AVC 2006 and 3D Awards

[Jeff Mottle]

Hi all,

 

I'm in the planning stages for the next AVC 2006 competition and wanted to get your feedback. I think things went realtively well last year considering the size of the competition and it being the first time I'd planned such a huge undertaking, but I want this year's event to be even better. I'm going to detail some rough ideas below and I'd like your feedback.

 

 

1. There will be 3 challenges (rather than 5 like last year), as the workload was pretty extreme for both the competitiors and the judges.

 

2. I'm thinking the challenges will be a 1. a rendering, 2. an animation and 3. something abtract/artistic with fewer contraints to make up the three challenges.

 

3. There will be a qualifying round like last year where you can submit 3 of your best images. Judges will narrow the field to 10 competitors, rather than 30 like last year.

 

4. All 10 competitors will compete through all of the challenges, there will not be any eliminations.

 

5. Judging will be done by chosen studios, so they can divide the task of judging and critiqing each round. Of course if there is a single judge who wants to do it themselves I am ok with that too.

 

6. The timeframes are roughly as follows:

 

Qualification Submission period: 1 month

Qualificaton judging: 2 weeks

Challenge 1 (abstract relatively simple challenge): 2 weeks

Challenge 1 Judging: 2 weeks

Challenge 2 and 3: 1 month each

Challenge 2 and 3 Judging: 2 weeks each

 

This works out so there is roughly 30 days between the final judging and SIGGRAPH. This allows enough time for competitiors to arrange travel VISAs and for me to plan the CGA event without having a near nervous breakdown.

 

7. The finall scoring will be based on an average of the 3 challenges. If you don't complete one, it will be nearly impossible to win, but you can still carry on.

 

8. There will be prizes, but I have no idea if it will be as big or bigger than last year. Maybe smaller. Will all depend on sponsorship.

 

9. There will be two entry categories: Individual (Like last year) and Group (Studios)/Team. Students can participate in either.

 

10. Awards will likely be given to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in each category.

 

 

 

 

The 3D Awards willl open for submissions about 1 month after the open of the AVC 2006. The submission timeframe will be 3 months and the categories will be Best still image and animation in both individual and group/team/studio categories.

 

Winners for both the AVC 2006 and the 3D Awards will be held in Boston at SIGGRAPH 2006.

 

That's everything that I have tought about so far to try to make things a bit better than last year. I welcome feedback from everyone.

 

Cheers,

Jeff

[Jeff Mottle]

Where are all those people who complained about last year's rules and competition? No comments?

[Ernest Burden III]

We're all afraid...

[Jeff Mottle]

We're all afraid...

 

LOL, honest I won't bite. If I didn't care what people thought, I'd have never posted this.

[moshenko]

Great to see the Challenge moving forward. It looks like some wise thought has gone into this year's version. Three comments from me:

 

2. I'm thinking the challenges will be a 1. a rendering, 2. an animation and 3. something abtract/artistic with fewer contraints to make up the three challenges.

 

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing? Premature questions, probably, but for what it's worth I felt that many of last year's challenges left too much up for speculation and decision.

 

4. All 10 competitors will compete through all of the challenges, there will not be any eliminations.

Bravo!

 

5. Judging will be done by chosen studios, so they can divide the task of judging and critiqing each round. Of course if there is a single judge who wants to do it themselves I am ok with that too.

 

Can you elaborate on this? Is this different than last year? Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

[Ernest Burden III]

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing?

 

There was so much material created in AVC05 that it is astounding--especially since so much of it was so damned good. So cutting back is fine, but not too much. The comp. should not appear 'small'. It was tough on everybody, but it was big.

 

Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

 

I hestitate to comment about this because I do not have an objective viewpoint. But AVC05 had the crits written by individuals. And it was a lot of writing. A lot. Of writing. None of us were prepared for the amount of time it took. But it was an honor. I would not have wanted to be compensated, my incentive was that I had accepted the task and wanted to do a good job, as good as the entrants did. Well, that's a hard hurdle to clear.

 

As for judges crits in the WIP stage, it has been suggested. I was careful to avoid posting in anyones WIP threads, though I read them. The arguement in favor is that it gives the entrants a chance to incorporate the judges advice in their piece, rather than leave it for 'next time'. I, for one, would be interested in what other people think about that subject, especially those of you that competed.

 

I also did not read other judges crits before writing my own. I wanted to respond to the entry, not the other judges. But sometimes judging is done in a room, so everybody talks, compares notes, fights for their favorites, etc. Neither is better, just different.

[Jeff Mottle]

Fewer challenges is a good idea, I think. It's difficult to say whether this particular format (still+animation+abstract) will work without knowing the specifics of how the challenges are created. Will they be designated spaces/structures? Self-designed? Existing? Premature questions, probably, but for what it's worth I felt that many of last year's challenges left too much up for speculation and decision.

 

At this point I do not anticipate having anythign pre-made for the competition, except perhaps some primatives like was done in the Challenge #1. As for the structure of the challenges, when you say designated spaces, what so you mean? If the challenged were to be more defined, what would make them better?

 

 

Will judges be compensated for their participation as an incentive to provide adequate feedback? Will they be required to participate in WIP rounds?

 

I'd love to pay judges, but the fact is I just don't make any money on this competition so I don't think this will happen. I have earmarked money this year, first for CGA, to pay some writters for the site. While I could shift this to the judges it would mean not being able to pay for some really exciting content for the site, so I think payment will likely remain off the table. As for participation in WIP rounds, unless EVERY judge provided equal commentary to every participant there is bound to be problems, so I think commentary will have to be limited to the results of each challenge.

 

My thinking in having studios act as judging centers is that they can shift the responsibilty around and ofset some of the time it will take to judge these. My estimate is that judges will have to spend around 8-10 hours per challenge judging. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. I did not anticipate judges spending more than about 2-3 last year and I was WAAY off. I think some even spent more than 10, but I'm hoping this will not be the case this year.

 

One of my concerns with the judging and having the same number of competitors throughout the challenge and having both a Studio/Team and Individual categories, means 20 total competitiors. I will need many more judges this year so the two sides are divided.

[Jeff Mottle]

But sometimes judging is done in a room, so everybody talks, compares notes, fights for their favorites, etc. Neither is better, just different.

 

This is something that I would love to do. Get everyone together on a Skype conference call and get all of the judges to talk them through. The problem with this is trying to find a common tme zone, and sitting on the phone for 8 hours is not quite the same as hanging out in an office where you can walk around and take breaks. Probably wishfull thinking to do this unfourtunately.

[moshenko]

There was so much material created in AVC05 that it is astounding--especially since so much of it was so damned good. So cutting back is fine, but not too much. The comp. should not appear 'small'. It was tough on everybody, but it was big.

 

I agree, feeling big is a plus. I applaud the decision to lessen the amount of challenges because, well, they just killed me!

 

I hestitate to comment about this because I do not have an objective viewpoint. But AVC05 had the crits written by individuals. And it was a lot of writing. A lot. Of writing. None of us were prepared for the amount of time it took. But it was an honor. I would not have wanted to be compensated, my incentive was that I had accepted the task and wanted to do a good job, as good as the entrants did. Well, that's a hard hurdle to clear.

 

It was obvious that some judges felt the same way, that being a judge for this competition was an honor. With others, it just wasn't as obvious, even though I'm sure that they all felt that way. I completely appreciate how large the task of judging was and that the judges were busy people with real jobs and lives to attend to, so I hope nobody feels that I'm bashing. That's why I mentioned the compensation bit, thinking that it may be a way to ensure that the commitment is there. Competitors had the carrot of prizes dangled before them (as well as possible world-wide fame!), but the judges seemed to have no such payoff.

[moshenko]

At this point I do not anticipate having anythign pre-made for the competition, except perhaps some primatives like was done in the Challenge #1. As for the structure of the challenges, when you say designated spaces, what so you mean? If the challenged were to be more defined, what would make them better?

 

I found that I spent way too much time deciding what to do for some of the challenges rather than just getting to the job of doing it. It felt like being back in design studio again, and I don't exactly say that with fondness. A good deal of our job as illustrators is to bring someone's design to life, so having a challenge that is perhaps more rigid would allow competitors to get right to the task of illustrating rather than spending so much time making design or content decisions. So, by "designated spaces" I guess I'm talking about something like supplying a set of drawings to a particular building or space and letting the competitors go to it.

 

 

I'd love to pay judges, but the fact is I just don't make any money on this competition so I don't think this will happen. I have earmarked money this year, first for CGA, to pay some writters for the site. While I could shift this to the judges it would mean not being able to pay for some really exciting content for the site, so I think payment will likely remain off the table.

 

You've got lots of other things to offer to potential judges: publicized profiles/interviews, advertising, etc. Maybe compensation isn't needed, but it's something to consider.

[dbarc]

I found that I spent way too much time deciding what to do for some of the challenges rather than just getting to the job of doing it. It felt like being back in design studio again, and I don't exactly say that with fondness. A good deal of our job as illustrators is to bring someone's design to life, so having a challenge that is perhaps more rigid would allow competitors to get right to the task of illustrating rather than spending so much time making design or content decisions. So, by "designated spaces" I guess I'm talking about something like supplying a set of drawings to a particular building or space and letting the competitors go to it.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with this. While it was refreshing to have complete artistic freedom in some of the challenges, that does not necessarily test how good an arch vis artist is at their job.

 

I felt that some important skills which we have to use day to day were not tested. Something more obviously like a traditional brief - a particular building with defined programme and materiality, would be a good test of all the skills which we require as competent architectural visualisers - choosing the best composition, bringing out the character of particular materials, clear expression of the programme, lighting, atmosphere, lifestyle, particular marketing focus.. etc etc.. and more often than not on a 'challenging' building rather than the amazing architectural eyecandy we would wish for!

 

It would be fascinating to see how different people approach the communication of the same brief.

[Tommy L]

I think to have a basic set of architectural drawings to work from then a very brief brief, maybe 'isolation' or 'coherence' or some other evoccative sentiment would work for the rendering challenge. The contestant can choose what to model, where to view from etc. Then the skill is not in the design work, but in the artists ability to convey the design in the required way, which does test us how we are meant to be tested.

Just an idea.

Tom.

[Tim Nelson]

I whole-heartedly agree with this. While it was refreshing to have complete artistic freedom in some of the challenges, that does not necessarily test how good an arch vis artist is at their job.

I felt that some important skills which we have to use day to day were not tested. Something more obviously like a traditional brief - a particular building with defined programme and materiality, would be a good test of all the skills which we require as competent architectural visualisers - choosing the best composition, bringing out the character of particular materials, clear expression of the programme, lighting, atmosphere, lifestyle, particular marketing focus.. etc etc.. and more often than not on a 'challenging' building rather than the amazing architectural eyecandy we would wish for!

It would be fascinating to see how different people approach the communication of the same brief.

 

Agreed, less designing and more rendering! I spent probably 90-95% of my time in search of source material, inpiring images & designs, and trying my best to come up with something that I would be happy with. Then when you realize you just have one day left until the deadline, you are forced to go with something whether you like it or not.

[Ernest Burden III]

Agreed, less designing and more rendering!

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

 

Forcing design on the entrants got us a dancing Paris street as just one example. The creativity presented by all the entrants blew my mind! I would hate to lose that. But it's true, it presents too many variables.

 

 

Jeff--thinking about the AVCs made me want to visit the AVC site to refresh my memory. From the CGA homepage, just how would one do that? That competition was really important and wildly successful, it should be promoted all year on the front page, even as a banner link.

[thomas+son]

I liked the rules last year, and the rules this year look good too.

The idea of many renderings and not one is great! it is like the USA baseball series there is always a chance for the underdog to come back. Thomas+son

[Tim Saunders]

Moreover, if such a competition could be linked with the 'monthly challenges' you'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

You nailed it Simon. We're currently working on getting the monthly challenges back and rolling. Post your opinions about that on the current thread in the monthly challenges section. The AVC is a seperate challenge all together though and deserves more work and attention (as it has in the past) and this competition being an anual one.

 

Good comments about design concerns, because it is a valid cocern. The real challenge (if everyone agrees to work from the same design as mentioned) would be coming up with a design that would be universally accepted.

[Brian Cassil]

Funny, I was just talking with someone about some changes that I thought would be appropriate this next time around. You've hit almost all of the ones I had thought about. Especially reducing the number of challenges to 3.

 

I've listed some revisions here.

 

2. I'm thinking the challenges will be a 1. a rendering, 2. an animation and 3. something abtract/artistic with fewer contraints to make up the three challenges.

 

I'm not so sure about this one. It would make more sense to me to have the three challenges be exterior, interior, and animation. I would also allow equal time for all three challenges, or possibly a little more for the animation.

 

3. There will be a qualifying round like last year where you can submit 3 of your best images. Judges will narrow the field to 10 competitors, rather than 30 like last year.

 

9. There will be two entry categories: Individual (Like last year) and Group (Studios)/Team. Students can participate in either.

 

I've listed these together since it's really the same issue. It seems to me that you would have far fewer interested groups than you would individuals so how about changing it to 15 individuals and 5 groups?

 

Making it more about rendering and less about design, sounds good, but may not yield the best results in what get's submitted. I mean there are LOTS of challenges around the web for rendering fruit bowls, atriums, cathedrals, etc. that are all pre-determined. What made last years challenge so great was the unique and varied entries. I mean how could we forget Olivier Champagne's first challenge? Sure there was some wierd stuff too but I'm okay to take a little wierdness to open it up for some true creativity, even if it doesn't represent what we do 90% percent of the time. In fact I enjoyed the opportunity to do something different.

 

I think that's it. Like I said I like almost everything you've suggested. Great job Jeff!

[Tim Saunders]

Good point(s) Brian. Even though a pre-determined design would eliminate a lot of the stress in figuring out what to do for your entries, that uniqueness is what set this challenge apart from all the others. I also like the number of entries you came up with. 10 seems too small, but 30 too big. I'm anxious to see what the final verdict is.

[Brian Cassil]

Maybe the rendering of pre-determined designs could be saved for the monthly challenges. It would be nice to see those running again, but I'd keep that separate from this.

[Aksel]

I found that I spent way too much time deciding what to do for some of the challenges rather than just getting to the job of doing it. It felt like being back in design studio again, and I don't exactly say that with fondness. A good deal of our job as illustrators is to bring someone's design to life, so having a challenge that is perhaps more rigid would allow competitors to get right to the task of illustrating rather than spending so much time making design or content decisions.

 

I see your point, but i disagree - being an arch illustrator requires in my experience a lot of 'filling-the-gaps' so it's not really too bad if you feel ok with designing, even if the main work is illustration.

 

Maybe it could be an idea to extend the formal categories (interior, exterion, still, animation, abstract) to freestyle and briefed design. i saw some of last years entrances and it would have been a big loss if they were cut down to all render barcelona pavillion as a rather technical competition.

 

just my 0.02, a.

[moshenko]

I see your point, but i disagree - being an arch illustrator requires in my experience a lot of 'filling-the-gaps' so it's not really too bad if you feel ok with designing, even if the main work is illustration.

 

Maybe it could be an idea to extend the formal categories (interior, exterion, still, animation, abstract) to freestyle and briefed design. i saw some of last years entrances and it would have been a big loss if they were cut down to all render barcelona pavillion as a rather technical competition.

 

just my 0.02, a.

 

It's one thing to "fill in the gaps"; it's a whole separate exercise to design something from scratch, although that wasn't necessarily the case in AVC05 (pre-existing projects could be used).

 

I agree with everyone's comments about not wanting to turn AVC into a technical competition. My point was that I - as a participant - felt there was a little too much "free-for-all" and that maybe AVC06 would benefit from, for instance, a single challenge being somewhat more defined.

 

Bear in mind, too, that there is still plenty of room for interpretation given a structure from which to base ones starting point. A challenge wouldn't necessarily have to supply the competitors with a complete working drawing set; it could be something more basic that competitors are left to detail (something that I'm sure most would both excel at and enjoy). Even if competitors were provided with a basic massing of an exterior/interior and told to make up the details, I think that would go a long way in helping to get right into the job of illustrating.

[oliviercampagne]

5 challenges were making it Big.. but it was good in a way. I kind of like it how it was. Also remenber some nights working on it listening music. Everytimes, now i hear the same music, i remenber, " That's the music of AVC " ahah.. anyway was a great time.

 

Is there maybe a way that the competitors all design the same "building" ? both for animation and the still.. Then they have the same base.. and the critic will be concentrate on "how they show this". I had sometimes the feeling that, last year, because the architecture was good or not.. this was influencing the result ( of course..) you know what i mean. Or maybe is to rigid this proposition... Also i see the question was raised few post before... sorry..

[Scott Baumberger]

FWIW, I'll through my two cents in here as well. It seems to me that this discussion could be an opportunity for the AVC to rethink its purpose - architectural visualization is not so much about the architectural design process itself as much as taking someone else's design and illustrating or communicating certain aspects of that design for a specific purpose. Great architectural renderings depict subjects that have been designed by a team of experts and have been studied and tested for a length of time. To try to create an interesting subject and render it in the time alotted is in many ways mimicking design school and not the reality of creating professional architectural illustrations.

 

Therefore if the AVC is a test of architectural visualization, it should remove building design from the program. This will not only allow the contestants to focus on the visualization aspects of the challenge, but it will also level the playing field and it should simplify the judging process as well. Again, it's my opinion that the competition should be as "real" as possible, and to that end the contestants should be working from the same set of drawings.

 

There would still be a huge amount of creativity possible, just as there is on a "real" arch. viz. project. It has been argued that there are other competitions out there for people to render pre-determined subjects. There are also competitions out there for people to design buildings. IMO, the AVC is not the place for contestants to dust off their personal designs. Let's do one thing at a time, and I think the competition will be a lot better for it.

[Jeff Mottle]

Thanks for all of the feedback guys, this has been invaluable. Keep it coming.

 

I'm working on a challenge concept at the moment that I think will encompass everyone's feedback to contain the scope of the challenges, but still leave a great deal of flexibility in interpretation and artistic freedom.

 

I'm actually getting really excited becuase I received word today that I will be able to use materials and concept sketches from a very cool project that was developed for a project proposal. I won't reveal too much more so I don't spoil the surprise, but I think it's shaping up to be a very cool competition this year.

[Jeff Mottle]

Jeff--thinking about the AVCs made me want to visit the AVC site to refresh my memory. From the CGA homepage, just how would one do that? That competition was really important and wildly successful, it should be promoted all year on the front page, even as a banner link.

 

Click on your AVC 2005 Judges Avatar.