Exploring the Abandoned

Based in Brussels, Bert Windey is a man with an penchant for delving into the often vast grounds of deserted buildings, capturing his findings with haunting photographs. A hobby with a myriad of legal and moral implications, we caught up with Bert to discuss his pass time and to present to you some of his most fascinating images to date.

KLLKT: How did you first get involved in exploring these abandoned places?

Bert Windey: The roots probably lay in some sort of funny childhood curiosity to open every door and see what’s behind. When we were 17, some friends and I managed to get inside the bar where we had our very first beers together, after it closed down and was abandoned for some months already. Over the years I became more and more interested in photography, and saw photos of such places passing by in books and on websites. It seems that own interest and inspiration from around me gradually met each other.

K: What sort of planning goes into one of these explorations? How do you track them down? Do you ever survey the area before returning to break in?

BW: First of all, I wouldn’t really call it “break” in. I never even had to break anything to enter places, and wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it. As for ethical principles, I never take any artefacts from the site either, and I think a lot of other “explorers” also maintain that principle.

The amount of preparation and planning varies considerably from place to place. Sometimes you just stumble upon a building that everybody seems to have forgotten about and you try to find your way in. This being said, over time you seem to develop some kind of perceptual expertise to extract “abandoned properties” from the environment: you just actively see them better. But the search mostly happens on-line and this really is a part of the excitement already. Cycle through newspapers, blogs, etc. Some people even follow up on the company bankruptcy section of newspapers to go and check out their premises later on. On-line maps and satellite tools nowadays of course greatly facilitate the process. Sometimes I check out the area beforehand, to see whether access is sufficiently realistic to meet up with somebody to pay it a visit (it’s usually safer to be two while exploring).

As for the function of the building I like to keep it unclear sometimes. It’s nice to walk around and wonder what certain objects or rooms were for. In times when exact information is always available through smartphones and alike, it’s a celebration of vagueness to simply invent your own story about the place. After the visit, it can be interesting and satisfying though, to look up the rich history most places have lived.

direct lender payday loans

Play

direct lender payday loans

|Next

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

Photograph by Bert Windey ©

direct lender payday loans

K: Generally, is the problem of getting caught and ejected one that outweighs the potential danger of the sites due to their neglected state?

BW: Both problems contribute to the intensity of such visits. When meeting owners or sceptical bypassers, I usually prefer to be proactive and approach them to explain why I’m there, why I am interested in such places, … It allows you to make a friendly, collaborating and trustable impression. A lot of people are open for it once they find out how different the true purpose is from the expected vandalism. I just hope I’ll never meet guard dogs but the risk is real. Considering the neglected state of the sites, it helps to have some notions of construction, and generally to watch your step (and head) non-stop.

K: Have you had many close calls whilst on one of these projects?

BW: A couple of times I thought I heard guards patrolling on site, for example in a big house on a military domain. We laid low for a couple of minutes, since entering a military zone is obviously not in the “grey zone”. However, you’re hardly absolutely sure it’s not just “sounds”. The noise of wind rushing through the broken windows and corridors, leaves gently touching the façade, open doors smashing into their frames, these can all be pretty convincing. Some colleague explorers that were with me have been asked to leave the terrain, and then it’s best to just comply.

K: What do you feel that these abandoned buildings sybmolise?

BW: Primarily I wouldn’t want to go into too deep interpretations, since in a way it boils down to curiosity and excitement what drives me to go there. But it’s true that I am genuinely touched by the places, and it deserves some reflection as to where these feelings come from.

The most obvious would be that they symbolise some kind of “human condition”, in the sense that once we don’t need something (a building) anymore, we just throw it away. It’s left for good and nobody cares anymore. There’s a nostalgic sadness to it, that a place where once people lived their lives and did their jobs, is now completely banned out of society. Walking around the corridors, and seeing the artefacts lying around, you can still reconstruct the activity of what once was, but is now forgotten by almost everyone. Additionally, most buildings could still have a function, and they are still beautiful. There’s still many of the architectural details and craftmenship to appreciate. The beauty of imperfection. And one would even appreciate perfectly maintained buildings more than before. However, but less poetical, giving a certain place a new function could be just the way to preserve at least some beauty of the past (but whether everything has to be preserved is of course worth a discussion on its own).

What strikes me too, is that these places are “honest”. The theme park feeling where everything is set up to please the visitor, where everyting is clean, spotless, and well painted to make a perfect impression, is far away. Abandoned places don’t need to make any impression anymore (if after all they are still there, it’s usually because an investor wants to convert them into fancy lofts or shiny offices). Sometimes you get the impression that people dropped everything from their hands, and collectively made a run from the place. What you see is how it was back in the glory days (with the exception, of course, of the usual vandalism).

Finally, it’s stunning to observe how (and how quickly) nature takes over once human control has left the building. Tree branches climb into windows, roots overgrow garden stairs, grass and herbs start to pop up on the highest floors of appartment blocks once tiny holes in the roof allow for even the most moderate water influx. As if it’s nature’s way of teaching humanity a lesson in modesty.

K: Would you say that the buildings are nowadays merely artefacts or do they have a new identity within the dialogue of their locations?

BW: For people who are interested in architecture and history, I think these buildings can be a sincere testimony of the past, of how the world once was (and usually not a long time ago). But their new identity is probably quite limited, in the sense that the majority of the people consider it simply as garbage, turning the district into marginality, and alike. For me, I guess it’s the honesty of the testimony of the past these places offer, that render them so valuable, whereas museums and monuments are generally communicating an intentional interpretation of history.

direct lender payday loans