Thread: In which photo does the house look better?

In which photo does the house look better / more interesting / more beautiful / more pleasant to you? Why?
(It's a house on one of the streets in StP).

1


2

Originally Posted by Оля

In which photo does the house look[s:2ao2tuzm]s[/s:2ao2tuzm] better / more interesting / more beautiful / more pleasant to you? Why?
(It's a house [s:2ao2tuzm]in[/s:2ao2tuzm] on one of the streets in StP).

1

This shows the house before it was painted. To me it is more interesting than the next photo. I try to imagine what the original colors looked like. To me it looks like the original trim above the windows was not white, but maybe a darker beige.
2

The house has been painted, but I don't like white trim, or the color combination. But that is probably just my opinion. Different people have different tastes.

Thank you, Ken! For corrections and for your opinion.

I'm really interested what others think. And I actually don't think that this is a question of "different tastes". There is... "something" here. Well, I'll write my opinion later.

I like the 2nd picture. It looks more tidy. Call me simple-minded
The first one sort of reminds me of the place I used to live, and it doesn't really bring nice memories, maybe that's why I don't like it. Additionally,I think the guy fixing his car (?) kind of ruins the atmoshpere as well.

The 1st one is more realistic, whereas the 2nd one - more idyllic, and calm and quiet, if you know what I mean.

#2 looks better / more beautiful / more pleasant

#1 looks more interesting..

Is this some type of psychological profile?

The first one's better, it has more character.

Originally Posted by Оля

I'm really interested what others think. And I actually don't think that this is a question of "different tastes". There is... "something" here. Well, I'll write my opinion later.

I think it is about tastes and personality...

I feel buildings speak to people just as anything does. A building has a story and sometimes that story is lost when people "fix it up." People react to buildings just like furniture or paintings. They either speak to them or they don't.

If I were a person looking for say a nice place to go on "holiday" (notice I am using the British term here and I want 2 points for that), and I wanted to have a true old style experience, then I would want to stay at house number 1, because that building has that "old world" style of, okay you will have to "rough it" here.

If I were more of an upscale person, then I would want to stay at house number 2 because it looks like it might not fall apart while I am there and that there may actually be heat.

Same goes for the type of house I might purchase. House number 1 looks like it might need more work; however, it also might have hidden treasures inside that you would not find in a more modern house and that might mean that if owners have updated the outside, they might have done too much to the inside and actually ruined it. I might find wonderful woods and tiles or tapestries (of course no plumbing that would work either).

On the other hand... If I want a no fuss house to purchase, I would look at picture two and think, Ah... they have taken care of this place and maybe they have upgraded the inside as well so there won't be too much work to do on the inside.

Last but not least I go back to... character.... Do I want a place with a history and battle scars? A place that speaks to me and tells me its secrets or one that has been covered up with make-up and can no longer speak to me about its past and is just a large piece of property that just was once something?


I hope I passed your test on this one.. because you know I already told Rtyom... I failed the test about life!

p.s. as an aside... I don't care for the large antennas, they really do distract from the house.

The question is a little bit doing something like "Wag the Dog" (The famous movie title). Two pictures are taken from different angles and different surroundings are incorporated. These differences are not too significant in geometrical sense but do a lot for meaning.

For the first house there are both important lines (facade center line and nearest corner) appear at the 1/3 from left and 1/3 from right correspondingly. It forces the viewer to think of the house as being the item of most attention in this photo. So people speak about this house as having history, individuality and treasures.

For the second house we see only the facade and now the viewer treats this house as a background of the photo. While there is nothing interesting in the front of the "background" house the photo appears to be "empty", i.e. no history and treasures.

In addition the day time lighting assures us that the treasures are only in the first house.

P.S. to kamka
the person in the first photo does not fix the car, he puts something in to the trunk.

I like better the first photo, of course.
This is a house which I've seen many times before, and I always liked it, and one day I took a picture of it. And now, I was walking in those places, I was approaching the house, and suddenly I saw it in its new state. I was really stunned because I felt like the house became bald... flat... glossy... and lost something. I was really upset.
And I completely agree with what ski-ops wrote: The first one's better, it has more character.

By the way, it's a postwar building of which there are a lot of in Saint Petersburg (in Moscow also, but less). Those houses were built by captive Germans.

Я всегда за первый снимок.
Первый - подлинный портрет. Я знаю, чем даже пахнет в этом доме - газом, котами и жаренной картошкой. Этот дом - чудной с бородищей белый-пребелый старик с таким лицом, что, увидав на улице, жалеешь, что не взял фотоаппарат.
Второй - манекен, Сергей Зверев от архитектуры. Дому сделали подтяжку лица и кое что подправили силиконом.
Дом о-без-образили. Это оно - пресловутое "лицо города", любимое нашими двумя градоначальниками.

Мне понравился только первый снимок.

Originally Posted by Leof

Первый - подлинный портрет. ...
Второй - манекен, Сергей Зверев от архитектуры. Дому сделали подтяжку лица и кое что подправили силиконом.
Дом о-без-образили.
...
Мне понравился только первый снимок.

Лёва, я в твоем мнении даже не сомневалась. Ты еще точнее выразил мои мысли. Про "подтяжку лица" я хотела и сама написать, но потом забыла.

Значит, мы оба не сомневались в моём мнении!

Leof!!! Your avatar!!!

First Rtyom, now you...It is not even spring and I see that people are changing them! Could Lt. Columbo be far behind?

I prefer the first one, but remember, that first picture wasn't the building's original look, it will have been re-painted many times since being built and each time after being painted would have look similar to the second picture. In a few years the building will look like the first one again.

О эти убогие старые домишки.

Вторая фотография явно лучше.

я за второй

Я тоже за второй.
История, не история, но дряхлость и гнилость не может привлекать. Что обезобразили - вы лучше скажите, в каком из двух домов вы бы предпочли жить, если бы не было другого выбора.
Это не памятник архитектуры, это не произведение искусства, это обыкновенный старый разваливающийся дом, которому дали вторую жизнь. И это хорошо. Если он простоит ещё лет 50, то и этот облик будет "обжит". Новое - оно всегда выглядит как манекен, если пользоваться лёвиными образами. Но люди его обживут и всё будет хорошо.

А запах гнилых перекрытий, клопов, кошек, бомжек и газа - не самое приятное, и не стоит того, чтобы это сохраняли. Старое всегда должно уступать место новому.

I don't see any pictures now but in time they were available the second picture looked better to live in. The first one looked too shabby.

Originally Posted by Ramil

вы лучше скажите, в каком из двух домов вы бы предпочли жить

Вообще-то это другой вопрос. Именно поэтому я сформулировала вопрос по-другому. Хотя я могу тебя уверить, что с точки зрения "в каком жить" после покраски мало что изменилось. Я там жила в одном из таких домов, нас тоже красили время от времени.

это обыкновенный старый разваливающийся дом, которому дали вторую жизнь.

Я тебя умоляю! Его просто ПОКРАСИЛИ, это обычная плановая покраска фасада, и ничего больше. Ты всерьез думаешь, что там внутри что-то изменилось? В этих домах не делают капремонт, они все под снос. Какие там 50 лет? Они стоят на золотом месте, рядом с метро, и ждут не дождутся, когда их выкупит какой-нибудь инвестор.

Старое всегда должно уступать место новому.

Вот не согласен я. Нужно уметь поновлять старое, чтобы оно не выглядело так вот. Уж лучше обветшалость, чем такой вот ремонт. Именно под таким лозунгом в Москве уничтожены тысячи памятников истории и архитектуры.
Старый манеж с ветхими балками, пахнущими махоркой, должен был сгореть и уступить место новому - удобному, с подземными помещениями.

В случае с этим домиком речь не идёт о пямятнике истории (хотя с этим можно не согласиться), по архитектурным качествам это дом превосходит всё, что строилось позже. Это дом, домик, с трубой, крышей, очень приятный на вид. То же, что строили при Хрущёве, при Брежневе, недостроили при горбачёве - это просто го*но. То, что строят сейчас - Атриум на Курской, например - это то самое новое, которому старое сейчас уступает своё место.

Однако, если смотреть с твоей точки зрения (жить ли не жить ли в этом доме), то с тобой согласилось бы большинство.