Critical Dimensions in Architectural Photography: Contributions to Architectural Knowledge

This paper illustrates and explores three critical dimensions of photography in architecture, each of which informs the production of images, texts, and other artifacts which establish what might be called a building’s media footprint. The paper’s broad goal is to question the extent to which these critical dimensions are relevant to architectural decision-making processes. Acknowledging that such dimensions as the ones examined here rarely predict an architect’s specific design decisions in a transparent manner, the paper discusses not only the decisions made by architects during the process of designing buildings, but the decisions made by critics, visitors, and members of the general public as they engage in activities such as visiting buildings, writing about them and, particularly, photographing them. First, the text discusses the potential of buildings to operate as mechanisms for producing images, in the sense originated by Beatriz Colomina. The question is developed through the analysis of the space of photography – mapping of points of view, directions of view, and fields of view of defined photographic collections. Secondly, it considers photography’s complicity in the canonization of buildings, and specifically, the extent to which photography is responsible for distinguishing between major and minor architectural works. Finally, the essay examines the erosion over time of photography’s historical power to frame when confronted with contemporary technologies of virtual reality and photo realistically rendered digital models. Each of these critical dimensions, or concepts, develops a specific aspect of how photographic information about buildings is organized, structured, and disseminated, and is thus only part of the larger project of architectural epistemology, which inquires into this wider field. This will be done through an examination of the Mies van der Rohe-designed Commons Building at ITT in Chicago and the evolution of its relationship with architectural photography and photographic representation – both on its own terms and through the prism of the Rem Koolhaas-designed McCormick Tribune Student Center, which adds to and incorporates the Commons Building. Until the end of the twentieth century, the Commons Building on the campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology was generally considered one of Mies van der Rohe’s lesser works. Reportedly neglected by its own architect during the design process, and frequently marginalized in academic discussions of the campus, when mentioned at all the building was often cited as an unrefined prototype of Crown Hall. This discourse took a new direction when in 1998, Rem Koolhaas/OMA won a design competition for a student center on the IIT campus: uniquely among the competition entries, Koolhaas’s design incorporated the Commons Building within a new context – what ultimately became the McCormick Tribune Campus Center (MTCC). When critics concluded that the incorporation of the Commons Building into the larger whole could compromise its integrity as an exemplar of Mies’s work, the building became the object of renewed interest and controversy. The two projects considered here show a clear evolution in architecture’s relationship with the photographic image. Specifically, the history of the Commons Building can be traced through photographs: during and shortly following its construction, the building was photographed as part of Mies’s own attention to publicity; it was documented as part of historical analyses; and over time it was visited and photographed by casual and amateur photographers. Following the competition results, photographs of the Commons Building were strategically deployed by both proponents and critics of Koolhaas’s design. Contemporary photographs of the building appear in architectural and campus guidebooks and on websites such as Flickr.com. Examining the ways in which photographs of the Commons Building appear in these various contexts allows discussion of the critical dimensions identified above and permits us to trace the evolution of the mutually reinforcing relationship between architecture and photography

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline