September 18, 2025 • 50 mins
When we consume architecture, which speaks louder - the frozen moment or the flowing narrative? This question sits at the heart of our fascinating conversation with Clare Chapman, editor of Home Magazine, and Simon Devitt, renowned architectural photographer.
Despite both guests being masters of still imagery, our discussion reveals how moving image is transforming architectural storytelling in ways that complement rather than replace traditional photography. As Simon eloquently explains, "Video kind of can mimic how the mind maps space, whereas stills can't really do that. But stills hold another power that video can't possibly entertain... allowing the viewer to use their imagination."
The conversation weaves through surprising revelations about how we consume architectural media today. While 6-second videos dominate social feeds, Home Magazine readers spend an astonishing 90 minutes with each issue. This paradox highlights our simultaneous hunger for both instant gratification and deep engagement with architectural stories.
We explore the power of client perspectives in architectural media, with both guests agreeing these authentic voices often communicate more powerfully than architects themselves. As Clare notes, hearing homeowners discuss their spaces creates "that emotional connection" that's difficult to achieve through professional commentary alone.
Perhaps most fascinating is the discussion around authenticity in an age of photorealistic renders. Simon observes that "we are starting to question is that real or is it not?" This has created new value for content that documents genuine, built work across multiple formats - something increasingly important as consumers become more sophisticated in their media consumption.
Whether you're an architect seeking better ways to communicate your designs, a media professional navigating changing platforms, or simply someone who appreciates thoughtful discussion about how we experience buildings, this episode offers valuable insights into the evolving language of architectural representation.
Subscribe to the Design Principles Pod for more conversations exploring the intersection of design, media, and technology in our built environment.
Please Like and Subscribe it really helps :)
Follow us on @designpriciplespod on Instagram and if you wish to contact us hit our DMs or our personal pages. We love to hear from you it really encourages us to keep going and the ideas and feedback we get from the listeners is awesome!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sam Brown (00:01):
Roll camera on limited release.
32, the Smith's NZIPA Challenge2025 People's Choice winner.
This bold blockbuster burstswith tropical white wine and
citrus notes, all playing outagainst a pale gold backdrop.
The finale A firm bitternessthat leaves you wanting a sequel
.
Try it now.
(00:23):
Welcome back to the DesignPrinciples Pod.
Today we're diving into theworld of moving image and
architecture yes, the cinematicside of how we share and
experience buildings To guide usthrough.
We've got two esteemed guestsClaire Chapman, editor of Home
Magazine and friend of thepodcast, Simon Devitt.
Check out our previous episodewith him.
If you haven't already.
You might be wondering why havewe two guests best known for
(00:46):
still media, here to talk aboutmoving images?
Well, that's kind of the point.
As architecture becomesincreasingly consumed through
screens, film and video arestepping up as powerful ways to
represent space, atmosphere andstory, and these two are well
entrenched in that change.
We'll explore why moving imageis growing in popularity, what
it can do that stills can't, andwhy there is still space for
(01:09):
the frozen frame.
Let's dive in.
We've got Simon Devitt backagain.
Welcome, Simon, Hello mate.
(01:30):
Welcome For your annualvisitation to the pod.
Lovely to have you here andexcited to have Claire Chapman
from Home Magazine on thepodcast as well.
Welcome.
Ben Sutherland (01:41):
Claire, I had to kick Gerard out.
Sam Brown (01:43):
Yeah, we've decided five was too much of a crowd.
So Gerard's, wepaper-scissors-rocked and he
lost that one.
Welcome Claire.
I had to kick Gerard out.
Yeah, we've decided five wastoo much of a crowd.
Ben Sutherland (01:46):
So, gerard's, we paper-scissors-rocked and he
lost that one, so yeah, yeah,he's actually gone to the eBoss
movie night.
Sam Brown (01:53):
So sort of topical, I guess, a little bit with what
the conversation is going to beabout today.
We thought we'd get you both on, simon, I think you and I were
sort of bouncing around ideas onthis at a shoot one day and
sort of talking about movingimage and architecture and the
role that it has to play and itsuse in portraying architecture
in a different manner.
Thinking about it before wejumped on the call, it's sort of
(02:15):
funny that we've probably gottwo people that are potentially
better known for still media onto have a chat, but then again,
I think you both are excellentproponents of the moving image
format as well just to clarifymoving image.
Ben Sutherland (02:28):
You're talking videos.
Sam Brown (02:30):
You're talking like render walkthroughs yeah, in my
head I'm thinking more completedproject stuff, just the way
that it sells architecture in adifferent manner, um, to the, to
the still image and claire.
I just jumped off looking at abunch of the shorts that you did
for the Home Awards and I thinksomething that struck me with
those is firstly, how brief theyare, but how much more of the
(02:54):
narrative they give to theproject that you wouldn't have
got otherwise, and it'd beinteresting just to get your
thoughts on that and what it waslike producing those for the
awards.
Clare Chapman (03:04):
Yeah, I think it's really interesting and they
are really short, you know,sometimes just six seconds.
But what you can portray in sixseconds with, you know,
short-form video like that isquite amazing.
And I think it's just, you know, focusing on those little
details and they become quiteimmersive just even in that
short amount of time.
So it's really interesting,sort of what you can do with
(03:26):
that format.
Sam Brown (03:28):
I found the one of Rafe's Kākāpōd Like.
I know the project relativelywell but you see it in such a
different light, particularly inthe way that he talks through
the project as well.
I think that's something thatis often missing with still
image and we can try and maybewrite it down, but I'd say most
of the time we as architectsaren't particularly good with
(03:51):
our words, so it's quite good totry and kind of like draw it
out of us in front of a cameraand I feel like somehow maybe
this is just self-consciousnesstalking, but it seems less wanky
when you're explaining it infront of the camera rather than
writing it down.
I don't know, is that somethingthat you guys sort?
Clare Chapman (04:09):
of feel.
I definitely think it's a morerelaxed way of doing it, isn't
it?
I mean not necessarily for theperson in front of the camera,
but you know you're in the spaceand you can just sort of talk
through it, rather than you knowit's not as composed and sort
of structured, I guess, as itwould be if you were trying to
write about it.
And, simon, do you reckon?
Sam Brown (04:28):
did you do, because I know you took the stills for
the bunker house that won Homeof the Year?
Did you do the moving image forthat one as well?
Simon Devitt (04:36):
No, paul does a lot of well almost all of the
Home magazine moving image,promotional, award stuff and
does a beautiful job and also areally lovely guy.
We work together a lot on shootsand typically I'd be a no to
having anyone else on a shootwith me, but Paul's great, so we
(04:56):
have a good time and he shot areally nice piece for Home
Magazine of the Bunker House.
I did also shoot my own videoand often well, not even often I
always shoot stills and video.
Now, even whether it's a partof the brief or not, for me it's
a part of being able tounderstand a project and I sort
of dip in and out of those twomindsets, those two sort of head
(05:20):
spaces of the still image andthe power of that kind of
narrative which is more in theambiguous and the kind of
meditative, more implication andnot explanation, and video sort
of tends toward moreexplanation and it sort of sits
with that fast-moving kind ofappetite we have for visuals
(05:42):
versus the still, which isperhaps more of the slow cooking
kind of tension and wonder kindof area in the visual realm.
I think.
Sam Brown (05:51):
I wonder if that sort of more easily digested or
maybe just more easilyaccessible aspect of video makes
it more palatable in a way, Ithink, for the general public.
You know a lot of people andwe've had clients come to us
being like we want a house thatcould one day be on the local
project.
You know that's an ambition forthem.
(06:13):
They never really talk aboutwith like a house that could be
in a magazine, like it's alwaysvideo related.
And I feel like a lot of peoplewhen they send us documentation
or you know, like a briefingdocument or something, it always
comes with a local projectattachment or a YouTube video
attachment or they've seen suchand such on Grand Design.
I think that the digestiblenature of video seems to
(06:37):
resonate more with the generalpublic.
Is that something that you guysreckon we have found?
Clare Chapman (06:41):
Definitely.
I think we find that with ouraudience.
It's just in some ways, and Ithink it's more palatable in a
way you know you can connectwith walking through a space or
you know understanding how itmight feel, or you know how
spaces connect, especially ifyou can't see that from one
image.
You can experience that frommoving through a house and it
(07:02):
just becomes, I guess, thatemotional connection through a
house and it just becomes, Iguess, that emotional connection
to a space.
Ben Sutherland (07:07):
I guess like storytelling must play a quite a
big role, especially in thevideo realm.
I know like obviously for you,simon, a lot of it is about
storytelling as well.
Perhaps slightly different how,yeah how, does the storytelling
kind of come into it and andshift between still and and
video?
Simon Devitt (07:27):
a lot of videographers who shoot stills,
or a lot of stills photographerswho shoot video.
They'll in my experience fromwhat I know anyway, um, is that
they'll separate out those daysso they won't be on the same day
, um, or it might be a half daystills and a half day video.
I really enjoy mixing andmatching between them on the
same day and I'll just sort oftake in a really well-heeled
(07:50):
brief.
And so for me, that creativeprocess starts with listening
first and foremost, and thenasking some well-aimed questions
and then taking that into thatsort of level of intention, if
you like, realized level ofintention, into the experiences
that I have on the day and it'ssort of on a good day and most
of them are pretty goodwandering around, making it up
(08:13):
as I go, which which, uh, is isa hell of a good time, and so,
yeah, I will change from onecamera to another and for me
that sort of they go hand inhand.
They can't.
For me they, they can't beapart stills and video.
I think it's by virtue ofcomparison that we know what
stills are versus what we knowthe experience of stills are and
(08:33):
what that offers.
Video kind of can mimic how themind maps space, whereas stills
can't really do that.
But stills hold another powerthat video can't possibly
entertain, the idea of which isthe idea of suggestion and
allowing the viewer to use theirimagination, where we hold that
(08:55):
threshold in a moment in timeforever, rather than crossing
over it.
So with video we can do onething, with stills we can do
another.
So I really love both.
Sam Brown (09:07):
Do you find it difficult, Simon, jumping
between the two, Like you said,on a shoot day you're saying
some people obviously separatethose days out.
It's almost akin to, I don'tknow, drawing with graphite in
the morning and then watercolorsin the afternoon.
You're painting a picture, butit's quite a different like
medium in a way that.
Do you find that transitionquite difficult or do you think
(09:28):
it's quite fluid in the way thatyou approach your work?
Simon Devitt (09:31):
really fluid.
Yeah, and there's no kind of umintended pacing or time spent
on one or the other, it's justwhatever feels right at the time
.
Um, I had a three-day shootrecently up at tar Eadie for
Olsen Kundig in a beautifulhouse they did up there and you
can imagine in three days you'veprobably covered everything
(09:54):
right, whether it's just stillsor a combination of video and
stills.
And this was definitely acombination of video and stills
and we had three incrediblybeautiful days with the weather,
an amazing project, some greatpeople around us to help make
sure everything went really wellOn that third day.
What I found really satisfyingwas that on the afternoon of
(10:16):
that third day, I was stillfinding things I never would
have shot on day one or two andI thought that was really
telling of that project and thatplace.
Sam Brown (10:24):
Was that a similar experience that you had going
back to, I assume, the videosfor the awards, kind of
referencing them because they'rethe most current thing and you
know that they're there and alot of people are probably
familiar with them?
But did you find that, goingback to those to shoot post, you
know, the awarding of theprizes did you find that you
sort of discovered more aboutthe project through that process
(10:46):
than you had beforehand?
Clare Chapman (10:48):
Absolutely Interesting and I think it's
sort of like Simon was sayingthen you know it's the time
spent at a place that reallyreveals itself.
And I think some of thoseprojects you know visiting on
different days and differentweather, and you know then
talking to the architects onsite, it all just slowly sort of
evolves and you realize allthese different elements sort of
(11:09):
come together and make it whatit is.
And I think that's always theway.
You know, the more you visitsomewhere, the more you kind of
uncover with it.
Ben Sutherland (11:18):
I like that idea of talking to the architect on
site.
So, like a lot of it,especially, I think, local
project are a pretty goodexample of you know, you get the
feeling that you're kind oflike walking through the project
with the overlay of adescription from the architect
or with the architect kind of asthough you're there.
(11:39):
Just having that overlay of theintention behind the spaces,
why they kind of designed itthat way or what they were
thinking or what it relates to,is really powerful.
And I mean, I'm obsessed with alot of those YouTube videos.
I can spend hours watching them, that's for sure.
Sam Brown (11:58):
What's interesting is I reckon that what's more
powerful than a lot of thosevideos is actually the client's
view or the client's reflectionon their own project.
Because I think we asarchitects can appreciate the
architecture People that sort ofwhere's architecture and IBM
than anybody else that sort ofinhabits that realm.
(12:19):
For prospective clients orpeople that are looking to kind
of understand a project better,I do reckon that the client's
opinion and views is equally aspowerful, if not more so.
I've just recently watched thatvideo is it Shepherd Hut that
Farron Hay did down in Wanaka?
And just the client's passionfor that project you can kind of
(12:40):
feel it just like resonate fromthem and I don't think you'd
get that necessarily from anarchitect.
Like we obviously love ourprojects, but they're one of
many, whereas for a clientoftentimes it's everything.
You know what I mean and I likethat really tangible feeling
that you get from the client'snarration of their own project.
Simon Devitt (12:59):
Yeah, palpable way , I think.
Sam Brown (13:00):
Yeah.
Simon Devitt (13:01):
That experience it can be and there are, you know,
different stories fromdifferent clients and some
speaking of that Pihar bunker.
That was a.
How long was that, claire?
Seven years, I think that,chris 14 actually, I think.
Was it 14 or?
Clare Chapman (13:15):
something.
Oh, my God.
Ben Sutherland (13:17):
That's a, that's a journey, all right.
Simon Devitt (13:26):
Journey journey.
You know they fired each otherat least once and the building,
and so some great stories comefrom these things.
And you know thinking of mytime sitting down with sirian
ethfield and and the stories hewas able to tell me about
different homeowners andprojects, let alone his own
house, the, the village on thehill hill here in wellington and
kala I mean the stories thatcame out of that that were ripe
(13:46):
to be told in my first bookPortrait of a House.
And so there's a hidden sectionwhere all the clients get to
speak and some of them even drewpictures.
So I think the client's view isunderrated and really important
.
Sam Brown (14:00):
That's something that's pretty hard Although,
Simon, you just painted a prettygood example of it coming
across in stills but it'ssomething that's quite hard to
get.
Is that client's view in astill image?
Oftentimes we're commissioningthe photographs for our own
promotional purposes and I thinkit's changing, but less so
(14:21):
video, but it's interesting inconversations.
Recently we went through abrand renewal and chatting to
the brand strategist and she waslike why don't you have more
client videos?
Why don't you have morefeedback?
Shorts can be 30 seconds ofsomebody being like this is the
process.
This was great, this is myhouse kind of thing.
That in itself is quite apowerful tool for helping you
(14:43):
grow.
You're only your business, butalso the architectural
understanding, I think.
Simon Devitt (14:48):
That's great advice.
I think one thing I talk aboutwhen I'm doing a workshop or
mentoring is that on our ownwebsites and our own Instagram
feeds, it's us talking about usthe whole time.
Here are my pictures, here aremy projects, here is me, me, me.
When do we not talk aboutourselves or when do we give
that space, or that, um, uh,that that channel the
(15:12):
opportunity to breathe a bitmore of someone else talking
about us, and I think that'swhere testimonial can come in
yeah um, and suddenly whensomeone talks about you instead
of you talking about yourself,it unlocks all of that other
stuff.
You did all of that other hardwork you did getting that
website off the ground and themoney you spent doing it.
Sam Brown (15:31):
I mean, that's your whole job, isn't it, claire?
To talk about other people in away.
Clare Chapman (15:35):
Yeah, to tell their story and I think just
having you know for us it's it's.
All these perspectives comeinto play with everything we do.
So it's it's interesting.
One of the um, one of the mostrecent videos we did was um of
Clive Barrington's house umChristchurch based architectural
(15:56):
builder, and it was reallyinteresting hearing the
architects.
That was Johnstone Callaghan,you know talking about.
You know their input and how itwas quite special because he
was sort of you know well, is inthe industry and was really
wanting some challenging designsand wanted to be challenged
with his own home and I thinkthat was a key part of the
(16:18):
narrative and how thearchitecture came to be.
Yeah, it was quite unique.
Actually, you don't often sortof hear that side of the story.
So, yeah, there's a lot yousort of learn, but I think in
situations like that it is wherewe can.
It's lovely to kind of hear theperspective from the homeowner
and the clients.
Sam Brown (16:37):
Yeah, I was going to ask is it something that you do
commonly?
Do you try to get as many kindof perspectives when you're
formulating your stories aspossible?
Is it oftentimes morearchitect-driven, or is it more
client-driven or what'sgenerally the approach?
Clare Chapman (16:52):
Generally it starts with the architect and
from there, you know, we willtry and get as many perspectives
as possible.
In most cases the clientsaren't that keen to chat, so it
makes that a little bitdifficult.
But we will get anecdotes and,you know, little bits of
feedback and whatnot.
So yeah, just depends on theclients.
Sam Brown (17:12):
I guess, when your key focus is the residential
sector, you know, people dooften maintain their privacy a
little bit.
Absolutely and fair enough andI almost wonder if that's a
little bit of a barrier to themoving image aspect of it.
I mean you can kind of hideemoticons through a still, so I
know we've been on shoots anddon't worry about what's in the
(17:32):
background kind of situation asyou move junk away or furniture
or something, but it's a lotharder to cultivate a space
cleanly or flawlessly for movingimage.
Is that something that whenyou're working on this?
Is it something that youconsider the privacy aspect and
also just like how fabricatedthe space in a way needs to be
(17:54):
to be able to undertake that?
Or is it any kind of choppingchange a little bit on the shop
floor?
Simon Devitt (18:00):
Typically Claire will be able to speak to this
really well.
As well as that, when, when Iturn up to a shoot, there's
already a lot that's happenedand, um, I don't know how they
lived before I turned up, butoften what from my understanding
, is that a lot has happenedbefore I got there.
Even the fridge is tidy on manyoccasions.
So people are house proud.
They've said yes.
(18:21):
It's usually for a very goodreason.
They don't just love thearchitect although they do love
the architect but they're reallyproud of what they've achieved
and they want to make sure thatit comes across on the best
light, and often that meansthings have been at least tidied
.
Often it can mean furniture'sbeen changed out.
Whole moving trucks sometimescome in and take whole house
loads away and another companywill come in and style the whole
(18:44):
thing.
So there are iterations, ofcourse, but generally quite a
bit has happened.
So when I turn up things arepretty mint.
There's not a whole lot for meto do or tidy away.
So, whether it's stills orvideo, there's a different set
of constraints to consider,different thoughts to have
around how you're moving througha space, but there's not, in my
(19:07):
experience at least, much tomove or change yeah, interesting
, do you find that the sameplayer?
Clare Chapman (19:15):
yeah, yeah, absolutely, and I mean, often we
do get involved in stylingbeforehand, so, but I think,
like, like Simon said, withstill and video it's the same
parameters we're working with.
So, yeah, not much differentthere, really.
Sam Brown (19:30):
I love that.
Yeah, subject of turning up andthat being ready to go, how
much prep do you put in?
Probably more so consideringthe moving image thing and the
storyboarding aspect of it.
Simon, I know quite often yourstill work.
You like turn up and see wherethe day takes you, you know, or
see where the light andsituation and weather or
(19:51):
whatever kind of directs you Do.
You need to be a little bitmore, I guess, structured when
you're considering.
Simon Devitt (19:57):
No, I think that there are longer moments with
more breath that sort of revealthemselves.
You know, I'll see somethingand I think that would really
suit or make a really greatshort clip.
And we are talking short clips,quite small moments, even
sometimes 10 seconds, butusually anywhere from sort of 30
to a minute, and then it mightbe edited down after that when
(20:18):
we start putting the storytogether afterwards.
But I've always got that sortof bigger picture in mind and
for me when I'm on a shoot,having that bigger picture in
mind for stills and for video,it's really, it's yeah, there's.
There's not a lot ofpreparation for me going into
those moments.
I see something, I'll imaginehow good that could be and then
(20:39):
I'll set about getting it.
Yeah, sort of a longer formstill, because often I've got a
locked off frame with a lot ofwhat I'm doing.
I'm not moving the camera, I'mnot panning and tilting.
If there's any movement, itmight be the drone video just
moving very subtly through aspace.
Otherwise, it's really a lot ofmoments where the architecture
animates the scene, not thecamera animating the scene,
(21:01):
which is my preference, and it'show those two things still in
videos sit together so well.
I think.
For me that makes that work.
Sam Brown (21:11):
Would that be a similar approach for you, claire
, or are you looking at it alittle bit more structured, as
you're kind of trying to weaveit into a story or help it
support a story Do?
Ben Sutherland (21:22):
you come up with a story first.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, that's it, which is whatI've recently done.
Sam Brown (21:26):
Do you come up with a story first and then go and
seek the image, or do you kindof take something that maybe
Simon's done or anotherphotographer or videographer
knows that as a driver for astory?
Clare Chapman (21:38):
I think if Simon's already shot the house,
we obviously have that set ofimages and that's a stunning
place to start with for video.
But when we turn up on the daywe're quite non-structured, you
know.
It's always turning up talkingto the architect or the designer
walking through, and then it'sfollowing the day and that goes
(21:59):
for getting the narration tooand sort of drawing that story
out.
We really like to do thatorganically, so we avoid sort of
sticking to a set of questionsor anything like that or sort of
developing the story beforehand, because what we find is the
more casual the chat, the morecandid it is and the more you
(22:19):
sort of can gain from that.
So it's a really organicprocess every time yeah, that's
really good to know.
Ben Sutherland (22:26):
Actually, I've recently just done one for
myself, a little bit differentthough.
These are like houses thatwe're selling, so you kind of
have to like talk about thearchitecture even though it
doesn't really exist yet, andyou're like overlaying it with
whatever images you have, whichare, you know, renders, and.
But I definitely went in oneday and I was like, yeah, sweet,
(22:46):
I'm just going to talk about it, and as though you know, I've
spent a lot of time designing it.
I know what it's all about, Iknow what's what man, I just
could not get anything out.
I literally had to go home andwrite a script and then practice
it a hundred times.
So it sounded somewhat natural,because it was a disaster.
(23:09):
I guess what I was trying to dois cram it all into one or two
hours.
But what you just said then isyou're spending a day and you're
just kind of like walkingaround and it's kind of like
you're drawing out of whetherit's your clients or the
architect.
So I think, yeah, that scenariosounds a lot more pleasant,
that's for sure.
Sam Brown (23:28):
It's interesting, Ben , because I reckon when we're
forced to talk about ourselvesby ourselves we find it really
hard.
But just like Claire was saying, if it's far more relaxed and
more candid, I think you get allthe juicy stuff right.
But when you're forced to thinkabout it, that definitely
disappears a little bit.
(23:48):
I've found anyway, you sort ofget a little bit too much in
your own head and then you get alittle bit too architected
about it.
Ben Sutherland (23:57):
Yeah, or you say one thing that's wrong through
a whole sentence, or that wholesentence is just wasted now
Because the last part's not eventrue.
I don't even know where thatcame from.
Sam Brown (24:11):
That's what editing's for yeah.
Simon Devitt (24:14):
Never let the truth get in the way of a good
story.
Sam Brown (24:15):
Yeah, exactly.
Simon Devitt (24:17):
We need to see some of those outtakes, can you
see?
Ben Sutherland (24:20):
You're just the bloopers, some bloopers in there
, that's for sure.
We've got a whole pile of those.
Yeah, that'd be fun actually,no, but it is definitely a good
experience and I think, likepost-construction, I think I'll
you know do something similaragain.
I think it's quite a powerfultool.
Sam Brown (24:41):
Tell the truth.
Yeah, I'll try.
Do you see that?
I mean like one thing I kind ofalluded to it with the website
side of things video, feelinglike it should be more prevalent
in our promotional stuff, like,do you, are you seeing that as
a key for your practice versusstill renders or anything?
Ben Sutherland (25:00):
Yeah, so we do a lot of marketing because you
know, we do, you know, becauseyou know, we do.
You know design and then selloff plans, so we have to present
our designs in a way that iscaptivating for an audience.
Um, and what we've definitelyfound recently is the video is
just 100 times more powerful.
(25:21):
Obviously, we can't get properphotography done, so it's like
you're weighing up betweenrenders and a video, whether it
is even just a renderedwalkthrough or what is working
even better is talking aboutyour project.
Firsthand does seem to be a lotbetter, and then cutting them
up into little reels and puttingthem out there, it seems to be
(25:41):
working a lot better.
Then, cutting them up intolittle reels and putting them
out there, it's, it's um, seemsto be working a lot better reels
, the favoured format, thatlittle 30 second 30 yeah, it is
for marketing for us anyway,because ultimately the goal is
to get people to the website, um, and so like that's just a
really easy way to do it, butcompletely different than I
(26:02):
guess, um, or maybe not toodissimilar well, I was just
thinking about, glenn, like yousaid, the videos.
Sam Brown (26:08):
That's just a really easy way to do it, but
completely different than Iguess, or maybe not too
dissimilar.
Well, I was just thinking about, glenn, like you said, the
videos that you did for theawards.
You know that.
What are they?
A minute to a minute and a halfmax, did you?
Was that short formatintentional Because you know
modern day attention spans are alot shorter, or would you have
liked it in a longer format?
What's your take on the lengthof, or the ideal length of video
(26:28):
?
You know, considering thatlocal project ones are about
what?
10 minutes or so, but then Ithink you can get just as much
information almost from like oneof your short minute 30 type
videos.
Clare Chapman (26:39):
Yeah, well, most of ours the cinematic ones
anyway are about three minutes,and that seems to be a really
good amount of time to sort ofcapture a whole property,
understand the narrative andreally be able to sort of
articulate that nicely Anyshorter.
It's a bit difficult.
Obviously there's always scopefor longer, but then, you know,
(26:59):
on different social platformsthe most successful, you know,
sort of short forms are reallysix to eight seconds.
That's all it is, and those arethe ones that will get the most
engagement over and over again.
It's just these brief momentsand that's what's capturing
people's attention.
Sam Brown (27:14):
Are you doing much storytelling in those brief
moments or is it more justmoving image of essentially what
would be a still, but it'smoving instead?
Or are you trying to capture alittle bit of narrative in that
sort of very brief?
Clare Chapman (27:27):
Yeah, both actually.
So we sort of do a mix.
So we will do ones wherethere's a bit more narrative and
they sort of are up to about 30seconds, and then the really
short form ones that you know,like an image will just capture
one small detail or one moment,and so it really depends on the
context.
But yeah, I do think it'sinteresting what sort of
resonates at the moment, and itis that very, very short form
(27:49):
video.
Sam Brown (27:51):
Yeah, it seems to be the way with most things the
attention spans are pretty short.
Yeah, it's interesting.
Have you considered, given themajority of this or you know,
magazine is print media, do yousee yourself operating in that
digital realm equally as much,given that kind of speaking of
(28:14):
attention spans?
Not many people sit down andread an entire magazine, as
you'll probably be well, whichis difficult, but, um, you know
they're beautiful things,difficult, but you know they're
beautiful things to have.
But you know, often the realityis, unless you're stuck on an
Air New Zealand plan, you don'thave a lot of time to digest the
whole thing.
Like, is that something thatyou're looking to investigate a
bit more or work a bit more inthat digital realm?
Clare Chapman (28:36):
Yeah, well, it's really interesting.
You say that we got somefascinating stats back recently
from Nielsen Media and theaverage time apparently people
spend reading home magazine is90 minutes.
I'm sort of quite taken abackby that.
It's awesome.
So I think it's.
Uh, you know it's yeah not meclearly.
no, not me either.
You know, but you know peopledo apparently.
(29:00):
Yeah, it was.
It was fascinating.
But I think, yeah, like you say, with home, it's print has been
the core offering for home fordecades, but now most of our
audience is online, so that isour main space now and print is
a key part of that and I thinkalways will be, but it's the
digital where we have most ofour readers and audience Did.
Simon Devitt (29:21):
Nielsen ask or tell you how long rather people
spend looking at the photos.
Clare Chapman (29:28):
They didn't specifically, but perhaps I
could ask Simon next time.
Simon Devitt (29:32):
Point of comparison, because the pictures
are so beautiful.
I find so often that it's notsurprising that they're not
reading Federico's beautifulwords.
Ben Sutherland (29:42):
Yeah, I always read through twice, Flick
through first and kind of justskim over everything.
Look at all the images first.
Look out for you, Simon.
Good on you.
Simon Devitt (29:53):
Ben.
Ben Sutherland (29:55):
And then I'll go back and I'll read the
interesting articles.
So I would say I'd be like agood you know, I'd spend a good
chunk of time reading through it.
Sam Brown (30:05):
It is a good point that, yeah, I'd do the same kind
of flick through untilsomething piques my interest,
and then you sort of circle backaround again.
Ben Sutherland (30:12):
Exactly, but so I do just going on to that 90
minutes.
So I definitely go back throughand read some of the articles
and when we're talking aboutkind of storytelling, they are
pretty in-depth.
You know, although it's kind ofperceived that you know, video
is especially in short form, istelling a good story?
(30:33):
Good, you know a bit more ofthe story perhaps, but those
articles are really telling thestory.
Are we kind of of at risk oflosing a little bit of that or
do you think that you know thelonger videos kind of make up
for that, or what does that partlook like?
Clare Chapman (30:49):
I kind of feel with it that you know, this is
all powerful in combination.
So video is great, it'sdefinitely engaging and that's
what's capturing people'sattention.
Then you've got still imagesand I think really they are
still the iconic representationsof architecture.
It's lasting and that's sort ofwhat people remember.
You know it's one image, orwith video, you know that
(31:11):
they'll remember the space oryou know what it was, one
element of it.
And then I think you knowyou've got those written
articles and all together that'sa really powerful marketing
package, you know, forarchitects and it's.
It is engaging, giving peoplethat choice.
You know, do they want to video?
Do they want to look at thesebeautiful images?
(31:32):
Do they want to read about it?
It's that's where you sort ofget that um, I guess the wider
picture, isn't it?
Ben Sutherland (31:39):
yeah and, as you're saying, they are doing
kind of two different things.
I'd probably watch a video once, but I would like to sit there
and open that book like 10 timesbefore the next issue comes out
.
Sam Brown (31:50):
In many ways, as you say, the photos are long form
for sure but it's interestingbecause with a video, if you see
something you like, what do doyou?
Do you pause it right, so youcan spend more time with the
still image I have literallynever paused a video.
Do you not?
I do not pause it.
Ben Sutherland (32:13):
I do it all the time.
Sam Brown (32:14):
I've never thought about pausing it If something's
really interesting, right, youkind of pause it and try and
understand it a little bit more.
Maybe that's just the designermentality, right.
You kind of know well, why isthat.
Ben Sutherland (32:24):
That's.
If you don't have, I woulddefinitely Google it and, like
you know, see what other workthey've done and that sort of
thing for sure, yeah, but if youdon't have stills on hand but
you force the stills uponyourself.
Sam Brown (32:33):
You know it's interesting.
You're saying that all thesethings work hand in hand,
because I think this circlesback to talking about the way
that potential clients digestthis sort of stuff.
I see video as being thatintroduction to a project a lot
of the times, that quickunderstanding of what it's about
, and if something interests youthen you go seeking that
(32:56):
further time with that projector with that piece of work,
whatever it may be, and thatcould be looking at stills, it
could be reading a magazinearticle.
It could be reading a magazinearticle, it could be reading
even a long-form essay about itor something Maybe like a tear
process with depths that youwant to go into a project video
at the top and written wordmaybe kind of not at the bottom.
That sounds negative but youknow, like sort of the deeper
(33:18):
you dive, the more nuanced itgets a little bit.
In a world where design speakslouder than words, what story
does your space tell?
At Autex Acoustics, theybelieve great design is more
than aesthetics.
Every product they createstrikes a perfect balance
between form, function andsustainability.
(33:39):
Made to enhance how spacesounds, looks and feels, from
using recycled materials topioneering carbon-negative wool,
their commitment is to help youshape environments that inspire
people and respect the planet.
Explore the future of acousticsdesign at autexacousticsconz.
Simon Devitt (34:00):
Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where in
the media, particularly whetherit's Instagram or Facebook or
YouTube, we are starting toquestion is that real or is it
not?
And so, because we have a well,my assumption, I'm 167, so
maybe a 21 year old might seethis differently, but I've got
quite an appetite for thingsthat are authentic, you know,
(34:23):
and that I know are real andwere crafted and worked on.
Blood, sweat and tears wereinvolved.
And so we're at a point nowwhere we question whether
something is authentic.
So, by virtue of that, I thinkwe've gotten to a point where we
have now a value decision tomake around what we're looking
at, and when we know somethingis real, then we're able to, I
(34:45):
think, spend our time with thatdifferently, make different set
of value decisions, spend ourtime with that differently, make
different set of valuedecisions around our experience
with that.
Stills and video could, couldand can easily be be doctored,
you know, and be made on a harddrive somewhere.
So, um, we have that sense atleast that something is real and
authentic.
I think we we do value itdifferently and I think that's
(35:06):
going to grow, or my, mysuspicion is, it'll grow.
Maybe the 21-year-olds don'twant that or don't care about
that, I'm not sure, but mysuspicion is that they do.
Sam Brown (35:15):
I think that depth of reality kind of comes from like
we've talked about those layersof project presentation stills,
video and written.
It's quite hard, I feel like itwould be very hard to
manufacture a project with allof those things, with all those
things having any quality tothem.
If you know just video, fine,you can fabricate that, just
(35:36):
stills, renders, you know dime adozen these days, but then
having but then written word andall those things allowed on top
of each other.
I think that's where you knowthat reality really comes in.
21, 21-year-old Simon, youmentioned TikTok generation.
Do you think that?
Do you see there being more ofa focus towards digesting and
(35:58):
like moving image over anythingelse?
Or do you I mean like, clearly,90 Minutes on Home Magazine
kind of proves otherwise, whichis awesome, yeah, but do you see
a shifting momentum towards thevideo aspect over anything else
at the moment?
Simon Devitt (36:15):
I can think back to when I spent 10 years
lecturing at uni, sitting down,talking, discussing making work
with 23rd-year architecturestudents, and they deeply care
about getting revenge on pixels.
They love making like in thestudios.
They're making models.
There's pva on their hands andstanley knives everywhere and we
(36:39):
were, you know, in my studio.
We were making a photo bookslike we were absolutely physical
photo books.
Physical photo books, physicalphoto books, and that involved
making book dummies and printingphotos.
We had disposable cameras, wewere at it.
Our sort of pixel footprint, ifyou like, was being heavily
(36:59):
weighed in on.
And yes to the pixels, likegreat Instagram's telling us to
absorb a lot of information, alot of influence, very quickly
through video, and they'redeciding how we do view that by
setting up stories and reels andthings like that.
I think wonderful, like to apoint, but if that's all we have
, I think there's a problem.
I think if we have that and wecan usefully compare not
(37:23):
destructively compare what fastis by knowing what slow is, and
I think slow is in the studio,it's crafting, it's making and
it's, for me, getting revenge onthe pixels.
Sam Brown (37:35):
Yeah, there's sort of a sense of impermanence, I feel
, with video to a degree.
There's something that's reallytangible and long-lasting with
something physical like amagazine, a book.
So we have architecture booksin the studio, biden books, 20th
century.
You know that massive 20thcentury architecture, one that
was produced in 2010 orsomething.
(37:57):
It's wildly out of date now,but it's a beautiful look at and
it's just as inspirational, youknow.
But I can't see a lot of peoplethese days purchasing books
like they used to to digest, orpurchasing magazines like they
used to digest architecture, butI actually think it's the most
purest way of doing it.
It just seems a shame that,like you said, instagram's sort
(38:19):
of starting to structure the waywe view things.
Ben Sutherland (38:26):
I often watch a lot of those little, you know,
short clips, um, mainly onyoutube, but I guess instagram
as well.
One thing I wish there was moreof and I'm sure they are out
there, but it's actually likehard to kind of dig them out is
actually more long form videos,claire.
Have you guys ever thoughtabout doing something like a
(38:47):
little bit longer?
I would say even the localproject is quite short.
You do get through one building, but without getting into a
documentary is short the way togo, or is that just kind of like
the start?
And then is there like spacefor long form as well, to kind
of really dive into the story?
Clare Chapman (39:09):
And is there space for long form as well, to
kind of really dive into thestory?
I think definitely there isspace for longer form.
But I mean for us, you know, asa media outlet, I guess it's
volume.
So you know, we are dealingwith so many different projects
and actually creating space foreach of them.
It's a whole nother proposition, I think, to create much longer
form video and whether there ismore value in that potentially.
(39:31):
But I think, you know, thatsort of shorter length gives us
the leeway to tell the story ofa project, I think, in enough
detail so it's palatable andunderstandable and relatable,
without sort of, you know,investing into more of that
documentary length.
Sam Brown (39:49):
There's sort of nothing between that sort of 10
to 15-minute project expose andfeature-length documentary which
, a lot of the time, is moreabout the architect or the
designer themselves than aspecific building, except for
something like Grand Designs.
Right, but that's so focused ondrama.
Ben Sutherland (40:08):
I guess you're right.
Yeah, that is an example,though, isn't it?
Sam Brown (40:11):
It is an example, for sure, but I think it's not a
great example of portraying aproject like the realities of
the project.
In a way it's dramatized right.
So it would be interesting ifsomething was to kind of fall
into that hour-long, maybe45-minute to hour-long space,
whereas a little bit more indepth you almost think that
(40:32):
maybe for a single building it'stoo much time to tell the story
Just maybe you know, if you'relooking at it from the whole
process, right from thebeginning.
Clare Chapman (40:40):
You know before it's out of the ground and
through construction.
I think there's so much scope.
It just depends where you wantto go with it, doesn't it?
Sam Brown (40:48):
It's a lot of narrative for an architect to do
, though, yeah.
That would be a process initself Probably need quite a bit
of storyboarding.
Clare Chapman (40:58):
Yeah, couldn't go with the flow on that one, I
don't think.
Sam Brown (41:01):
Otherwise it would be just really.
Simon Devitt (41:13):
I was going to say otherwise.
It would just be really juicycontent.
But now we're just back togrand designs again, aren't we?
It's really entertainment,isn't it?
And so it depends on on theintention and our kind of
reality tv states of mind reallyare looking for tv like that,
or entertainment like that, oror seven or eight minute videos
and not, you know, 25 minutevideos.
Um, some of the tv shows of thepast david mitchell's tv show
back in the 80s was was aboutsingle projects, and that was
the appetite for then.
(41:33):
It's not the appetite for nowbecause our intention is
different, the way we're sellingor what we're selling is
different.
Sam Brown (41:38):
So I think, yeah, it's a lot about intention we
come up with, like a reality tv,like love island, love for
architects, or something asyou're trying, trying, trying to
.
You're trying to find the rightclient for a building that
you've designed.
Simon Devitt (41:53):
You'd be great on love building.
Sam Brown (41:55):
Just love building, just really lean into it.
Ben Sutherland (41:59):
So, yeah, you buy some architecturally
designed homes that have come upon Trade Me and try and sell
them to the general public.
Sam Brown (42:06):
Yeah, yeah I don't know man, it's a format worth
exploring.
I don't know man it's.
It's a format worth exploring,I don't know.
I think it's hilarious popularcontent.
That's yeah, yeah, reality tv,but based around architecture,
just helps bring us more to thefore that would be funny do you
see yourself doing any doingmore um more video stuff or just
(42:27):
sort of sticking?
Ben Sutherland (42:28):
with it More TikTok.
Sam Brown (42:29):
Yeah, more TikTok or dancing in front of your videos,
but do you see yourself liketrending more in that direction
or is it still a balance, or isit still more, still focused?
Following on from that questionto Claire about do you see
things moving more in the videodirection or not, I'm trying to
get a handle on where the peoplethat provide this content for
(42:50):
us, yourselves, where your heads, are at with it all, because I
see videos starting to start todominate no, I think there's.
Simon Devitt (42:56):
There's, from my perspective.
There's a desire for both,still, some video.
The camera manufacturers andtheir technicians sort of
marketing departments put all ofthose features on one beautiful
, relatively inexpensive camera,so it's all available to us.
So the expectation is thatphotographers or videographers
can now do both and show up andoffer both, and so it looks like
(43:18):
video and stills are cousins,but in my experience they're
more like very, very distantrelatives.
They're two very, verydifferent things and should be
treated carefully and treated assuch.
So for me I'm very mindful thatthey are very different.
I avoided shooting video forquite a long time for the simple
reason that I didn't feel likeI needed to or wanted to.
(43:40):
But I got to a point where Ifelt like I could have those two
things sit well together andwork with each other, not
against each other.
Sam Brown (43:50):
And did the demand start to come a little bit more
from ourselves whencommissioning work from you as
well?
Simon Devitt (43:57):
It started more with me making speculative video
clips and shoots and I rememberthe actual first thing I did
was at Pete Bosley's WaterfallBay House in the Marlborough
Sounds Michael Saracen's place,and it was a pretty intimidating
place to turn up to.
Michael Saracen, who's who'sshot more um academy
(44:19):
award-winning films than youcould throw a sledgehammer at,
and um uh, an incrediblyarticulate, very passionate,
incredible cook and greatcompany who makes sure your wine
glass is full as well.
So it was a very interestingweekend.
We had a power cut, we had astorm, we had sunshine and I was
able to make the video that Iwanted to make, then recorded
(44:41):
Pete talking about the house asa voiceover to accompany the
video.
So that was my first experienceand something that I had
imagined making and set out tomake and made it.
Looking back on it, I don'tthink it's that great.
It's good.
It's got all the intention andall the ingredients that I think
(45:02):
make it interesting.
Would I do it differently now?
Of course I would, but as afirst attempt at video with some
interesting audio and a verysmall kind of I think, six or
seven-minute clip, it's good.
I like it.
Sam Brown (45:18):
Was Pete?
Given that you kind ofinstigated that, what was Pete's
response as the architect?
Was he like oh, this issomething new for us to digest.
Was he sort of a different?
Was it excitement, somethingthat he'd like to do more?
Simon Devitt (45:31):
I think he really enjoyed it.
At the time we recorded theaudio off-site.
We weren't even there together.
I was there for Condé Nastdoing a shoot for their magazine
and went to other propertiesaround New Zealand for that same
feature, so I had anotherreason to be there.
But I had plenty of time up mysleeve and the local New Zealand
Canon rep was trying to sell mesome very expensive video gear.
(45:55):
So he was there helping me andI made sure I had everything I
needed, which was good, good fun.
Sam Brown (46:00):
Nice and Claire, are you finding that there's more?
Do you demand, I guess, indoing features for projects?
Is there an expectation fromyou that video accompanies the
imagery, or do you?
Are you finding that architectsare sending that to you more
regularly, given that we're sortof the ones trying to get
stories?
Or, from our perspective, Ifeel like we're seeing more, a
(46:22):
lot more power in video than weused to, and I'm just wondering
if there's the appetite for itfrom the publishing side.
Clare Chapman (46:28):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I'm not sure aboutothers, but our thing has.
I guess our ethos now is to tryand film everything that we
cover.
So we've sort of been buildingup to that and we're getting
quite close to achieving thatnow.
So what we want to do is, youknow, for every feature, we've
got the beautiful stills, we'vegot the story and the video, and
often short is, you know, forevery feature, we've got the
beautiful stills, we've got thestory, um, and the video, and
(46:50):
often short, you know very shortclips as well.
So it just allows us to reallymarket each project and and get
it to every different audiencein the way that they want it, um
, and so we, we create all ourvideo ourselves, rather than
I've never had an architect sendsend us a video.
So it's's something that wesort of do.
Ben Sutherland (47:10):
And is that for every, do you kind of target
most platforms as well, now asin, like you know, instagram and
YouTube and whatnot?
Clare Chapman (47:19):
Yeah, yeah, all of them, Apart from TikTok,
which is our sort of growingchild that we're working on.
But apart from that, yeah,we're across everything, and
video is on everything too.
Ben Sutherland (47:32):
And just out of curiosity, are there some
platforms that do better thanothers?
Clare Chapman (47:36):
Yeah, I mean, I think they're all different,
aren't they?
So obviously you know YouTubewith their short speech and that
sort of content on there.
It's a different, you know, wewill sort of create different
content for different channels.
So what will work on YouTubeand pique the interest of that
audience will be different towhat works on Instagram or on
the website.
(47:56):
So it's just sort ofunderstanding, I guess, what
works for each channel and whothe audiences are.
Sam Brown (48:04):
Before we kind of go, do you guys have any final
thoughts, statements on the roleof video or moving image or
where it might be going, or justanything in that ilk?
Clare Chapman (48:14):
I think, obviously, you know, video is
huge and it'll be a big part ofour future, especially, you know
, as all these channels evolveand I think that mix of sort of
short form and cinematic and howthey complement still imagery,
just yeah, it's the way of thefuture, isn't it?
It's something we're allworking towards.
Simon Devitt (48:38):
Yeah, I think to pick up where Claire left off.
There.
I feel, even after 30 years ofpointing a camera at
architecture and the world andwhat we're all up to and how
that all looks, I genuinely feellike I'm just getting started
and video is sort of a latecomerinto that picture for me.
It's only really in the lastmaybe 12 years that I've really
(48:59):
taken that seriously and that'sbeen a slow trajectory.
For me it hasn't been awholesale all-in decision.
I've sort of just really put myfeet in the water initially,
but I'm really enjoying theresults I'm getting from it.
I enjoy collaborating withpeople and video is definitely
potentially more collaborativethan stills.
(49:20):
But together, I think, is how Ilike it.
I like to shoot both and I liketo shoot both on the same day
and my clients seem to love that.
Sam Brown (49:30):
We've had stills forever and we've digested
stills forever and they've beensuch a strong precedent and
informer, I guess, for any of usreally along our design
journeys, whether you're anarchitect or an artist or
whatever really a photographer,magazine editor, I'd say that
we've all been pretty influencedby the still image.
But I think that the movingimage has started to have a bit
(49:52):
more of an impact, you know,ever since the inception of
YouTube really, and it continuesto grow, I think, and I know we
see that in demands of theindustry.
So I think it's something tocertainly be aware of.
If you are commissioning workor looking to publish your work
(50:13):
or looking to get your work outthere, it's moving images
probably Something to considerpretty strongly I'd say Thank
you both for coming on today.
Ben Sutherland (50:21):
Thanks for having me.
It's always a pleasure.
It's always a pleasure, it'salways a pleasure.
Roll camera on limited release.
32, the Smith's NZIPA Challenge2025 People's Choice winner.
This bold blockbuster burstswith tropical white wine and
citrus notes, all playing outagainst a pale gold backdrop.
The finale A firm bitternessthat leaves you wanting a sequel
.
Try it now.
(00:23):
Welcome back to the DesignPrinciples Pod.
Today we're diving into theworld of moving image and
architecture yes, the cinematicside of how we share and
experience buildings To guide usthrough.
We've got two esteemed guestsClaire Chapman, editor of Home
Magazine and friend of thepodcast, Simon Devitt.
Check out our previous episodewith him.
If you haven't already.
You might be wondering why havewe two guests best known for
(00:46):
still media, here to talk aboutmoving images?
Well, that's kind of the point.
As architecture becomesincreasingly consumed through
screens, film and video arestepping up as powerful ways to
represent space, atmosphere andstory, and these two are well
entrenched in that change.
We'll explore why moving imageis growing in popularity, what
it can do that stills can't, andwhy there is still space for
(01:09):
the frozen frame.
Let's dive in.
We've got Simon Devitt backagain.
Welcome, Simon, Hello mate.
(01:30):
Welcome For your annualvisitation to the pod.
Lovely to have you here andexcited to have Claire Chapman
from Home Magazine on thepodcast as well.
Welcome.
Ben Sutherland (01:41):
Claire, I had to kick Gerard out.
Sam Brown (01:43):
Yeah, we've decided five was too much of a crowd.
So Gerard's, wepaper-scissors-rocked and he
lost that one.
Welcome Claire.
I had to kick Gerard out.
Yeah, we've decided five wastoo much of a crowd.
Ben Sutherland (01:46):
So, gerard's, we paper-scissors-rocked and he
lost that one, so yeah, yeah,he's actually gone to the eBoss
movie night.
Sam Brown (01:53):
So sort of topical, I guess, a little bit with what
the conversation is going to beabout today.
We thought we'd get you both on, simon, I think you and I were
sort of bouncing around ideas onthis at a shoot one day and
sort of talking about movingimage and architecture and the
role that it has to play and itsuse in portraying architecture
in a different manner.
Thinking about it before wejumped on the call, it's sort of
(02:15):
funny that we've probably gottwo people that are potentially
better known for still media onto have a chat, but then again,
I think you both are excellentproponents of the moving image
format as well just to clarifymoving image.
Ben Sutherland (02:28):
You're talking videos.
Sam Brown (02:30):
You're talking like render walkthroughs yeah, in my
head I'm thinking more completedproject stuff, just the way
that it sells architecture in adifferent manner, um, to the, to
the still image and claire.
I just jumped off looking at abunch of the shorts that you did
for the Home Awards and I thinksomething that struck me with
those is firstly, how brief theyare, but how much more of the
(02:54):
narrative they give to theproject that you wouldn't have
got otherwise, and it'd beinteresting just to get your
thoughts on that and what it waslike producing those for the
awards.
Clare Chapman (03:04):
Yeah, I think it's really interesting and they
are really short, you know,sometimes just six seconds.
But what you can portray in sixseconds with, you know,
short-form video like that isquite amazing.
And I think it's just, you know, focusing on those little
details and they become quiteimmersive just even in that
short amount of time.
So it's really interesting,sort of what you can do with
(03:26):
that format.
Sam Brown (03:28):
I found the one of Rafe's Kākāpōd Like.
I know the project relativelywell but you see it in such a
different light, particularly inthe way that he talks through
the project as well.
I think that's something thatis often missing with still
image and we can try and maybewrite it down, but I'd say most
of the time we as architectsaren't particularly good with
(03:51):
our words, so it's quite good totry and kind of like draw it
out of us in front of a cameraand I feel like somehow maybe
this is just self-consciousnesstalking, but it seems less wanky
when you're explaining it infront of the camera rather than
writing it down.
I don't know, is that somethingthat you guys sort?
Clare Chapman (04:09):
of feel.
I definitely think it's a morerelaxed way of doing it, isn't
it?
I mean not necessarily for theperson in front of the camera,
but you know you're in the spaceand you can just sort of talk
through it, rather than you knowit's not as composed and sort
of structured, I guess, as itwould be if you were trying to
write about it.
And, simon, do you reckon?
Sam Brown (04:28):
did you do, because I know you took the stills for
the bunker house that won Homeof the Year?
Did you do the moving image forthat one as well?
Simon Devitt (04:36):
No, paul does a lot of well almost all of the
Home magazine moving image,promotional, award stuff and
does a beautiful job and also areally lovely guy.
We work together a lot on shootsand typically I'd be a no to
having anyone else on a shootwith me, but Paul's great, so we
(04:56):
have a good time and he shot areally nice piece for Home
Magazine of the Bunker House.
I did also shoot my own videoand often well, not even often I
always shoot stills and video.
Now, even whether it's a partof the brief or not, for me it's
a part of being able tounderstand a project and I sort
of dip in and out of those twomindsets, those two sort of head
(05:20):
spaces of the still image andthe power of that kind of
narrative which is more in theambiguous and the kind of
meditative, more implication andnot explanation, and video sort
of tends toward moreexplanation and it sort of sits
with that fast-moving kind ofappetite we have for visuals
(05:42):
versus the still, which isperhaps more of the slow cooking
kind of tension and wonder kindof area in the visual realm.
I think.
Sam Brown (05:51):
I wonder if that sort of more easily digested or
maybe just more easilyaccessible aspect of video makes
it more palatable in a way, Ithink, for the general public.
You know a lot of people andwe've had clients come to us
being like we want a house thatcould one day be on the local
project.
You know that's an ambition forthem.
(06:13):
They never really talk aboutwith like a house that could be
in a magazine, like it's alwaysvideo related.
And I feel like a lot of peoplewhen they send us documentation
or you know, like a briefingdocument or something, it always
comes with a local projectattachment or a YouTube video
attachment or they've seen suchand such on Grand Design.
I think that the digestiblenature of video seems to
(06:37):
resonate more with the generalpublic.
Is that something that you guysreckon we have found?
Clare Chapman (06:41):
Definitely.
I think we find that with ouraudience.
It's just in some ways, and Ithink it's more palatable in a
way you know you can connectwith walking through a space or
you know understanding how itmight feel, or you know how
spaces connect, especially ifyou can't see that from one
image.
You can experience that frommoving through a house and it
(07:02):
just becomes, I guess, thatemotional connection through a
house and it just becomes, Iguess, that emotional connection
to a space.
Ben Sutherland (07:07):
I guess like storytelling must play a quite a
big role, especially in thevideo realm.
I know like obviously for you,simon, a lot of it is about
storytelling as well.
Perhaps slightly different how,yeah how, does the storytelling
kind of come into it and andshift between still and and
video?
Simon Devitt (07:27):
a lot of videographers who shoot stills,
or a lot of stills photographerswho shoot video.
They'll in my experience fromwhat I know anyway, um, is that
they'll separate out those daysso they won't be on the same day
, um, or it might be a half daystills and a half day video.
I really enjoy mixing andmatching between them on the
same day and I'll just sort oftake in a really well-heeled
(07:50):
brief.
And so for me, that creativeprocess starts with listening
first and foremost, and thenasking some well-aimed questions
and then taking that into thatsort of level of intention, if
you like, realized level ofintention, into the experiences
that I have on the day and it'ssort of on a good day and most
of them are pretty goodwandering around, making it up
(08:13):
as I go, which which, uh, is isa hell of a good time, and so,
yeah, I will change from onecamera to another and for me
that sort of they go hand inhand.
They can't.
For me they, they can't beapart stills and video.
I think it's by virtue ofcomparison that we know what
stills are versus what we knowthe experience of stills are and
(08:33):
what that offers.
Video kind of can mimic how themind maps space, whereas stills
can't really do that.
But stills hold another powerthat video can't possibly
entertain, the idea of which isthe idea of suggestion and
allowing the viewer to use theirimagination, where we hold that
(08:55):
threshold in a moment in timeforever, rather than crossing
over it.
So with video we can do onething, with stills we can do
another.
So I really love both.
Sam Brown (09:07):
Do you find it difficult, Simon, jumping
between the two, Like you said,on a shoot day you're saying
some people obviously separatethose days out.
It's almost akin to, I don'tknow, drawing with graphite in
the morning and then watercolorsin the afternoon.
You're painting a picture, butit's quite a different like
medium in a way that.
Do you find that transitionquite difficult or do you think
(09:28):
it's quite fluid in the way thatyou approach your work?
Simon Devitt (09:31):
really fluid.
Yeah, and there's no kind of umintended pacing or time spent
on one or the other, it's justwhatever feels right at the time
.
Um, I had a three-day shootrecently up at tar Eadie for
Olsen Kundig in a beautifulhouse they did up there and you
can imagine in three days you'veprobably covered everything
(09:54):
right, whether it's just stillsor a combination of video and
stills.
And this was definitely acombination of video and stills
and we had three incrediblybeautiful days with the weather,
an amazing project, some greatpeople around us to help make
sure everything went really wellOn that third day.
What I found really satisfyingwas that on the afternoon of
(10:16):
that third day, I was stillfinding things I never would
have shot on day one or two andI thought that was really
telling of that project and thatplace.
Sam Brown (10:24):
Was that a similar experience that you had going
back to, I assume, the videosfor the awards, kind of
referencing them because they'rethe most current thing and you
know that they're there and alot of people are probably
familiar with them?
But did you find that, goingback to those to shoot post, you
know, the awarding of theprizes did you find that you
sort of discovered more aboutthe project through that process
(10:46):
than you had beforehand?
Clare Chapman (10:48):
Absolutely Interesting and I think it's
sort of like Simon was sayingthen you know it's the time
spent at a place that reallyreveals itself.
And I think some of thoseprojects you know visiting on
different days and differentweather, and you know then
talking to the architects onsite, it all just slowly sort of
evolves and you realize allthese different elements sort of
(11:09):
come together and make it whatit is.
And I think that's always theway.
You know, the more you visitsomewhere, the more you kind of
uncover with it.
Ben Sutherland (11:18):
I like that idea of talking to the architect on
site.
So, like a lot of it,especially, I think, local
project are a pretty goodexample of you know, you get the
feeling that you're kind oflike walking through the project
with the overlay of adescription from the architect
or with the architect kind of asthough you're there.
(11:39):
Just having that overlay of theintention behind the spaces,
why they kind of designed itthat way or what they were
thinking or what it relates to,is really powerful.
And I mean, I'm obsessed with alot of those YouTube videos.
I can spend hours watching them, that's for sure.
Sam Brown (11:58):
What's interesting is I reckon that what's more
powerful than a lot of thosevideos is actually the client's
view or the client's reflectionon their own project.
Because I think we asarchitects can appreciate the
architecture People that sort ofwhere's architecture and IBM
than anybody else that sort ofinhabits that realm.
(12:19):
For prospective clients orpeople that are looking to kind
of understand a project better,I do reckon that the client's
opinion and views is equally aspowerful, if not more so.
I've just recently watched thatvideo is it Shepherd Hut that
Farron Hay did down in Wanaka?
And just the client's passionfor that project you can kind of
(12:40):
feel it just like resonate fromthem and I don't think you'd
get that necessarily from anarchitect.
Like we obviously love ourprojects, but they're one of
many, whereas for a clientoftentimes it's everything.
You know what I mean and I likethat really tangible feeling
that you get from the client'snarration of their own project.
Simon Devitt (12:59):
Yeah, palpable way , I think.
Sam Brown (13:00):
Yeah.
Simon Devitt (13:01):
That experience it can be and there are, you know,
different stories fromdifferent clients and some
speaking of that Pihar bunker.
That was a.
How long was that, claire?
Seven years, I think that,chris 14 actually, I think.
Was it 14 or?
Clare Chapman (13:15):
something.
Oh, my God.
Ben Sutherland (13:17):
That's a, that's a journey, all right.
Simon Devitt (13:26):
Journey journey.
You know they fired each otherat least once and the building,
and so some great stories comefrom these things.
And you know thinking of mytime sitting down with sirian
ethfield and and the stories hewas able to tell me about
different homeowners andprojects, let alone his own
house, the, the village on thehill hill here in wellington and
kala I mean the stories thatcame out of that that were ripe
(13:46):
to be told in my first bookPortrait of a House.
And so there's a hidden sectionwhere all the clients get to
speak and some of them even drewpictures.
So I think the client's view isunderrated and really important
.
Sam Brown (14:00):
That's something that's pretty hard Although,
Simon, you just painted a prettygood example of it coming
across in stills but it'ssomething that's quite hard to
get.
Is that client's view in astill image?
Oftentimes we're commissioningthe photographs for our own
promotional purposes and I thinkit's changing, but less so
(14:21):
video, but it's interesting inconversations.
Recently we went through abrand renewal and chatting to
the brand strategist and she waslike why don't you have more
client videos?
Why don't you have morefeedback?
Shorts can be 30 seconds ofsomebody being like this is the
process.
This was great, this is myhouse kind of thing.
That in itself is quite apowerful tool for helping you
(14:43):
grow.
You're only your business, butalso the architectural
understanding, I think.
Simon Devitt (14:48):
That's great advice.
I think one thing I talk aboutwhen I'm doing a workshop or
mentoring is that on our ownwebsites and our own Instagram
feeds, it's us talking about usthe whole time.
Here are my pictures, here aremy projects, here is me, me, me.
When do we not talk aboutourselves or when do we give
that space, or that, um, uh,that that channel the
(15:12):
opportunity to breathe a bitmore of someone else talking
about us, and I think that'swhere testimonial can come in
yeah um, and suddenly whensomeone talks about you instead
of you talking about yourself,it unlocks all of that other
stuff.
You did all of that other hardwork you did getting that
website off the ground and themoney you spent doing it.
Sam Brown (15:31):
I mean, that's your whole job, isn't it, claire?
To talk about other people in away.
Clare Chapman (15:35):
Yeah, to tell their story and I think just
having you know for us it's it's.
All these perspectives comeinto play with everything we do.
So it's it's interesting.
One of the um, one of the mostrecent videos we did was um of
Clive Barrington's house umChristchurch based architectural
(15:56):
builder, and it was reallyinteresting hearing the
architects.
That was Johnstone Callaghan,you know talking about.
You know their input and how itwas quite special because he
was sort of you know well, is inthe industry and was really
wanting some challenging designsand wanted to be challenged
with his own home and I thinkthat was a key part of the
(16:18):
narrative and how thearchitecture came to be.
Yeah, it was quite unique.
Actually, you don't often sortof hear that side of the story.
So, yeah, there's a lot yousort of learn, but I think in
situations like that it is wherewe can.
It's lovely to kind of hear theperspective from the homeowner
and the clients.
Sam Brown (16:37):
Yeah, I was going to ask is it something that you do
commonly?
Do you try to get as many kindof perspectives when you're
formulating your stories aspossible?
Is it oftentimes morearchitect-driven, or is it more
client-driven or what'sgenerally the approach?
Clare Chapman (16:52):
Generally it starts with the architect and
from there, you know, we willtry and get as many perspectives
as possible.
In most cases the clientsaren't that keen to chat, so it
makes that a little bitdifficult.
But we will get anecdotes and,you know, little bits of
feedback and whatnot.
So yeah, just depends on theclients.
Sam Brown (17:12):
I guess, when your key focus is the residential
sector, you know, people dooften maintain their privacy a
little bit.
Absolutely and fair enough andI almost wonder if that's a
little bit of a barrier to themoving image aspect of it.
I mean you can kind of hideemoticons through a still, so I
know we've been on shoots anddon't worry about what's in the
(17:32):
background kind of situation asyou move junk away or furniture
or something, but it's a lotharder to cultivate a space
cleanly or flawlessly for movingimage.
Is that something that whenyou're working on this?
Is it something that youconsider the privacy aspect and
also just like how fabricatedthe space in a way needs to be
(17:54):
to be able to undertake that?
Or is it any kind of choppingchange a little bit on the shop
floor?
Simon Devitt (18:00):
Typically Claire will be able to speak to this
really well.
As well as that, when, when Iturn up to a shoot, there's
already a lot that's happenedand, um, I don't know how they
lived before I turned up, butoften what from my understanding
, is that a lot has happenedbefore I got there.
Even the fridge is tidy on manyoccasions.
So people are house proud.
They've said yes.
(18:21):
It's usually for a very goodreason.
They don't just love thearchitect although they do love
the architect but they're reallyproud of what they've achieved
and they want to make sure thatit comes across on the best
light, and often that meansthings have been at least tidied
.
Often it can mean furniture'sbeen changed out.
Whole moving trucks sometimescome in and take whole house
loads away and another companywill come in and style the whole
(18:44):
thing.
So there are iterations, ofcourse, but generally quite a
bit has happened.
So when I turn up things arepretty mint.
There's not a whole lot for meto do or tidy away.
So, whether it's stills orvideo, there's a different set
of constraints to consider,different thoughts to have
around how you're moving througha space, but there's not, in my
(19:07):
experience at least, much tomove or change yeah, interesting
, do you find that the sameplayer?
Clare Chapman (19:15):
yeah, yeah, absolutely, and I mean, often we
do get involved in stylingbeforehand, so, but I think,
like, like Simon said, withstill and video it's the same
parameters we're working with.
So, yeah, not much differentthere, really.
Sam Brown (19:30):
I love that.
Yeah, subject of turning up andthat being ready to go, how
much prep do you put in?
Probably more so consideringthe moving image thing and the
storyboarding aspect of it.
Simon, I know quite often yourstill work.
You like turn up and see wherethe day takes you, you know, or
see where the light andsituation and weather or
(19:51):
whatever kind of directs you Do.
You need to be a little bitmore, I guess, structured when
you're considering.
Simon Devitt (19:57):
No, I think that there are longer moments with
more breath that sort of revealthemselves.
You know, I'll see somethingand I think that would really
suit or make a really greatshort clip.
And we are talking short clips,quite small moments, even
sometimes 10 seconds, butusually anywhere from sort of 30
to a minute, and then it mightbe edited down after that when
(20:18):
we start putting the storytogether afterwards.
But I've always got that sortof bigger picture in mind and
for me when I'm on a shoot,having that bigger picture in
mind for stills and for video,it's really, it's yeah, there's.
There's not a lot ofpreparation for me going into
those moments.
I see something, I'll imaginehow good that could be and then
(20:39):
I'll set about getting it.
Yeah, sort of a longer formstill, because often I've got a
locked off frame with a lot ofwhat I'm doing.
I'm not moving the camera, I'mnot panning and tilting.
If there's any movement, itmight be the drone video just
moving very subtly through aspace.
Otherwise, it's really a lot ofmoments where the architecture
animates the scene, not thecamera animating the scene,
(21:01):
which is my preference, and it'show those two things still in
videos sit together so well.
I think.
For me that makes that work.
Sam Brown (21:11):
Would that be a similar approach for you, claire
, or are you looking at it alittle bit more structured, as
you're kind of trying to weaveit into a story or help it
support a story Do?
Ben Sutherland (21:22):
you come up with a story first.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, that's it, which is whatI've recently done.
Sam Brown (21:26):
Do you come up with a story first and then go and
seek the image, or do you kindof take something that maybe
Simon's done or anotherphotographer or videographer
knows that as a driver for astory?
Clare Chapman (21:38):
I think if Simon's already shot the house,
we obviously have that set ofimages and that's a stunning
place to start with for video.
But when we turn up on the daywe're quite non-structured, you
know.
It's always turning up talkingto the architect or the designer
walking through, and then it'sfollowing the day and that goes
(21:59):
for getting the narration tooand sort of drawing that story
out.
We really like to do thatorganically, so we avoid sort of
sticking to a set of questionsor anything like that or sort of
developing the story beforehand, because what we find is the
more casual the chat, the morecandid it is and the more you
(22:19):
sort of can gain from that.
So it's a really organicprocess every time yeah, that's
really good to know.
Ben Sutherland (22:26):
Actually, I've recently just done one for
myself, a little bit differentthough.
These are like houses thatwe're selling, so you kind of
have to like talk about thearchitecture even though it
doesn't really exist yet, andyou're like overlaying it with
whatever images you have, whichare, you know, renders, and.
But I definitely went in oneday and I was like, yeah, sweet,
(22:46):
I'm just going to talk about it, and as though you know, I've
spent a lot of time designing it.
I know what it's all about, Iknow what's what man, I just
could not get anything out.
I literally had to go home andwrite a script and then practice
it a hundred times.
So it sounded somewhat natural,because it was a disaster.
(23:09):
I guess what I was trying to dois cram it all into one or two
hours.
But what you just said then isyou're spending a day and you're
just kind of like walkingaround and it's kind of like
you're drawing out of whetherit's your clients or the
architect.
So I think, yeah, that scenariosounds a lot more pleasant,
that's for sure.
Sam Brown (23:28):
It's interesting, Ben , because I reckon when we're
forced to talk about ourselvesby ourselves we find it really
hard.
But just like Claire was saying, if it's far more relaxed and
more candid, I think you get allthe juicy stuff right.
But when you're forced to thinkabout it, that definitely
disappears a little bit.
(23:48):
I've found anyway, you sort ofget a little bit too much in
your own head and then you get alittle bit too architected
about it.
Ben Sutherland (23:57):
Yeah, or you say one thing that's wrong through
a whole sentence, or that wholesentence is just wasted now
Because the last part's not eventrue.
I don't even know where thatcame from.
Sam Brown (24:11):
That's what editing's for yeah.
Simon Devitt (24:14):
Never let the truth get in the way of a good
story.
Sam Brown (24:15):
Yeah, exactly.
Simon Devitt (24:17):
We need to see some of those outtakes, can you
see?
Ben Sutherland (24:20):
You're just the bloopers, some bloopers in there
, that's for sure.
We've got a whole pile of those.
Yeah, that'd be fun actually,no, but it is definitely a good
experience and I think, likepost-construction, I think I'll
you know do something similaragain.
I think it's quite a powerfultool.
Sam Brown (24:41):
Tell the truth.
Yeah, I'll try.
Do you see that?
I mean like one thing I kind ofalluded to it with the website
side of things video, feelinglike it should be more prevalent
in our promotional stuff, like,do you, are you seeing that as
a key for your practice versusstill renders or anything?
Ben Sutherland (25:00):
Yeah, so we do a lot of marketing because you
know, we do, you know, becauseyou know, we do.
You know design and then selloff plans, so we have to present
our designs in a way that iscaptivating for an audience.
Um, and what we've definitelyfound recently is the video is
just 100 times more powerful.
(25:21):
Obviously, we can't get properphotography done, so it's like
you're weighing up betweenrenders and a video, whether it
is even just a renderedwalkthrough or what is working
even better is talking aboutyour project.
Firsthand does seem to be a lotbetter, and then cutting them
up into little reels and puttingthem out there, it seems to be
(25:41):
working a lot better.
Then, cutting them up intolittle reels and putting them
out there, it's, it's um, seemsto be working a lot better reels
, the favoured format, thatlittle 30 second 30 yeah, it is
for marketing for us anyway,because ultimately the goal is
to get people to the website, um, and so like that's just a
really easy way to do it, butcompletely different than I
(26:02):
guess, um, or maybe not toodissimilar well, I was just
thinking about, glenn, like yousaid, the videos.
Sam Brown (26:08):
That's just a really easy way to do it, but
completely different than Iguess, or maybe not too
dissimilar.
Well, I was just thinking about, glenn, like you said, the
videos that you did for theawards.
You know that.
What are they?
A minute to a minute and a halfmax, did you?
Was that short formatintentional Because you know
modern day attention spans are alot shorter, or would you have
liked it in a longer format?
What's your take on the lengthof, or the ideal length of video
(26:28):
?
You know, considering thatlocal project ones are about
what?
10 minutes or so, but then Ithink you can get just as much
information almost from like oneof your short minute 30 type
videos.
Clare Chapman (26:39):
Yeah, well, most of ours the cinematic ones
anyway are about three minutes,and that seems to be a really
good amount of time to sort ofcapture a whole property,
understand the narrative andreally be able to sort of
articulate that nicely Anyshorter.
It's a bit difficult.
Obviously there's always scopefor longer, but then, you know,
(26:59):
on different social platformsthe most successful, you know,
sort of short forms are reallysix to eight seconds.
That's all it is, and those arethe ones that will get the most
engagement over and over again.
It's just these brief momentsand that's what's capturing
people's attention.
Sam Brown (27:14):
Are you doing much storytelling in those brief
moments or is it more justmoving image of essentially what
would be a still, but it'smoving instead?
Or are you trying to capture alittle bit of narrative in that
sort of very brief?
Clare Chapman (27:27):
Yeah, both actually.
So we sort of do a mix.
So we will do ones wherethere's a bit more narrative and
they sort of are up to about 30seconds, and then the really
short form ones that you know,like an image will just capture
one small detail or one moment,and so it really depends on the
context.
But yeah, I do think it'sinteresting what sort of
resonates at the moment, and itis that very, very short form
(27:49):
video.
Sam Brown (27:51):
Yeah, it seems to be the way with most things the
attention spans are pretty short.
Yeah, it's interesting.
Have you considered, given themajority of this or you know,
magazine is print media, do yousee yourself operating in that
digital realm equally as much,given that kind of speaking of
(28:14):
attention spans?
Not many people sit down andread an entire magazine, as
you'll probably be well, whichis difficult, but, um, you know
they're beautiful things,difficult, but you know they're
beautiful things to have.
But you know, often the realityis, unless you're stuck on an
Air New Zealand plan, you don'thave a lot of time to digest the
whole thing.
Like, is that something thatyou're looking to investigate a
bit more or work a bit more inthat digital realm?
Clare Chapman (28:36):
Yeah, well, it's really interesting.
You say that we got somefascinating stats back recently
from Nielsen Media and theaverage time apparently people
spend reading home magazine is90 minutes.
I'm sort of quite taken abackby that.
It's awesome.
So I think it's.
Uh, you know it's yeah not meclearly.
no, not me either.
You know, but you know peopledo apparently.
(29:00):
Yeah, it was.
It was fascinating.
But I think, yeah, like you say, with home, it's print has been
the core offering for home fordecades, but now most of our
audience is online, so that isour main space now and print is
a key part of that and I thinkalways will be, but it's the
digital where we have most ofour readers and audience Did.
Simon Devitt (29:21):
Nielsen ask or tell you how long rather people
spend looking at the photos.
Clare Chapman (29:28):
They didn't specifically, but perhaps I
could ask Simon next time.
Simon Devitt (29:32):
Point of comparison, because the pictures
are so beautiful.
I find so often that it's notsurprising that they're not
reading Federico's beautifulwords.
Ben Sutherland (29:42):
Yeah, I always read through twice, Flick
through first and kind of justskim over everything.
Look at all the images first.
Look out for you, Simon.
Good on you.
Simon Devitt (29:53):
Ben.
Ben Sutherland (29:55):
And then I'll go back and I'll read the
interesting articles.
So I would say I'd be like agood you know, I'd spend a good
chunk of time reading through it.
Sam Brown (30:05):
It is a good point that, yeah, I'd do the same kind
of flick through untilsomething piques my interest,
and then you sort of circle backaround again.
Ben Sutherland (30:12):
Exactly, but so I do just going on to that 90
minutes.
So I definitely go back throughand read some of the articles
and when we're talking aboutkind of storytelling, they are
pretty in-depth.
You know, although it's kind ofperceived that you know, video
is especially in short form, istelling a good story?
(30:33):
Good, you know a bit more ofthe story perhaps, but those
articles are really telling thestory.
Are we kind of of at risk oflosing a little bit of that or
do you think that you know thelonger videos kind of make up
for that, or what does that partlook like?
Clare Chapman (30:49):
I kind of feel with it that you know, this is
all powerful in combination.
So video is great, it'sdefinitely engaging and that's
what's capturing people'sattention.
Then you've got still imagesand I think really they are
still the iconic representationsof architecture.
It's lasting and that's sort ofwhat people remember.
You know it's one image, orwith video, you know that
(31:11):
they'll remember the space oryou know what it was, one
element of it.
And then I think you knowyou've got those written
articles and all together that'sa really powerful marketing
package, you know, forarchitects and it's.
It is engaging, giving peoplethat choice.
You know, do they want to video?
Do they want to look at thesebeautiful images?
(31:32):
Do they want to read about it?
It's that's where you sort ofget that um, I guess the wider
picture, isn't it?
Ben Sutherland (31:39):
yeah and, as you're saying, they are doing
kind of two different things.
I'd probably watch a video once, but I would like to sit there
and open that book like 10 timesbefore the next issue comes out
.
Sam Brown (31:50):
In many ways, as you say, the photos are long form
for sure but it's interestingbecause with a video, if you see
something you like, what do doyou?
Do you pause it right, so youcan spend more time with the
still image I have literallynever paused a video.
Do you not?
I do not pause it.
Ben Sutherland (32:13):
I do it all the time.
Sam Brown (32:14):
I've never thought about pausing it If something's
really interesting, right, youkind of pause it and try and
understand it a little bit more.
Maybe that's just the designermentality, right.
You kind of know well, why isthat.
Ben Sutherland (32:24):
That's.
If you don't have, I woulddefinitely Google it and, like
you know, see what other workthey've done and that sort of
thing for sure, yeah, but if youdon't have stills on hand but
you force the stills uponyourself.
Sam Brown (32:33):
You know it's interesting.
You're saying that all thesethings work hand in hand,
because I think this circlesback to talking about the way
that potential clients digestthis sort of stuff.
I see video as being thatintroduction to a project a lot
of the times, that quickunderstanding of what it's about
, and if something interests youthen you go seeking that
(32:56):
further time with that projector with that piece of work,
whatever it may be, and thatcould be looking at stills, it
could be reading a magazinearticle.
It could be reading a magazinearticle, it could be reading
even a long-form essay about itor something Maybe like a tear
process with depths that youwant to go into a project video
at the top and written wordmaybe kind of not at the bottom.
That sounds negative but youknow, like sort of the deeper
(33:18):
you dive, the more nuanced itgets a little bit.
In a world where design speakslouder than words, what story
does your space tell?
At Autex Acoustics, theybelieve great design is more
than aesthetics.
Every product they createstrikes a perfect balance
between form, function andsustainability.
(33:39):
Made to enhance how spacesounds, looks and feels, from
using recycled materials topioneering carbon-negative wool,
their commitment is to help youshape environments that inspire
people and respect the planet.
Explore the future of acousticsdesign at autexacousticsconz.
Simon Devitt (34:00):
Yeah, I think we've gotten to a point where in
the media, particularly whetherit's Instagram or Facebook or
YouTube, we are starting toquestion is that real or is it
not?
And so, because we have a well,my assumption, I'm 167, so
maybe a 21 year old might seethis differently, but I've got
quite an appetite for thingsthat are authentic, you know,
(34:23):
and that I know are real andwere crafted and worked on.
Blood, sweat and tears wereinvolved.
And so we're at a point nowwhere we question whether
something is authentic.
So, by virtue of that, I thinkwe've gotten to a point where we
have now a value decision tomake around what we're looking
at, and when we know somethingis real, then we're able to, I
(34:45):
think, spend our time with thatdifferently, make different set
of value decisions, spend ourtime with that differently, make
different set of valuedecisions around our experience
with that.
Stills and video could, couldand can easily be be doctored,
you know, and be made on a harddrive somewhere.
So, um, we have that sense atleast that something is real and
authentic.
I think we we do value itdifferently and I think that's
(35:06):
going to grow, or my, mysuspicion is, it'll grow.
Maybe the 21-year-olds don'twant that or don't care about
that, I'm not sure, but mysuspicion is that they do.
Sam Brown (35:15):
I think that depth of reality kind of comes from like
we've talked about those layersof project presentation stills,
video and written.
It's quite hard, I feel like itwould be very hard to
manufacture a project with allof those things, with all those
things having any quality tothem.
If you know just video, fine,you can fabricate that, just
(35:36):
stills, renders, you know dime adozen these days, but then
having but then written word andall those things allowed on top
of each other.
I think that's where you knowthat reality really comes in.
21, 21-year-old Simon, youmentioned TikTok generation.
Do you think that?
Do you see there being more ofa focus towards digesting and
(35:58):
like moving image over anythingelse?
Or do you I mean like, clearly,90 Minutes on Home Magazine
kind of proves otherwise, whichis awesome, yeah, but do you see
a shifting momentum towards thevideo aspect over anything else
at the moment?
Simon Devitt (36:15):
I can think back to when I spent 10 years
lecturing at uni, sitting down,talking, discussing making work
with 23rd-year architecturestudents, and they deeply care
about getting revenge on pixels.
They love making like in thestudios.
They're making models.
There's pva on their hands andstanley knives everywhere and we
(36:39):
were, you know, in my studio.
We were making a photo bookslike we were absolutely physical
photo books.
Physical photo books, physicalphoto books, and that involved
making book dummies and printingphotos.
We had disposable cameras, wewere at it.
Our sort of pixel footprint, ifyou like, was being heavily
(36:59):
weighed in on.
And yes to the pixels, likegreat Instagram's telling us to
absorb a lot of information, alot of influence, very quickly
through video, and they'redeciding how we do view that by
setting up stories and reels andthings like that.
I think wonderful, like to apoint, but if that's all we have
, I think there's a problem.
I think if we have that and wecan usefully compare not
(37:23):
destructively compare what fastis by knowing what slow is, and
I think slow is in the studio,it's crafting, it's making and
it's, for me, getting revenge onthe pixels.
Sam Brown (37:35):
Yeah, there's sort of a sense of impermanence, I feel
, with video to a degree.
There's something that's reallytangible and long-lasting with
something physical like amagazine, a book.
So we have architecture booksin the studio, biden books, 20th
century.
You know that massive 20thcentury architecture, one that
was produced in 2010 orsomething.
(37:57):
It's wildly out of date now,but it's a beautiful look at and
it's just as inspirational, youknow.
But I can't see a lot of peoplethese days purchasing books
like they used to to digest, orpurchasing magazines like they
used to digest architecture, butI actually think it's the most
purest way of doing it.
It just seems a shame that,like you said, instagram's sort
(38:19):
of starting to structure the waywe view things.
Ben Sutherland (38:26):
I often watch a lot of those little, you know,
short clips, um, mainly onyoutube, but I guess instagram
as well.
One thing I wish there was moreof and I'm sure they are out
there, but it's actually likehard to kind of dig them out is
actually more long form videos,claire.
Have you guys ever thoughtabout doing something like a
(38:47):
little bit longer?
I would say even the localproject is quite short.
You do get through one building, but without getting into a
documentary is short the way togo, or is that just kind of like
the start?
And then is there like spacefor long form as well, to kind
of really dive into the story?
Clare Chapman (39:09):
And is there space for long form as well, to
kind of really dive into thestory?
I think definitely there isspace for longer form.
But I mean for us, you know, asa media outlet, I guess it's
volume.
So you know, we are dealingwith so many different projects
and actually creating space foreach of them.
It's a whole nother proposition, I think, to create much longer
form video and whether there ismore value in that potentially.
(39:31):
But I think, you know, thatsort of shorter length gives us
the leeway to tell the story ofa project, I think, in enough
detail so it's palatable andunderstandable and relatable,
without sort of, you know,investing into more of that
documentary length.
Sam Brown (39:49):
There's sort of nothing between that sort of 10
to 15-minute project expose andfeature-length documentary which
, a lot of the time, is moreabout the architect or the
designer themselves than aspecific building, except for
something like Grand Designs.
Right, but that's so focused ondrama.
Ben Sutherland (40:08):
I guess you're right.
Yeah, that is an example,though, isn't it?
Sam Brown (40:11):
It is an example, for sure, but I think it's not a
great example of portraying aproject like the realities of
the project.
In a way it's dramatized right.
So it would be interesting ifsomething was to kind of fall
into that hour-long, maybe45-minute to hour-long space,
whereas a little bit more indepth you almost think that
(40:32):
maybe for a single building it'stoo much time to tell the story
Just maybe you know, if you'relooking at it from the whole
process, right from thebeginning.
Clare Chapman (40:40):
You know before it's out of the ground and
through construction.
I think there's so much scope.
It just depends where you wantto go with it, doesn't it?
Sam Brown (40:48):
It's a lot of narrative for an architect to do
, though, yeah.
That would be a process initself Probably need quite a bit
of storyboarding.
Clare Chapman (40:58):
Yeah, couldn't go with the flow on that one, I
don't think.
Sam Brown (41:01):
Otherwise it would be just really.
Simon Devitt (41:13):
I was going to say otherwise.
It would just be really juicycontent.
But now we're just back togrand designs again, aren't we?
It's really entertainment,isn't it?
And so it depends on on theintention and our kind of
reality tv states of mind reallyare looking for tv like that,
or entertainment like that, oror seven or eight minute videos
and not, you know, 25 minutevideos.
Um, some of the tv shows of thepast david mitchell's tv show
back in the 80s was was aboutsingle projects, and that was
the appetite for then.
(41:33):
It's not the appetite for nowbecause our intention is
different, the way we're sellingor what we're selling is
different.
Sam Brown (41:38):
So I think, yeah, it's a lot about intention we
come up with, like a reality tv,like love island, love for
architects, or something asyou're trying, trying, trying to
.
You're trying to find the rightclient for a building that
you've designed.
Simon Devitt (41:53):
You'd be great on love building.
Sam Brown (41:55):
Just love building, just really lean into it.
Ben Sutherland (41:59):
So, yeah, you buy some architecturally
designed homes that have come upon Trade Me and try and sell
them to the general public.
Sam Brown (42:06):
Yeah, yeah I don't know man, it's a format worth
exploring.
I don't know man it's.
It's a format worth exploring,I don't know.
I think it's hilarious popularcontent.
That's yeah, yeah, reality tv,but based around architecture,
just helps bring us more to thefore that would be funny do you
see yourself doing any doingmore um more video stuff or just
(42:27):
sort of sticking?
Ben Sutherland (42:28):
with it More TikTok.
Sam Brown (42:29):
Yeah, more TikTok or dancing in front of your videos,
but do you see yourself liketrending more in that direction
or is it still a balance, or isit still more, still focused?
Following on from that questionto Claire about do you see
things moving more in the videodirection or not, I'm trying to
get a handle on where the peoplethat provide this content for
(42:50):
us, yourselves, where your heads, are at with it all, because I
see videos starting to start todominate no, I think there's.
Simon Devitt (42:56):
There's, from my perspective.
There's a desire for both,still, some video.
The camera manufacturers andtheir technicians sort of
marketing departments put all ofthose features on one beautiful
, relatively inexpensive camera,so it's all available to us.
So the expectation is thatphotographers or videographers
can now do both and show up andoffer both, and so it looks like
(43:18):
video and stills are cousins,but in my experience they're
more like very, very distantrelatives.
They're two very, verydifferent things and should be
treated carefully and treated assuch.
So for me I'm very mindful thatthey are very different.
I avoided shooting video forquite a long time for the simple
reason that I didn't feel likeI needed to or wanted to.
(43:40):
But I got to a point where Ifelt like I could have those two
things sit well together andwork with each other, not
against each other.
Sam Brown (43:50):
And did the demand start to come a little bit more
from ourselves whencommissioning work from you as
well?
Simon Devitt (43:57):
It started more with me making speculative video
clips and shoots and I rememberthe actual first thing I did
was at Pete Bosley's WaterfallBay House in the Marlborough
Sounds Michael Saracen's place,and it was a pretty intimidating
place to turn up to.
Michael Saracen, who's who'sshot more um academy
(44:19):
award-winning films than youcould throw a sledgehammer at,
and um uh, an incrediblyarticulate, very passionate,
incredible cook and greatcompany who makes sure your wine
glass is full as well.
So it was a very interestingweekend.
We had a power cut, we had astorm, we had sunshine and I was
able to make the video that Iwanted to make, then recorded
(44:41):
Pete talking about the house asa voiceover to accompany the
video.
So that was my first experienceand something that I had
imagined making and set out tomake and made it.
Looking back on it, I don'tthink it's that great.
It's good.
It's got all the intention andall the ingredients that I think
(45:02):
make it interesting.
Would I do it differently now?
Of course I would, but as afirst attempt at video with some
interesting audio and a verysmall kind of I think, six or
seven-minute clip, it's good.
I like it.
Sam Brown (45:18):
Was Pete?
Given that you kind ofinstigated that, what was Pete's
response as the architect?
Was he like oh, this issomething new for us to digest.
Was he sort of a different?
Was it excitement, somethingthat he'd like to do more?
Simon Devitt (45:31):
I think he really enjoyed it.
At the time we recorded theaudio off-site.
We weren't even there together.
I was there for Condé Nastdoing a shoot for their magazine
and went to other propertiesaround New Zealand for that same
feature, so I had anotherreason to be there.
But I had plenty of time up mysleeve and the local New Zealand
Canon rep was trying to sell mesome very expensive video gear.
(45:55):
So he was there helping me andI made sure I had everything I
needed, which was good, good fun.
Sam Brown (46:00):
Nice and Claire, are you finding that there's more?
Do you demand, I guess, indoing features for projects?
Is there an expectation fromyou that video accompanies the
imagery, or do you?
Are you finding that architectsare sending that to you more
regularly, given that we're sortof the ones trying to get
stories?
Or, from our perspective, Ifeel like we're seeing more, a
(46:22):
lot more power in video than weused to, and I'm just wondering
if there's the appetite for itfrom the publishing side.
Clare Chapman (46:28):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I'm not sure aboutothers, but our thing has.
I guess our ethos now is to tryand film everything that we
cover.
So we've sort of been buildingup to that and we're getting
quite close to achieving thatnow.
So what we want to do is, youknow, for every feature, we've
got the beautiful stills, we'vegot the story and the video, and
often short is, you know, forevery feature, we've got the
beautiful stills, we've got thestory, um, and the video, and
(46:50):
often short, you know very shortclips as well.
So it just allows us to reallymarket each project and and get
it to every different audiencein the way that they want it, um
, and so we, we create all ourvideo ourselves, rather than
I've never had an architect sendsend us a video.
So it's's something that wesort of do.
Ben Sutherland (47:10):
And is that for every, do you kind of target
most platforms as well, now asin, like you know, instagram and
YouTube and whatnot?
Clare Chapman (47:19):
Yeah, yeah, all of them, Apart from TikTok,
which is our sort of growingchild that we're working on.
But apart from that, yeah,we're across everything, and
video is on everything too.
Ben Sutherland (47:32):
And just out of curiosity, are there some
platforms that do better thanothers?
Clare Chapman (47:36):
Yeah, I mean, I think they're all different,
aren't they?
So obviously you know YouTubewith their short speech and that
sort of content on there.
It's a different, you know, wewill sort of create different
content for different channels.
So what will work on YouTubeand pique the interest of that
audience will be different towhat works on Instagram or on
the website.
(47:56):
So it's just sort ofunderstanding, I guess, what
works for each channel and whothe audiences are.
Sam Brown (48:04):
Before we kind of go, do you guys have any final
thoughts, statements on the roleof video or moving image or
where it might be going, or justanything in that ilk?
Clare Chapman (48:14):
I think, obviously, you know, video is
huge and it'll be a big part ofour future, especially, you know
, as all these channels evolveand I think that mix of sort of
short form and cinematic and howthey complement still imagery,
just yeah, it's the way of thefuture, isn't it?
It's something we're allworking towards.
Simon Devitt (48:38):
Yeah, I think to pick up where Claire left off.
There.
I feel, even after 30 years ofpointing a camera at
architecture and the world andwhat we're all up to and how
that all looks, I genuinely feellike I'm just getting started
and video is sort of a latecomerinto that picture for me.
It's only really in the lastmaybe 12 years that I've really
(48:59):
taken that seriously and that'sbeen a slow trajectory.
For me it hasn't been awholesale all-in decision.
I've sort of just really put myfeet in the water initially,
but I'm really enjoying theresults I'm getting from it.
I enjoy collaborating withpeople and video is definitely
potentially more collaborativethan stills.
(49:20):
But together, I think, is how Ilike it.
I like to shoot both and I liketo shoot both on the same day
and my clients seem to love that.
Sam Brown (49:30):
We've had stills forever and we've digested
stills forever and they've beensuch a strong precedent and
informer, I guess, for any of usreally along our design
journeys, whether you're anarchitect or an artist or
whatever really a photographer,magazine editor, I'd say that
we've all been pretty influencedby the still image.
But I think that the movingimage has started to have a bit
(49:52):
more of an impact, you know,ever since the inception of
YouTube really, and it continuesto grow, I think, and I know we
see that in demands of theindustry.
So I think it's something tocertainly be aware of.
If you are commissioning workor looking to publish your work
(50:13):
or looking to get your work outthere, it's moving images
probably Something to considerpretty strongly I'd say Thank
you both for coming on today.
Ben Sutherland (50:21):
Thanks for having me.
It's always a pleasure.
It's always a pleasure, it'salways a pleasure.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.