Adrià Goula: “With a good architectural photograph, you can simulate the values of a work”

As we have been defending on this blog and on our various social channels, architecture and photography are two disciplines that go hand in hand. One only needs to search Instagram hashtags like #architecture or #architecturebarcelona to see that the art of taking pictures can also serve to make an architectural work known. Both disciplines come together in the figure of Adrià Goula, an architect by training who, after a period of practicing his profession, shifted towards the field of photography, which has allowed him to complete more than 1,000 commissions for renowned architects and public and private institutions. Take for example the work he did at the Midtown Apartments.

According to your website, you are an architect and you gradually leaned towards photography as an experiment. How did that transition happen?

In the race you have to use various tools to make proposals, and photography is among the tools you employ. So I began to feel comfortable with this medium. I liked the speed at which projects materialized through photography, compared to the slowness of architecture.

Even though it was analog?

Yes, even though it was analog. Also, the fact that there weren't as many people or as much money involved, which meant I could be much freer. The problem with architecture is that you're solving things for people. I have great admiration for good architects because I know how difficult it is to do good architecture. Just getting to build something that can be called architecture is a considerable challenge that I think is currently quite underrated, compared to other careers or professions that have the same level of difficulty.

In photography, you also have a client who asks you, although the field of action is broader

Yes. And in fact, if you don't do it well, it's not a big deal. The responsibility is much less, so you can take more risks. The cost is also lower, so if it needs to be redone, you can afford it.

Did you ever take on any architecture projects?

Yes, yes. I built and worked in important offices. Here, with Enric Miralles and in France with Yves Lion.

Did the first commission arise there?

That's right. I had worked quite a bit in architecture here and thought I would dedicate myself to it. I even ended up having my own office with my partner, who was my significant other at the time. But with the crisis, we started to have fewer projects. We also separated as a couple, and then, I began this new life as a photographer.

But did you manage to photograph your projects?

The blacksmith's house has a wooden knife. [Laughter] I took pictures of a project, but you end up so weary of it that you can't even stand to look at it. In fact, I took the pictures of the project a few months later. Doing architectural work requires a tremendous effort both psychologically and physically. It even has something titanic about it. It's like moving aside all the things that prevent it from being what you think it should be.

How to go against the current?

Indeed, the world is organized according to natural laws of entropy, while to create architecture is to make a difference in this world. Therefore, by definition, it goes against the laws of everything. To generate order amidst this chaos is a battle won. Initially, you fought against the environment, but now you fight against regulations, budgets, and the outlandish ideas of clients.

Was that when you felt that photography gave you more?

To some extent, yes. The thing is that good architects are able to keep in mind everything that needs to be done while being creative at the same time. This is very difficult because usually just making things work is already quite challenging. Architecture is capable of making things fit together. It has different levels of complexity that need to be resolved one by one.

And the better you are, the more levels you have: how to solve the cost/efficiency relationship, the energy issue, the ecological part. A good work consists of many levels of complexity resolved in a way that they are all solved. Finding the fit for all this is only achieved through trial and error, which can only be accomplished with a lot of work.

What does a good architectural photo include?

For me, a good architectural photograph is one where the elements that organize the architectural space also organize the photograph. If there are symmetries, let them appear; if there are parallelisms, let them be seen. For me, it's a rather geometric approach, but one that manages to convey what's important about the architectural experience into a photograph. With it, you can simulate the values of that work.

Do you think that having studied architecture has helped you to better understand this photograph?

I still consider myself an architect. It's just that I design with photographs. There's an exhibition now in New York called “Image building”, which discusses how images construct architecture. The curator's reflection is that nowadays the project itself must not only show certain things but also know how to convey them. Thus, the photographer becomes integrated into the architectural project. People will know the project 90% through photography. What I like about my work is that I feel included in the creation. Being able to work with Flores & Prats, Mateo, or someone who has just started, but who has put their soul into a work and I go there to reflect it, makes me feel like the last step of what that is as architecture. In fact, you are dictating how the project should be viewed and what its important aspects are, obviously without eliminating the architectural experience.

We've seen that you're also working on video. From architect to photographer, from photographer to videographer..., how does this translate?

The topic of the video comes up at the moment when photo cameras allow for video recording. Previously, the approach to architecture was from the perspective of photojournalism. The moment cameras became capable of recording as well, it allowed us to use shift lenses and wide angles that do not distort in video. This means you can adapt the photographic view to a cinematic one. And in this regard, there is a lot of ground to cover. You can always invent something new, because there is no one who has invented it before.

But is the goal the experience?

I believe that technologies are always overlapping things; they don't replace the previous ones. The architectural experience is one thing, the photographic experience is another, and audiovisual communication is yet another. Audiovisual communication does not stem from the architectural fact, but from the fact of being consumed through the internet. The fact that people spend all day in the audiovisual realm allows one to present a two-minute capsule about a building.

What is the commercial translation of this?

I'll explain it by comparing it to another sector like fashion. You make an ad or photos or videos and that determines whether millions of t-shirts are sold. In architecture, this doesn't happen. The building is already finished, paid for, and it can't be moved. Therefore, it doesn't have a commercial interest, but a cultural one. Economically, there isn't a vein we can exploit. There are certain companies related to architecture that are starting to make videos. But it doesn't have the impact that it does in other fields.

They say that by 2020 video will occupy 80% of the space on the Internet

I believe it. One of the issues with architectural photography is that it has a relatively low ceiling. It's you taking pictures one day with a budget that can't be exorbitant. When you talk about video, you can do a lot more things. If the resources are available, very interesting things can be done.

What is your ideal photography project? Restoration, new constructions, urban landscape?

It doesn't depend on the project itself, but on the architectural quality. When you see that someone has put their life into it, it's very powerful to photograph it, because there's a world in itself. It's like seeing things through someone else's eyes. When you see bad architecture, what happens is that things don't match up. Parts of the building convey different messages. They're not talking about the same thing. On the other hand, when you see a good work, it's amazing to see how someone has managed to align everything. The shapes, the lights, the way you walk through it...

It's amazing that you can identify all these details

Of course, because all of this is experienced intuitively by those who are not experts. What the profession of an architect does is separate everything so that you can work on each of these aspects. It's like watching a movie and saying I liked it or I didn't like it. But then someone from the audiovisual industry comes and says, “let's see, there were things in the script that I liked.”

What do you think about the rehabilitation work being carried out in Barcelona?

Overall, I believe that rehabilitation in Barcelona has been a very significant phenomenon in recent years. Truly rebuilding the city from within is like the only thing that has been done during these years of crisis. In fact, there are many photography works about rehabilitation projects that have been very beautiful. It seemed like the city wasn't changing, but what it really did was renew itself from within. As a metaphor, it works quite well. From this, photographic works emerged that have been exhibited at the Venice Biennale. It is, in a way, the vindication of the poetic nature of the rehabilitation work. Because it really doesn't seem like it, but when you get down to work on a rehabilitation, it's like very dirty, you have to dismantle previous works.

What is more difficult, starting from scratch or rehabilitating?

It's always easier to start from scratch. Rehabilitation is like a kind of half demolition, like archaeology, and brutal scenes occur, interiors that look like exteriors, that look like constructed ruins. Very spectacular things have been done in this sense.

Do you think architecture should serve aesthetics or functionality?

The architectural work has different levels of complexity. I believe aesthetics can be defined as the visual form of the good resolution of all these levels. When you find something beautiful, it's because all the aspects involved in making that thing are well resolved. That is to say, aesthetics values the internal coherence in the resolution of all the issues that were involved in creating the object.

What are you working on right now? Will you be presenting any work for the upcoming architecture week?

I don't have anything planned. I have a lot of work and if things come up, I do them. I have a lot of professional work and I'm also starting to devote quite a bit of time to my personal projects.

As we have seen on your website, you don't just stop at the facade, but try to understand every element that is in the work.

The beauty of works of art is that they speak for themselves. There is an interest in appreciating complexity and imperfection. The beauty of the imperfect and the complex. Reality produces levels of complexity that are formalized in a series of elements containing this imperfection. We do not value this because it does not fit into our standards of abstract perfection, but I believe it is much closer to how we truly are.

Capturing that imperfection at an architectural level does not seem easy

No, and here lies my duality as an artist. By day I take photos of neat, perfect buildings with everything squared and aligned. And by night, I capture all this complexity and imperfection, trying to appreciate its value and see that it is actually very close to us. This perhaps more accurately defines our intimate personality, because the former may define our aspirations and dreams.