpretive. As a librarian, scholar, and sketcher, visiting the sites of iconic photographs allows me to compare representations with subjective reality. Visiting Robert Venturi's "Mother's House" (1959-1965) was a chance to experience a much-photographed work that directly engages the notion of architecture as image and sign.

Published photographs of the Venturi facade are often juxtaposed with an oblique view of the rear, which of course complicates and contradicts the facade. Ironically, the complexity of the back makes it hard to illustrate frontally. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to draw it. The challenge would have been to communicate its volumes within the limits of a frontal view, making a joke of his joke. I like to think the architect would appreciate it.


Unlike most of the works we visited, in person I found the experience had a sort of photographic quality, as if I could only see it through the filter of published imagery. Perhaps this is because one tends to stand at photogenic vantage points, as if the building was designed for (or through) them. Living there might feel different, but as a guest I couldn't kick back in front of the fireplace.
In their works Venturi and Ruscha (as well as cultural studies theorists) ask, To what degree is subjectivity influenced by culture, specifically media culture? Am I me or mediated? The architect and artist most likely believe in mediated individuality. Kahn no doubt believed in pure subjectivity, especially as expressed through sketching, where "...the presence of our own individuality causes [things] to appear differently than it would to others."
Image (top): Rollin LaFrance. Robert Venturi. Vanna Venturi House (1959-1964).