Thought i'd throw this out there

[skala67]

someone in my office just posed a question.

 

What do you guys think of an accreditation program for ArchViz Professionals. Similar to becoming a registered architect. Since it is a recognized practice to be licensed in the arch design field; would we benefit from such an organization that creates an accredidation program for us? Our industry is finally being recognized as a legitimate profession, universities are starting to offer courses and degrees, so if it was a good idea, right now would probably be the right time?!?!

 

love to hear everyones 2 cents...i havent really formed a solid opinion for or against.

 

cheers,

[Arnold Gallardo]

Good idea but the question is HOW? Most accredited fields have an established WORKFLOW as well as STANDARDIZATION of how things are done. I don't think we have anything close to that in this field with the myriad of tools that we employ. That I think will be the difficulty although the workflow form modeling to material properties setup to Lighting/render is pretty much established, the question of HOW EXACTLY is something else.

[rotten42]

I guess it depends on how you look at out field. Do you look at it as being a technical discipline or an artistic one? If it is a technical field then it has its merit but not if you consider it an artistic occupation.

I look at this field being more artistic than technical. We aren’t responsible for making sure what we visualize doesn’t fall down on a heap of rubble so I don’t see the need to standardize. I think that would hamper the creativity in the field.

[martin walker]

sounds a fantastic idea.

[Tim Nelson]

Well there are majors and degrees for just about anything you can imagine. So I don't think it would be a bad idea to do the same for arch. rendering. It is both technical and artistic, but that doesn't make it impossible to educate, critique and evaluate.

[Devin Johnston]

There would have to be a standard set of skills that each person could meet no matter what platform or software. You would also need to define what an ArchViz person is, do they only do still images or animations or both, is the accreditation dependent only on technical knowledge or do the artistic talents of the person come into play?

 

I think such an accreditation process would be extremely beneficial to both the individual as well as the profession. It would put everyone on the same level and would create community standards that would help us in all aspects of our work. The problems is who is going to do this, it would have to be an organization like the AIA where a test is administered. Would the accreditation be a one time things or would you have to pay a fee to keep your license and take classes like architects do to keep your skills current?

[Sawyer]

There already is ASAI and a few other orginizations I believe. No tests to get in just dues. The thing is what would not being in do? You have to be licensed to call your self an architect (or a dr or a lawyer). The state governs those. But to be in the AIA you just have to sign up and pay some fees. Many architects don't belong to AIA, they just can't put AIA after their name.

 

Is what you are proposing to compete with ASAI? Just for 3d? ASAI has very little clout, I am not sure if I have every gotten a job because I was a member. Its a nice orginization but not well recognised. If you are trying to make rendering more exclusive (and a more controlled profession) what would not belonging mean? Licensure is out of the question and unions need a bit of power to really work. How would you educate the "masses" about the value of hiring a "certified" illustrator? Or would it just be personal a series of classes offered that whoever wanted could sign up for to get better at what they do?

[Devin Johnston]

I've been a member of the ASAI for about 2 years and I have to say it's done absolutely nothing for me but give me a few letters to stick by my name. That organization is more for people that still do hand illustration than it is for people using a computer. Your right of course about how difficult it would be to make the accreditation mean something in the real world but that doesn’t mean it can't be done.

[Koper]

I think you have to ask the architects and any other who need archviz if they'd rather want use people who are accredited (1. by) than people who are not (2. because).

 

(1. by) a body put in place by the best recognized people in the profession

 

(2. because) the people who does not meet the standards of (1.) but still are able to perform and deliver(1.)

 

 

I think this would help the archviz industry allot to get to a point where it is a requirement of standards

[Sawyer]

I think you have to ask the architects and any other who need archviz if they'd rather want use people who are accredited (1. by) than people who are not (2. because).

 

(1. by) a body put in place by the best recognized people in the profession

 

(2. because) the people who does not meet the standards of (1.) but still are able to perform and deliver(1.)

 

 

I think this would help the archviz industry allot to get to a point where it is a requirement of standards

 

 

Then if the person who is registered did not perform would the governing body be responsible for them?

Would the "body" certify that artists are "owners" of their software?

Would it mean setting standard rates?

Are standards what we need or good artists?

 

Rather see this with drafters.

[John Dollus]

Seems rather pointless to me and would only serve as a protectionist movement.

Do painters need to be certified? Who defines the standards? If you rely on 'recognised' members, that is a dangerous road to take. Just because someone publishes a paper does not mean they actually know what they are doing or, more importantly, know how to see it in others.

Regarding the ASAI, it was started as more of an organization to help each other out through insurance negotiation and the spread of business techniques rather than a way to procure work and establish finite criteria on what defines an artist.

To Maxer, what makes the distinction between hand illustration and computer as you posted? Why would such an accredidation be useful? Like the AIA? Give me a break! Look at history and the individuals who are heralded as innnovators in architecture. Could they pass the exams today and be considered 'registered'?

I agree with Rotten42.

For Tim, of course there are degrees and majors for just about anything you can imagine. Education in the US is a business like any other. When I attended college, you had about 6 options for 3d cg art related programs in North America. Now they are all over and I have personally interviewed many graduates of these 'degree granting' programs only to be disappointed.

Furthermore, How would this possibly apply on a global scale today? Because someone doesn't know what the standard US measurement is for a modular masonry unit, should they be blocked from achieving 'certification' in the US despite the fact they have the best eye for composition on the planet?

 

Skala67, I realize you just 'threw this out there' based on office banter but I, for one, am throwing the idea right back.

 

'Since it is a recognized practice to be licensed in the arch design field;'

Btw, this is a false statement. Anyone can 'design' architecture. It just takes someone registered to write the insurance policy....

[Ernest Burden III]

There already is ASAI and a few other orginizations I believe. No tests to get in just dues.

 

There is a general requirement that one is up to professional standards. I'm not sure if that is articulated in specific language, but there is an expectation that members are professionals or students seeking to be professionals. It may be an ever-changing standard, but they have one.

 

I've been a member of the ASAI for about 2 years and I have to say it's done absolutely nothing for me but give me a few letters to stick by my name. That organization is more for people that still do hand illustration than it is for people using a computer.

 

I disagree. It is for its members. The fact is that many of the people in Cg arch-vis have decided not to join ASAI, while traditional-media people have, in larger numbers, chosen to join.

 

Regarding the ASAI, it was started as more of an organization to help each other out through insurance negotiation and the spread of business techniques rather than a way to procure work and establish finite criteria on what defines an artist.

 

Actually, it had much more to do with sales tax. I'm not kidding. My father was involved in starting it, along with Steve Olses and Frank Costentino. It was originally going to be in NY, but that never quite got going (this would be in the early 1970s) and the idea was re-born in Boston in the late 70s. Ironically, the sales tax issue waited like the sleeping tiger until I tackled it with the NYSR while I was president of that group. Around the same time, ASAI (it was ASAP then) did some sales tax work in California.

 

I'm not a big fan of ASAI. But if you want to see more CG work represented there, join it as a CG professional. I was a member of that group for the first decade, I've sat out the second.

 

I agree with the point about having to define what is art as a criteria for a certificate. Its silly. However, demonstrating an understanding of the history and traditions and techniques of our industry would be a perfectly valid basis for a professional certificate. How many of us can construct a perspective by hand, or even explain how to properly size scale figures in an image? Who can read architectural documents, who can create effective shaders?

 

First you need a list of required skills. Then a definition of how those can be demonstrated. Then a method of testing that encompassed both hand and digital methods. Then you have to convince the world that they should care about this accreditation.

 

To be honest, I'm really glad that people accept us as we are, and let us earn a living so long as we continue to produce commercially viable products. Who is it that wants to be more labeled and categorized than we already are? Leave that for the architects, engineers and lawyers.

[aaron-cds]

I really don't see the point. Our portfolios and websites show our qualifications. That's what clients look for, not whether your in ASAI or have a framed certificate signed by Ted Boardman. Let's get real. Clients are looking for results. That's the beauty of this profession. Let's keep it regulation free.

 

On the other hand, since you made the comparison to registered architects:

As a licensed architect, I am required to keep my registered status as a protection to the public. As a licensed illustrator ??? ... What would that be for? I'm afraid that would be more of a joke than being a licensed landscape architect or licensed interior decorator.

 

It's not that I'm offended, but being registered as an architect is not in the same boat as being a registered cg technition. It's apples and oranges. I guess that makes me an apple and an orange.

[Sawyer]

What this would be suggesting is limiting the power/ability of working professionals. And that is not good. Setting up a degree program for people to learn, that is quite different than trying to make all professionals in a field jump through certain hoops. Now if we were talking about setting up a school and what classes people need to learn and offering to improve the education and skill set of illustrators I think that is a great idea.

[aaron-cds]

On second thought, I'm on board with this idea as long as there's no continuing education requirements

[e-YELLOWCABS.COM]

that's a question ! The trouble is : "architectural vizualisation", the job is at the boundaries of 2 worlds which both have their own rules, and for the first, a big question of responsability. You need some architectural skills, the more you've got the more independant and fast and well payed you'll be. According to me, the value of a good archiviz guy is how good he can be in a certain amount of time, that's it !

Can you learn it, can you teach it ? And to finish, this new status would have to delivered by whom? Would your qualification be recognized and protected?

pierre:confused:

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild (scroll down to modern guilds)

 

 

our job, for the most part is to be artists and illustrators. typically we are not held responsible if the building bears no resemblance to the final work we produce. often our work is just a representation to facilitate understanding by the client or public. i am picking my brain, trying to figure out what the use of a professional organization that requires degrees and testing would achieve. the only thing i can currently come up with is related to a term i hear thrown out every now and then on the board.... verified views. views that require you to have knowledge, rather than just skill and talent. projects where you are being asked to be precise, and actually provide hard evidence of whether things are correct or not. is this actually what you are going to see when you stand at this point.

 

i guess this could be carried over in materials also, but how many of us are using scientifically calculated materials? ...materials that have the same reflective and absorption values as their real life counter parts. i think of they Disney Concert Hall. the had a post construction problem with the metal material. the reflection off of it raised the temperature of the surrounding buildings by 10 degrees. i think they had to go back and sand a matte finish on the building to keep the sun from reflecting onto the other buildings, and raising the temperature.

 

...but bottom line, until we are solving problems like this, i see no need for an organization that requires you to have a certain degree, or be able to pass a certain technical test in order to get in.

 

i do see the value of a guild that will represent us as artists and illustrators, and that is probably what the ASAI and the NYSI are trying to do. ...but i don't see a client asking if you are a card carrying ASAI member before they hire you.

 

actually, the more i think about it, this may be of value to architecture firms looking to hire someone, or hire a freelancer. kind of a garuantee that the person they are hiring is knowledgable enough to make an accurate representation of the building, beyond a artistic representation.

[clown10]

Since I am from Germany, I am not concerned about an organisation like this in the US. But because I am from Germany I know alot about organisations like this. It is said that as soon as 3 people do the same thing in Germany the already establish such an organisation. And I hate this! Why? Because in more than 99% of all the cases these organisations slow everything down.

 

For example:

 

In our profession one has to learn constantly new techniques, software and what else. As soon as such an org would have settled on the lowest possible standards (and this is what normally happens) even these low standards would be outdated by evolving technology.

 

Who decides what students have to learn? And how often would this be changed?

 

What about this? This organisation would give you a nice label, button, whatever you call this in english, so that you are an accredited member of this organisation and so that it is proven that you know exactly for example how light and shadows work and how they have to look like in renderings so that they resemble nature in it most accurate way.

 

And then comes the customer.

 

He might say that the windows look to dark (hear this all the time) and if I can't make them brighter. I say that they look like this in reality, which can be seen everywhere outside. He says that he understands, but he still want's them brighter. So I just do it. It's his money.

 

I don't think an organisation would help in this case.

 

And most important in my opinion is the diversity. Such organisations try to level everything. Real creativity is strongly hindered by this. Architecture is by the way a very good example for this here in Germany.

 

Building a house in Germany is very, very expensive. Therefore a lot of people would like to build cheaper houses, but they are not allowed to. Because there is a Norm for everything. Houses that work perfectly in the US or Canada are just not allowed to build here.

 

I really didn't want to have something like this in our industry.

 

Since I am also a designer (this here is just my bread and butter work, doesn't mean I don't like this, just the contrary), I have nightmares imagening that eventually somebody dictates my how my design has to look like. I mean, honestly, therefore we have our clients, or not.

 

Just my two cents

Juergen

[rotten42]

I've been a member of the ASAI for about 2 years and I have to say it's done absolutely nothing for me but give me a few letters to stick by my name. That organization is more for people that still do hand illustration than it is for people using a computer. Your right of course about how difficult it would be to make the accreditation mean something in the real world but that doesn’t mean it can't be done.

 

 

thanks for posting this because that is just what I was going to ask....What good would it be? So what would accreditation bring besides a bureaucracy? If you think it would bring you work or raise your pay you are dreaming.

I'm not much for associations, unions or any other type of organization because I truly believe they only help the weakest members. Actually, that's not entirely true. They also help the people that run these organizations.

Let a person’s creativity, business sense and networking/marketing skills be the driving force. I really can’t see any upside to it.

[rotten42]

Then if the person who is registered did not perform would the governing body be responsible for them?

Would the "body" certify that artists are "owners" of their software?

Would it mean setting standard rates?

Are standards what we need or good artists?

 

Rather see this with drafters.

 

 

and so what if a person doesn't perform...what then? Are you going to say that they can't render for anybody? Good luck with that?

Also, how would you ever be able to set a standard that would incorporate a person's style and then all the different render engines? It just seems pointless.

Again, I get back to the point that these are visualizations and not engineering drawings which can have serious repercussions when not done to a standard. What is there to gain by having an association?

[rotten42]

I really don't see the point. Our portfolios and websites show our qualifications. That's what clients look for, not whether your in ASAI or have a framed certificate signed by Ted Boardman. Let's get real. Clients are looking for results. That's the beauty of this profession. Let's keep it regulation free.

 

On the other hand, since you made the comparison to registered architects:

As a licensed architect, I am required to keep my registered status as a protection to the public. As a licensed illustrator ??? ... What would that be for? I'm afraid that would be more of a joke than being a licensed landscape architect or licensed interior decorator.

 

It's not that I'm offended, but being registered as an architect is not in the same boat as being a registered cg technition. It's apples and oranges. I guess that makes me an apple and an orange.

 

 

 

this is what I was getting at.

Licensing a visualization artist is like trying to license a musician

BTW...I'm a licensed interior designer...I guess that makes me a joke:D

[aaron-cds]

no offense intended Ron, it was a tongue-in cheek remark, not a slam.

 

I only said that because here in the states, there are vast numbers of professionals who don't get licensed in landscaping or interior design because there isn't as much pressure to get licensed like there is in architecture.

 

If someone's working in an architecture firm as a project architect with 12 or more years of experience and not licensed, people talk behind there back and say "what's wrong with this person, why aren't they licensed yet?"

 

For landscape architects and interior designers, I don't assume that's the case. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Long story short, Ron, you're not a joke. Sorry.

[aaron-cds]

i guess this could be carried over in materials also, but how many of us are using scientifically calculated materials? ...materials that have the same reflective and absorption values as their real life counter parts. i think of they Disney Concert Hall. the had a post construction problem with the metal material. the reflection off of it raised the temperature of the surrounding buildings by 10 degrees. i think they had to go back and sand a matte finish on the building to keep the sun from reflecting onto the other buildings, and raising the temperature.

 

That's interesting. At Millenium Park in Chicago there is a pedestrian bridge clad in metal panels that blasts sunlight into multi-million dollar high-rise condos, so much so that the occupants can't be in there units during certain times of the day. It's right next to the Gehry bandshell. I'm not sure if Gehry did the bridge.

[rotten42]

no offense taken...I've been called worse...and that's just from my wife!

 

 

The only thing I could add is Accreditation does not necessarily equal competence. I deal with designers daily that can't use AutCad to save their live. I never though that Xrefs could be such a hard thing to understand.

[aaron-cds]

no offense taken...

 

The only thing I could add is Accreditation does not necessarily equal competence.

 

good. the same rings true for licensed architects. I've known some people who really don't deserve to be licensed due to incompetence. The computer exams are fairly easy now compared to the old paper exams.