Posts Tagged 'Offices in art'

The joy of iPods

Is of course that they force you to organise your music now and then and dig out old favourites. Like The Blue Nile.

Tim Soar


Tim Soar is one of the best architectural photographers around. This is one of my favourites, taken from a series of portraits of architects at work, in this case husband and wife Buddy Haward and Catherine Burd who work together in their own practice. I like the sense of place and the relationship between the two people.

The ‘Designer’ Chair


I watched Zoolander (again) last night. A film made every time the Mugatu character eats up the scenery.

Of course, as a deskhead, I always look over the shoulders of the characters in a film to see what they are sitting on. Sad. Mugatu sits on an Arne Jacobsen Egg chair. It’s over 50 years old but screams DESIGNER, hence its place under his arse. It provides an easy shorthand, is widely recognised even by non-saddos, but its ubiquity and the fact it is easy to find rip-off versions means it can be cliched.



At first sight, Zeichensaal is a photograph of an office. In this case, the office of Richard Verhölzer, an architect from Munich who was important in the post war reconstruction of Germany. It takes a few seconds and close examination to realise it is in fact a photograph of a model of the office, carefully and painstakingly reconstructed by the artist Thomas Demand from an original image. I saw it at Tate Liverpool yesterday.

It’s method is very post-modern. Like the work of Gursky it uses a trick to distance itself from reality. Whereas Gursky uses the digital manipulation of images, Demand reconstructs a real place to twist the perception of the viewer.



This is Hopper at his best. Office in a Small City may have been painted in 1953 but his isolated and daydreaming worker is a timeless and universally understood character. The telling detail for me is the ornate false front to the utilitarian building and furniture.

I am I plus my surroundings


Occasionally the press will have a bit of a chew on some high(ish) concept such as asking what ‘the office of the future’ will look like or whether we must even face ‘the death of the office’.  Most of the better trade magazines steer well clear of taking this sort of stuff head on, figuring correctly that hardcore deskheads such as me have already had a bellyful of it.

Since I first tried banging on about this sort of thing in the mid 1990s, a period of time which saw a great deal of feverish speculation of this sort, an innocent world in which you still had to explain what you meant by ‘hot desking’ rather than sneer at it and before we all learned to spell Millennium properly, I’ve learned how naïve the debate can be. Whatever the business case, whatever the legislation, the demands of employees and whatever the potential of the technology, the workplace is valued far too much to be disposed of completely.

I’ve tended to frame my thoughts on this with reference to an idea from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy which states that the history of almost every major civilisation tends to pass through three distinct phases; those of survival, inquiry and sophistication. The first phase is characterized by the question ‘how can we eat?’, the second by the question ‘why do we eat?’ and the third by the question ‘where shall we have lunch?’

I think the comparison is clear. At the most basic level, owning an office is largely about survival. You need to have an office because you need somewhere to work. It doesn’t really matter that much what it’s like, so long as it doesn’t cost too much and it provides a basic level of comfort and a rudimentary sense of style. Maybe not what you’d consider style, but if we all enjoyed the same internal quality control systems we’d never have heard of James Blunt.

At the enquiry level, people question what they expect from their offices or even why they need an office at all. This question is not as prevalent as it once was, so the inquiry stage is nowadays largely about what to expect from the workplace.

Then, at the most sophisticated level, we have a group of buyers who know exactly what they expect, take it for granted, act on it, don’t mind paying for it if necessary and then just get on with the business of whatever it is that they do.

It would be nice to think that the office design and management industry in the UK would be square behind this design-led and added value proposition, that most firms would rather not get themselves embroiled in a long term price-fight that they can only end up losing to people with lower costs and a willingness to make things a little bit cheaper and a little bit worse than them. It would also be nice to think that every UK based firm would look to talk up the industry whenever it could, through magazines and events and exhibitions and all the other opportunities it has to communicate to its customers.

Now, of course, a large part of the sector that actively does this. But I still think there is too much negativity about, too many people sniping at their own contemporaries, at the media and events, at individuals. In so doing, they are damaging the industry upon which they rely. They are sawing off the branch upon which they themselves are sitting.

A too large part of the industry needs to be more positive and it needs to be more sophisticated in the messages it sends out. It needs to do this not least because buyers themselves are becoming more sophisticated. Customers may not necessarily know at which of Douglas Adams’ three stages they currently are with regard to their property, but they do at least understand at some level that you can always be better. And that includes the desire to work in better surroundings.

Edward Hopper


Like Gursky, Hopper is part of the great tradition in art that explores the relationship between people and their environment. Office at Night is one of my own favourites because, while it has an unmistakeable atmosphere, Hopper also raises questions for the viewer to ponder themselves. It invites us to write our own story about the people in the picture.

Gursky Part 3


The great Gursky himself has admitted he is not interested in the individual and nowhere is this more apparent than in May Day V. He’s been knocked recently, notably because he is seen as ‘out of touch in the post 9/11 world’ according to one critic. But the world didn’t change that much that day and the submersion and alienation of the individual is a persistent theme in American art.


gurskyshanghaiMy favourite architectural photgrapher is Andreas Gursky. He’s very much a man of our times in the way he documents the world and its people and places. His work is methodical, imposing and BIG.

August 2020

Desk Jockey