A Defense of Rooftop Photography

A Defense of Rooftop Photography

The unfortunate and widely-reported death last week of 26-year-old rooftopper Wu Yongning led to a lot of discussion regarding rooftop photography, personal responsibility, and the blurred boundaries between urban exploration, parkour, and "exposure porn" - i.e., hanging from the edge of buildings or balancing at incredible heights in order to create photos, videos, and short-lived internet fame.

I've been involved with rooftops extensively over the last 15 years (sometimes legitimately, mostly illegally). I also spend a large part of my time photographing people performing actions where, if they make the slightest mistake, they will be seriously injured or, in many circumstances, killed. In addition, I once climbed 145m up the side of a building to take a photograph. I'm not sure that I would do it again but I can honestly say that it was one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences of my life. As a result, I hope I'm in a position to offer an insight into what drives the people to seek out the tops of tall buildings, why I think the imagery has important cultural value, and why very rarely it's as reckless as you might understandably assume. 

Chris Rowat and Chris Keighley jumping between rooftops in Quebec.

A few weeks ago, National Geographic ran a piece about parkour. Upon reading the article, you'd be forgiven for thinking that it's the world's most dangerous sport given that people seem to be falling off roofs and dying every week. The truth is that when you compare it to American football or horse riding, it's incredibly safe. The disconnect here is twofold: firstly, parkour is not what is portrayed in the media. The overwhelming majority of practitioners stay at ground level. Secondly, our perception of risk is completely warped by convention and habituation. If I were to invent something that could completely transform people's lives around the world but came at the cost of 1.3 million lives every year, would we embrace it? Probably not. However, it already exists; it's called the car.

Rooftops have an allure; not only are the views amazing, but they offer an environment that, in the words of JG Ballard, has been built by man, "not for man, but for man's absence." The fact that they are off-limits, the domain of the rich and powerful, established by global forces beyond our comprehension, is what makes them so appealing. In addition to this, our ability to move is often at the heart of how we perceive our own sense of liberty and autonomy - whether it's in a car, cycling around a city, or, in the case of parkour, being able to run and jump through the urban environment. The ability to move is empowering, a notion that is fundamental to our comic book heroes who can appear wherever they like, at just the right time. Culturally, this loops back: as a society, we respond to this idea, and in turn, some of us seek it out.

Oli Thorpe climbing in Copenhagen.

Add into this the fact that public space is becoming increasingly scarce, this infiltration of private space is, to an extent, an effort to temporarily re-democratize the city. It is a reminder that however rigidly controlled the city might become, there are always elements of society that are exploiting the gaps in the system; resisting - however inadvertently - a post-capitalist society that tries to keep us quietly producing and consuming, and never stepping out of line.

In 2015, academic Theo Kindynis wrote a despairing critique of rooftop photography, lamenting the fact that what had once been an anarchic, subversive practice had become mainstream, co-opted by commercialism, and dominated by a proliferation of images that had come to ignore the value of the physical experience. This supposedly radical practice is performed for the most part by middle-class, white, able-bodied young men with access to expensive equipment that is, in effect, legitimizing criminality - "Sorry, officer, I'm just here to get a photograph." It is a competition for subcultural status and one that has become commodified by sock sponsors (of foot-dangling selfies) and camera companies. Creating a spectacle was always a huge part, but it seems to have become reduced to nothing but the image and conforms to a society in which people are constantly trying to validate themselves through their Instagram profiles. As Kindynis explains, transgression is now a leisure activity.

Flynn Disney exploring the rooftops of Senate House, London.

Bizarrely, perhaps the most radical and subversive (aka, the coolest) thing that you can do now is head out at night, slip past security, climb a skyscraper, stand heroically on its highest point overlooking a vast megacity - and not take a single photograph. 

I'm not quite so cynical. Perhaps it's because I'm a photographer, but I've never seen the same distinction between the experience and the resulting imagery. As XKCD wonderfully once observed, "some of my best adventures are built around trying to photograph something." That said, there's a part of me that despairs at this race for likes and internet fame, and it was only a matter of time before an incident like this happened. Sadly, others will almost certainly follow.

Thomas Couetdic atop Buzludzha, the former Communist Party headquarters of Bulgaria.

The athletes that I work with are vastly experienced. I would say "professionals" but very few make a living from their training, despite performing at an elite level. My collaborators are all incredibly skilled and have immense knowledge of what they can do, having been making complex judgments about their personal safety for years. For parkour athletes, in everything that they choose to do, there is absolutely no recklessness. Statistically, you driving your car is more dangerous - both for you and everyone else - than the movements and performances that these people create. Alongside training that is on par with Olympic athletes, many see encounters with fear as part of a discovery of who they really are. Some will see this as hippy shit, but, having on occasion deliberately put myself in dangerous situations in order to negotiate them with skills that I've rehearsed over many years, I can only say that it is hugely fulfilling; it shapes who I am today, how I know myself, and what I am capable of (If you'd like to learn more about risk-taking as a positive experience, I recommend researching the concept of "edgework," as conceived by social psychologist Stephen Lyng).

I can't make a judgment on Yongning's ability. I had the misfortune of watching the video of him falling without really thinking through what I was about to see, and part of me now regrets having seen it (I don't recommend seeking it out). Even having seen him fail, I don't know what he was capable of or how he prepared for his stunts, physically, mentally, and practically. If he wasn't capable, then yes, the thousands of commenters calling him stupid are probably right. However, as someone who has been involved with this scene for a long time, I would argue that you can't make that judgement unless you actually spent some time with him and saw him train; it's difficult to make that call from grainy mobile phone footage, however expert you think you are from your armchair.

Tim Shieff on the rooftops of London.

Working with parkour athletes and climbers, I've no real interest in photographing someone simply hanging off the side of a building or from a scaffold bar above a vertigo-inducing drop. While it gets YouTube views and Instagram likes, for me, it's not that interesting; it lacks subtlety, complexity, and, by comparison, requires very little physical skill. I remember once speaking to one YouTube exposure-pornstar who felt a bit embarrassed to be placed in the same category as Alex Honnold as Honnold's feats require tens of thousands of hours of physical and mental training. Hanging from a bar or the edge of a building is nothing by comparison.

Perhaps this article isn't the best defense of rooftop photography. But while I can't defend the likes of Wu Yongning, I would ask you not to assume that every person who ventures illegally onto a rooftop has a reckless disregard for their personal safety in a narcissistic search for validation. Like many things, it is characterized by contradiction and not all of us are adrenalin-crazed morons with a lack of regard for private property. Some of us are undergoing transformative experiences as part of an attempt to create beautiful and thought-provoking images.

Lead image: Ash Holland on one of London's rooftops.

All images by the author.

Fstoppers does not condone or encourage trespassing or photographing at height without having taken appropriate safety measures under the supervision of a professional.

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments
132 Comments
Previous comments

"Like many things, it is characterized by contradiction and not all of us are adrenalin-crazed morons with a lack of regard for private property. Some of us are undergoing transformative experiences as part of an attempt to create beautiful and thought-provoking images."
Oh the irony...

Read this again, as well as the comments.

Not personally attacking the author, but Fstoppers should be ashamed of publishing this type of article. It's irresponsible and a bad message to send to anyone. The author should take pause, re-assess his thoughts and message.

I'm disappointed. Bad stuff, gang.

I'm all on for anyone taking responsibility for any personal risks they may take to get a shot. No issue there. What I'm not ok with is the likes of Wu Yongning taking these risks in built up urban areas where falling poses a huge threat to anyone on the ground below. It was purely by chance he landed on a raised platform when he died. He could just as easily have landed on the ground below and caused serious injury (or worse) to innocent pedestrians or motorists. That's just plain irresponsible.

I applaud FStoppers for having an open mind and allowing Andy to write this article. Great stuff Andy!

Yeah, brilliant stuff. Maybe we'll see a pattern from them now?

- "A defense for breaking and entering"
- "A defense for theft"
- "A defense for texting while driving"

These are all illegal as well. Would you applaud those messages too? Outstanding. And the first two aren't even inherently life threatening... so you should have no problem with them if there's any logic to your applause.

Hopefully! It's shows that at least some people are open enough to hearing the other side of things.

So, to answer your question, YES. I would. I would applaud anyone willing to share their experiences to which I have none, so that I may learn from them rather than make snap judgements and be closed-minded.

As you seem to be trolling this issue and acting purely contrarian to common sense for the sake of arguing, I'll end my side discussion with you. Good luck, dude.

Wow. I really wasn't trolling, but whatever. Just to add to your little list of illegal activities... perhaps we should silence people who give their side to the following illegal activities too:

- "In defence of homosexuality"
- "In defence of slave labour"
- "In defence of women's right to vote"
- "In defence of abortion"

Because, you know, they all don't deserve a voice either, right? You've already made your mind up because you absolutely KNOW what is common sense and you don't need to hear what they have to say.

[incase anyone wants to take this out of context, I'm being sarcastic].

Sarcasm is a funny thing in text form... Doesn't work quite as well. :/

Oh my gosh, you're SO right!

I feel like my sarcasm meter just ticked... :P

I agree that posting it was okay but most of the posters are against the activity which they have as much right to do as the author has to write the article. The fact you applaud Fstoppers but down-vote the majority of commenters, with no explanation, is the opposite of open-minded. Had you offered an argument, that would have been different. In fact, there isn't a single defense of the sport within the few words you've written and most of the comments you voted down didn't address Fstoppers publishing the article. So...what is your defense of the sport?

So, Andy, you don't really have an opinion. Not surprising but disappointing anyway.

While I might not agree with everything, it's nice to see an article on Fstoppers that's more than just "hey check out this video, I even went through the hassle to add 10 lines of description" :(

If you do it shirtless with a bad spider tattoo while wearing skinny jeans with no belt, and can't properly tie your trendy high top shoes?

No.

I can add some insight to the numbers here, which people are right to question. So far, there have been between 5-7 deaths in the last 8 years that have been attributed to parkour. 2 of them we dismiss immediately, one was a suicide jump off a radio tower, by someone who had been to a single parkour event. Another was a drunk person showing off for friends jumping between a parking garage which he had cleared earlier in the day, not a parkour practitioner. So, when we look at deaths of people who actually train (which is really the only fair number to attribute to an activity, if I kill myself snowboarding but hit a rock on the way down you can't call it rock climbing) then we are down to 3-4 deaths in the last 8 years. Let's go with a very conservative number of 100,000 practitioners worldwide, that gives us .5 deaths per year out of 100,000 practitioners, or .0005%. One concrete number I can provide is that in the US we have a parkour program in the Washington DC public school program. With 2,100 participants last year, there were no reported injuries, and there are strict standards in place for injury reporting, so if anything more than a band-aid was required, it would show up. I'll leave you with this: with the number of cubicle jobs available in the modern world, and staggering number of hours racked up watching television or sitting inside on a device, perhaps as a species we could stand a little more adventure.

Thanks Mark!

I know nothing about this activity but, does parkour specify rooftop activities or is that a subset? If you do the exact same activity at ground level and fall, sustaining a few scrapes and bruises, is that listed as an injury? I'm assuming, falling from a rooftop would be. ;-) Assuming parkour includes ground level activities, do you have similar statistics for only those doing it on rooftops? Enquiring minds and all that. ;-)

Sam, great questions, however they mix two separate elements. The "Injury reporting" number I gave is for a school system, which is a contained environment with set guidelines. Obviously, there are no such guidelines for people on rooftops, nor is there an accurate count of how many people participate in such activities. I can tell you that of all parkour related deaths, none of them have been at ground level :) Frankly, there is a fairly defined split in the parkour community between glorifying rooftop activities (Roof Cult from Storror of London) to promoting safety and well-being in Parkour, of which I'm happy to say my group (American Parkour) is a large proponent. While we cannot and will not say that "being on a roof = not parkour", we will say that it is not necessary to ever go on a roof in a lifetime of parkour practice. There is a group working on collecting injury statistics in Parkour Classes in the US, and most consider an "injury" to be where the participant stops participating in the class. That means you could twist your ankle slightly, but if you feel fine 5 minutes later, then probably no report is made and you carry on. There are plenty of bumps and bruises in parkour training, but really this is part and parcel of most physical activities. The one factor that many people leave out in considering parkour safety is that parkour is 100% self powered. What that means is that if I am running toward a jump and I feel I can't make it, I stop. That easy (usually) there are no wheels, no ice or snow, and usually no "other players" to take out a knee or ankle from behind.

I would also like to point out that I am speaking specifically about Parkour / Freerunning athletes. This does not include "Roof Toppers", "Builderers", and Russians hanging by one arm off radio towers in windy conditions (unless they actually train parkour).

Just to make sure I'm clear, then, your previous post wasn't really relevant to the activity described in the article, then?

For the legal perspective, I'd like to pose this as a topic of conversation: have you ever sped in a vehicle? If you have, you have chosen to break a law, and you have put yourself and others at risk. If you felt safe at 5mph over, then think of these athletes as driving Ferraris while most people are in a 1972 VW bus with extra eight tagged on. They are well within their safety zone, but the law is written for the average, or worse, the lowest.

You were on a roll until "They are well within their safety zone". You talk about driving 5 mph over the speed limit and then move on to Ferraris without setting their speed. Using your analogy, are rooftop parkour participants, driving 10 mph over? 100 mph over? Is anyone "well within their safety zone", driving 100 mph over the speed limit? I don't know the answer which is why I asked the question.

I'd say that depends on the rules of the game, and all players understanding a game is happening. Street racing is dangerous and I do not condone it. People on motorcycles can easily go about 20% faster than cars because they can maneuver 20% faster and stop 20% faster. Of course this is not a hard and fast rule, and it doesn't mean that motorcycles are always safe. Most motorcycle accidents are deemed to be the fault of the car driver, when really the motorcyclist needs to take responsibility for the fact that cars simply aren't expecting them and drivers don't see / perceive them the same. But I digress. Formula 1 racers go well above the "speed limit" but they are all playing the same game, and they know the rules. To keep the analogy clear, I have personally gone over 165MPH on a motorcycle - I did it on an abandoned road between two towns of population ~50 people each on a deserted 30 mile stretch. Thus, mine is very likely the only life I put at risk. The same applies to people playing on rooftops - as many comments on here (and I'll add my opinion that they are idiotic comments) that someone could "fall off a roof and splat onto someone else" - I'm not sure there is a single case in history to validate that concern. So, even if these athletes are going 100MPH over, they are largely within their capacity, and in the cases where they aren't, there is extremely little chance that they are putting anyone else at physical risk. The emotional trauma to their friends and family may be another matter, but again, we are talking about roughly 4-5 people in the last 8-10 years - there are more deaths from cows (22 per year in the US and ~ 8 per year in the UK) than parkour ever year.

Thanks! It's easy to make assumptions (obviously!) but I prefer to have the facts so I can make other erroneous assumptions based on them. ;-)

Me too :) I feel that relativity applies quite often when trying to explain parkour, the relative safety, and the abilities of the athletes, which most people frankly can't fathom, and I don't blame them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnJuKXhFaQ8

That video is relative :-) but only when considering subjective observations. It's certainly beneficial when considering viewpoints, which this article has more than its share of, but does nothing to answer the question, "how safe is rooftop photography?" The answer is, of course, everything in life, taken together, will eventually kill you! :-D

My point though is that while jumping a 10 foot gap between two buildings seems insane, and would be very dangerous for most people, for even an intermediate parkour athlete it is not a very big challenge. Therefore, the danger level as well as the perceived danger level are both in fact relative.

I understand your point but I *try* to see things from a "specific, objective" viewpoint. For any specific athlete, there is an objective level of danger. You're describing danger as being relative to an observer's viewpoint and relative to other individual participants, both of which I'm not particularly interested in.

Since you seem to know a lot about this, can you point me to some cool videos? I'm old and don't want to waste my remaining time sorting through mediocre footage. :-)

Here's one I'd like you to see :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1SyoxLf0eA

I'll find some cool ones too though, I have to admit I don't watch videos much these days, I'm busy working with kindergarten kids :)

Oleg Vorslav is one of my favorites - watching him on a simple playground is mindblowing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I6osPKyZ-k

Very cool but a little more attitude than I'm used to.

Thanks a lot!

I can definitely understand your perception of attitude - although I don't know him personally and have only spoken online, I can say he has quite a sense of humor, so putting it in that light may help you see him differently. I wanted to find his "out of time" video - it's worth searching for if you want to see more uber-creative movement. I've also asked the APK community which videos they feel exemplify "flow" which to me is the most important physical characteristic of a seasoned practitioner - I'd say check back on this FB thread tomorrow https://www.facebook.com/AmericanParkour/posts/10155213837320686

You're a kindergarten teacher or ???

No, I'm a parkour advocate who is working to help put parkour into public schools. We are in about 40 schools right now as part of the PE curriculum, and we are working to develop more programs for Pre-K, Kindergarten and up through 3rd graders. sadly, some of them get less than 60 minutes of PE per week, although many do get 20 minutes of recess per day, that can often be very structured or not that active.

That's very cool!

Here is a middle school PE class using our equipment and curriculum in Maryland https://www.facebook.com/Toorock/videos/10155896019774233/

As for the danger part, you can't try to see it from their perspective. That is like a driver of a volkswagen bus trying to see what it feels like to drive an F1 car, you literally have no frame of reference to understand the feeling of 2g's of lateral acceleration, so you can't comprehend taking corners at 200+ mph. Most F1 drivers never have a fatal accident though, so their reality is that it is relatively safe.

Sorry. I didn't mean to see it from their perspective but to know just how dangerous it really is and, that appears to vary depending on the individual's level of experience.

Exactly. I do not contend that falling would be any less dangerous for anyone, that part is objective, however the likelihood of a fall is (while not subjective) very much individualized based on skills, experiences, and comfort levels.

So on the logic of this author, I wonder what the response of those defending this inane behaviour would have to say about it if the falling fool were to land on (and kill) somebody in their family? Maybe a young mother pushing a pram with a baby in it?

I wonder why the capacity to think clearly evades so many people?

With all the well documented cases of people falling off buildings and straight into prams just crushing babies by the thousands I wonder what these lads are thinking at all?

Did I really just read an article on Fstoppers defending illegal activity? Safety issues aside, it really doesn't matter what you feel or how you view the world... your personal feelings are not a justification for trespassing on private property. That's just not how the world works.

Grow up.

They have put some kind of "disclaimer" at the end of the article now. Doesn't make their publishing it any less irresponsible, in my opinion. They should un-publish it.

Hey as long as it doesn't negatively affect some else's life i don't care. Do what you want.

Short of the lead photo, I saw nothing worth this kind risk. Now, if there were all sorts of safety measures implemented out of camera view, then maybe. But, still, the photos aren't even that good, IMO, with the risk being taken. And what's more annoying is, I'm wondering if this is the sort of nonsense is what's fueling the need for permits for every bloody thing photo related in public.

Not comparable to driving. I have to drive to get to work and buy food. I don't have to jump from building to building.

"Fstoppers does not condone or encourage trespassing or photographing at height without having taken appropriate safety measures under the supervision of a professional." - WRONG - when you put a large photo of someone on a rooftop with a caption "A defense of rooftop photography", you are tacitly endorsing it. You do the same routinely with pictures of people on train tracks and articles about people shooting inappropriate shots in public spaces or historical sites. Don't claim you don't share responsibility for the popularity of these acts.

It's a half-assed attempt to save face and appease some attorney somewhere after all blow-back in the comments. I come here and usually love the articles that are provided as guidance and education, but this crap is a black eye for them.

Hey Fstoppers, you're being called out in a big way on your irresponsible journalism with respect to this "article". The disclaimer, added after the fact, is a sad attempt to sidestep the bad decision. All someone needs to do is cite this article one day down the line after the next moron falls to his death, and you'll understand from a P.R. perspective. How many of your competitors do you think would publish this crap message? This is how you want to differentiate yourselves?

You've just lost some cred in my book.

The disclaimer was there from the outset.

More comments