The idea of the hinge could be just as easily applied to the relationship between architect and developer, architect and town planner or architect and construction company. Indeed, the idea of complicated, collaborative effort is nothing new to the architect or to the commercial photographer. Nor are complaints about the limitations they impose. However, I believe that commission based art offers just as many opportunities for creative exploration and the development of craft as fine art. I have tried to argue here why that is the case.
To my mind, the hinge is the best way of explaining the relationship between the people who commission and those who produce commercial art. The well-oiled hinge can provide a fruitful dialogue between creative individuals and organisations that can hold up a frame through which information flows. On the other hand, there are hinges that do not move, lose their function and require replacement - the rusty sort, of course.
In conclusion I would like to return to the structure of the atom, as I believe the analogy might provide not just an initial point of departure for me as writer, but also a useful after-image for the reader to take away. At the core, it was suggested, lies the question surrounding the utility of atmosphere. The sheer volume of texts produced about this subject indicates an interest that is worth exploring. My contention is that a photographic exploration is an essential method of doing so. Which takes us to the electron cloud - a move from the question of 'what' to questions about 'how': how photography can develop a closer dialectic process with architects and publishers; how doing so might draw attention to overlooked institutional practices of each; how photography can act in the construction of place; how research projects could contribute to expanded understandings of representation and photography; how photography might be recognised for its full potential producing discursive/argumentative statements and not just 'transparent' copies of an architectural original. Recognising lost potential might be used to argue the instrumental value of artistic research such as this. The two dimensional world of photographs is currently commissioned in a unidirectional, one-dimensional line which leads from specifics envisioned by the commissioning architect to their realisation by the technically-able photographer. But since the ideas for new photographs are engendered through looking at old ones, a feedback loop is really enacted here, not a linear arrow as normally supposed. Increased verbal dialogue between photographers and architects might enrich the feedback. An exploration of ideas through photographs almost certainly will.
Universal style supposedly went out with modernism, yet it is alive and well in architectural photography. If architecture is really about creating a sense of place, why do the photographs of those distinct places look the same? The reason is clear: architects appear to have assumed, like certain academics  that photography is transparent. I believe, as much scholarship has shown , that this is a mistake. There is no such thing as neutral; there are only styles and conventions. Artistic research projects like the one I have undertaken are a good method for investigating the beliefs that inform that mistake. If architecture is to be understood in terms put forth by textual arguments about place making, the visual arguments made alongside must correspond. That means a shift from universal answers to subjective encounters. The one-size-fits-all-still-life-studio-photography representation of buildings should open up to an exploration of built environments through photography that treats atmosphere seriously. Photographers have much to share with lovers of architecture, given half a chance.
 For a dicussion of Dead Pan photography, see: Cotton, Charlotte. The Photograph as Contemporary Art, (London: Thames & Hudson 2004).
 Varto, Juha. A Dance with the World (Helsinki: lto University Publication series, 2012), p. 38.
 Connah, Roger. How Architecture Got its Hump (Boston: The MIT Press, 2006), p. 57.
 Tafuri, Manfredo “Toward a critique of architectural ideology”, Hays, Micheal. (Ed.): Architecture Theory Since 1968 ss, 2000), pp. 103 - 104.
 Connah, p. 72.
 Socrates is chosen over Hegel, Marx, Adorno or other thinkers here for three main reasons: brevity, simplicity and broad familiarity. Any of the others require specialist knowledge and would extend the length of this paper unnecessarily, given the topic at hand. Socrates is perversely so familiar as to seem like common sense to the public at large, more doxa than episteme, no doubt much to his eternal chagrin.
 Research involves hit and misses. So many of these photos stick closely to existing, familiar tropes, whilst others fail for the simple fact that they lack the visual impact and appeal that would make them desirable to a client. Hence many of these pictures are not commercially viable. But using them as research has allowed me to take pictures I would never have otherwise considered. That process of opening up to new possibilities is what I believe this approach offers. It means you won't always get the "money shot" that many of the people interviewed mentioned. Aesthetics and spectacle are often the reliable components of such an images, hence the pursuit of such an image amounts the standard formulaic response to preconditioned desires. It is a form of visual morality, for it depends on safe, clearly established mores. Can the world of architecture open up to more than familiar repeated typologies? Can it branch out, and can photographers provide ideas for that growth?
 Walton, Kendall. Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism, Critical Inquiry Vol. 11, No. 2 (Dec., 1984), pp. 246-277. A more recent argument can be listened to on the following podcast: http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/b/0/f/b0fa8cd3423f9e12/Kendall_Walton_on_Photography.mp3?s=1366627287&e=1366628906&c_id=5252916&h=bfa94e357fe1e1c0e3cac8f0ccc2db50
 Kress, Gunther & Van Leeuwen, Theo: Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. (London: Sage Publications, 1996, 2006 (2nd ed), p. 18.