If we consider the singularity of the point of view, the description of the landscape can only be particular and subjective, because the observable and in fact observed features do not have the same impact and meaning for all viewers, and incentives and circuits are linked to personal experience and a subjective agenda. This idea needs to be nuanced by recourse to our common experience, which bears witness to our vision of the world and to the fact that, slight differences notwithstanding, when we name what we see hills, paths, streets, houses or trees, we are all talking of the same thing. The elements that we notice in the landscape draw the contours of iconic groups and sketch in particular cultural features; we can draw up typologies of the buildings and list the component parts. Needless to say we easily distinguish the urban from the rural, less easily perhaps modern Eastern space from Western. In identifying these differences, we rank a given landscape on a scale of values, which may be aesthetic, ecological or, more intimately, emotional, for we desire landscapes just as we desire human beings. Kenna’s landscapes stand deliberately apart from this attempt to evaluate content; they concentrate on expression and its challenges and take into account all visible and figurable aspects and themes.
Kenna’s early works, strongly influenced by Bill Brandt, to whom he pays vibrant homage and dedicates a photograph, takes us into the “black” industrial cities of north-west England. We recognize the somber, sooty, coal black iconographic vocabulary used before him by Whistler, Monet, or Turner. The misery of the working class in the nineteenth century haunts these views of narrow, insalubrious alleys, factory chimneys, feeble streetlamps, sooty skies and faint sunshine.Photographing Skylines, he makes intelligible the choice of openness in architecture that is characteristic of modern cities. The horizon belongs to neither the sky nor the land, it is no more than the imaginary line where they meet, but here it is suddenly materialized, the sky no longer touches the sea but bumps against the crenellated bar of buildings. New York, photographed from the top of a skyscraper, looks like a set of building blocks and Kenna, subtly playing with the uneven heights of the buildings, discerns the constraining horizontal pattern of the urban grid within the vertical structures. Photographed from a high or low angle, the modern city no longer has a human dimension but is geared to the flow of traffic and speed, regulated by economic functions, not the natural rhythm. A troubling pile of towers of Babel and a constant threat of arterial thrombosis.
Why is he so determined to show us bridges? Prague, Paris, New York, San Francisco, all have a bridge… the theme crops up too often not to be significant. We find an obvious answer in Heidegger’s analysis: “The bridge connects not only pre-existing banks.... The bridge brings not only the two shores together but, one way or another, it brings the hinterland behind the shores to the stream. The bridge brings river, bank, and land together in multi-layered reciprocal proximity. The bridge gathers the land like a region around the river.... So it is not the bridge which is built in a place to be attached to it, but only from the bridge itself that a place is born.” To borrow Heidegger’s words, it is the “relationship of the place to the man who settles there,” which underpins the theme of the bridge and the city in Kenna’s work.