Finally what was the interesting point in your note ? seeing antennas
as a
symbol becoming invisible from some distance ?
i am quite unskilled and unschooled in photography
and mean to refer to the architectural statement that
'freedom tower' is, one, going to 'restore the skyline'
(that is, be visible), and two, in relation to the statue
of liberty, being a second 'symbolic' hand raised up.
these, i think it was to be considered iconographic.
my point being, visually, given the human eyesight,
it may be that the only solid massing of the building
(with the sloped roof) will 'read' visually from given
distances, in relation to the more ephemeral ways
of thin metal structures, which can disappear, even
if not to the eye, then to the photographic eye. this
would imply, at a certain distance, what may be a
massive solid structure could be photographed as
a solid building, while the other may not appear--
even if seen. thereby, the pure iconography has a
bit of complications as it may not read singularly.
that was my point, one may see a very low bldg,
at a certain distance, or at least, in photographs.
unless we are required to buy telephoto lenses
to capture the elusive specter stated as 'freedom.'
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send
mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To signoff, send
mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit archives:
http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html