<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>One of these things is not like the other, or, why all architectural photography is not alike. : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/balthazar-korab-rip/37649/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-22T13:21:17-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "One of these things is not like the other, or, why all architectural photography is not alike."]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[this is great, but instead of concentrating on the differences between korab and stoller, i would instead note the similarity in vision. they both favored the dramatic, frontal, sculptural, high contrast shot. i think you could throw bill hedrich and norman mcgrath into this school, and maybe also g.e. kidder smith. this was a masculine american style--compare their work to, say, binet or futigawa or herve --and though there are subtle differences, there is more that unites than divides. <br />
<br />
as for stoller, i would argue that he also showed twa and other buildings "in repose," to use your term, but this might be a matter of subjectivity.]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/balthazar-korab-rip/37649/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2013-01-22T13:21:17-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


