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

at least it was not about how he shot it with an iPhone.

Easily the best comment! :-)

And here's the best example of bad P.R...

I just googled "Rooftop Photography". Guess what was listed first? Not a good thing when "A Defense Of" preceeds a usually illegal activity is attached to an article published by your site. Dumbasses.

As a first-responder, I hope I never have to live with cleaning up the mess of a fatality from something like this, both physically and relationally. People intentionally putting themselves in these situations do not think of the repercussions on those who have to deal with the consequences. I pray for those who were on the scene and his family/friends.

FStoppers: pull this article. Please. It doesn't belong on this site.

Yes, because silencing people is always the best way to go... FStoppers, can we pull this persons comment? I don't think it belongs on this site because I don't like it.

The piece is explicitly condoning and making excuses for an illegal and dangerous activity. So much that they needed to put a disclaimer on it. Brilliant.

It serves to encourage people to take up such actions, and most of the time those who do are irresponsible enough to put themselves (and probably more important) others in harms way. It's irresponsible journalism.

On the other hand, it's prompting much debate, clicks, and publicity for themselves here. It's becoming click bait. It's a clown show, and Fstoppers just stooped to a level by publicizing something they didn't need to. And the author has some asinine points to boot.

This is frustrating to hear as I don't think the article encourages anything. It repeatedly says that I have years of experience, that the athletes I work with are massively experienced. If anything, it's a discouragement from doing dangerous things as people will realise that if they don't know what they're doing, they shouldn't be doing it.

I was hoping that exploring the complexity and nuances of edgework would make for good discussion but I guess I may have overestimated some readers' capacity for understanding, evidenced by the descent into the name-calling.

So it's the reader's incompetence that doesn't enable us to grasp your Pulitzer-level writing? I see....

I see you're deft enough not to fall from a building, so I don't think we should worry you're not at risk from falling from your high horse. Right.

I'm still not clear how it "explicitly condones" rooftop photography.

Instead of the endless snarky comments, why don't you write a response and submit it to FStoppers for publishing?

Did you even read your own writing? In defense of something means you're condoning it.

And get over being ruffled by snarky remarks. You put something out here, now stand by it and cope with the criticism.

You're putting your logic in the minds of those who don't read articles, but see the images and think to themselves "Ah kewl! I gotta try that too."

And if you think i am speaking out of ignorance, let me just add that last year my son lost his best friend to this "sport". 25 years old he was when they scraped him up off the pavement. Whole life ahead of him.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think that your argument stands up. People would hopefully read this article and understand that those doing this are typically professional-level athletes with high levels of skill and huge experience, they would realise that there's a level of expertise to be achieved before even considering imitation.

People are constantly exposed to all sorts of images that might tempt them to do all sorts of things. Where do you draw the line?

Your hubris is unbelievable. And if you can't cope with that statement, you shouldn't be here in the comment section, or putting your work out there to begin with.

So.... how many articles are put up here that face the backlash that this one is? As well as up on Facebook? There comes a point in time when one must stop, be honest and look at the big picture when there are multiple people ripping the message you're trying to send. It's called reading the room or taking the temperature. We can't all be crazy, and it's not a case of randomly attacking someone's point (illogical, no? certainly not coincidental).

To again call out the readers and say they're not understanding the message would actually fall on you, the author, for not doing a good job of conveying your points. Because again, when it's more than one or two people providing fairly consistent feedback....well, you need to look in the mirror.

Hi Vincent, my last response here as Christmas is kicking in.

Some of the comments here have been useful, particularly regarding the illegality. However, your assertion that my article "explicitly condones" rooftop photography is still inaccurate.

Happy to deal with the snark and if I were scared of criticism, I wouldn't have written this article in the first place. I just wish some of the responses were a bit more constructive. One of my last pieces for fstoppers was about feminism and the majority of the comments were grossly misogynistic, almost aggressively so. It was a little bit alarming. This doesn't change how strongly I feel about the importance of gender equality, and it also more reason for me not to use internet forum comments as a bellwether for shaping my thoughts.

I'm not speaking to your last article, it's irrelevant here.

You truly need to read your own words. If you're still walking away from it without the impression that your article condones rooftop photography, you may want to have someone read it to you instead.

And again, "A defense of...." sets the tone for condoning. Then there is the content. But don't take my word for it, nor the others here who have a problem with the message.

Good day.

Andy, you have no grounds for defense of this activity.

It's criminal, dangerous (not only to those doing it but innocent bystanders who might be hit by them falling) and just.plain.stupid.

It is not commendable in any way, shape of form.

Ah yes, another brilliant comment about the 100's of thousands of innocent children mercilessly maimed each year by parkour practitioners falling off buildings. Oh wait, there have been none. Ever.

Are you old enough to drive? It seems you aren't even old enough to think.

Please, show me any one example of an innocent bystander being injured by the activities listed here, and I'll rescind me statements.

Don't need to provide any examples of anything to satisfy your irreverent attitude but I am pretty sure there have been many cases since the advent of multi-story buildings where people falling off them have killed people who happen to be passing below.

And before you start asking for examples of "parkour athletes" who have done this, let me explain something about statistical probabilities: if you put yourself in a position where a certain event is a probable outcome, sooner or later that outcome will become a reality.

So, as responsible members of the human race, is it not incumbent on us to minimise the potential for needless death by calling out those who encourage reckless pastimes as being what they are: idiots?

People who risk their own and others' lives for the hollow "glory" of bragging about their rooftop conquests on some irrelevant social media platform deserve nothing but derision. There's nothing brave, honourable or even aesthetic about what they are doing. Unless of course you share the same idiotic mindset.

So, while bragging about how smart you are and what an intellectual thinker you are, your defense is "I have no evidence of my statements but I'm going to press on and say that there have been many cases". I'm sorry, but your fear / worry / impression of a situation doesn't make it true, actual real life events make it true. You are complaining about what you fear will happen, but it doesn't. I will not pretend this is an argument, as only one of us is using facts, I can't argue against your fears, they are yours, and you will have them no matter what exists in reality. In any case, I hope your life is happy and fulfilling.

You're just trolling, not arguing.

@Andy Pearson - so if we are to use your logic of letting anybody publish whatever the hell they feel like publishing, how would you feel about seeing articles on other harmful activities like, oh, let's say pedophilia and the defence of serial killing by those who see no wrong in it?

Publishing anything that even mildly encourages the intellectually less than well endowed members of society (of which there seems to be an endless supply) to engage in things as STUPID as that being discussed in this article, fully deserves to be derided by those of us who were fortunate enough to have developed proper brain function in our formative years.

It's not censorship when it makes perfect sense not to glorify something as dumb as this "sport".

So, I finally actually read the article. It was well written, balanced in its presentation of the relevant issues and not at all what I was expecting. I don't know this but, I think it's been mischaracterized due to smart phones. :-)
The advent of advanced technology has created a race to the "next thing", resulting in hamster-like attention spans. Your article, unlike the majority on Fstoppers, is long, well-documented and thorough. I'm guessing most commenters stopped reading long before the XKCD reference and in some cases, may have read the title and clicked on the comments link. So what is my excuse? I'm old and, while greatly impressed with the abilities (both physical and mental) of parkour athletes, utterly incapable of even the least challenging of such feats. So, while I would have gladly watched a demonstration video of parkour, I have little interest in reading about it and am unimpressed with most of the resulting photos. And really, the article isn't about parkour.

I just wanted to tell you that.

Thanks for your thoughts. Useful for future articles. :)

I can't defend the trespassing aspect of it. If you ask for permission and take proper precautions go for it.

And permission by the owner of the building eliminates all risk of injury/death/harming of innocent bystanders how?

Vincent, your comments about injuring innocent bystanders are just astounding. Can you please link me to any one case where a thrill seeker (much less a parkour athlete) has fallen off a building and injured someone else?

That Spider-Man lead photo is all kinds of awesome, risks or not.

I find your statement of not finding these people to be reckless even if they do it illegally to be arrogant and self-centered! I'm all for and support doing what you want but only if it doesn't impact others. Illegally topped buildings impacts others. From the security officers of the building who may end up endangering themselves, to the owners who have to deal with being known as "that building where the person fell to their death", to possibly a person on the ground who is hurt or killed. Your excuse that you are trying to create images even if it is illegal is pure BS! Is it OK for me and a few thugs to beat the crap out of you as I take photos so I can create "beautiful and thought provoking images"? Don't try to justify your illegal activities with "but it is art". Want to get your rocks off with taking risk.....hell yeah go for it BUT don't do it illegally!! You are impacting others and that is not fair to them.