Need your opinions on SAI!

[Iain Denby]

I'm currently a Fellow, a Council member and am part of the Management Committee of the SAI (Society of Architectural Illustration) UK [url]www.sai.org.uk[/url]. It's similar to the ASAI. The SAI was founded in 1974 and has grown up fostering the abilities of artists working with traditional media. Its membership now is made up of people working in a variety of ways and is proud to be 'all encompassing'. We have two meetings per year. However, I've been saying for quite some time now that the current balance within the SAI membership of traditional and digital practitioners is at odds with the market place, and that the society needs to appeal to the digital guys in order to bring new blood into the Society and to secure its future (but without compromising on the high standards it sets). I have suggested several changes to the Society in an attempt to freshen it up and even reinvent itself. (Unfortunately, many members aren't convinced!) So, I would like to collect your opinions, the opinions of visualisers working digitally (not just from the UK)! What do you think of the Society as it is now? How would you change it? What changes would attract you to join this Society? What could the Society do to attract top quality digital visualisers? etc

[JamesTaylor]

Iain,

 

a couple of years back i applied to be a member of the SAI and was granted fellowship (or something similar which was just below full membership). On questioning what and how i needed to do next in order to gain full membership i spoke with the then chairman over the phone and was amazed at the responses i recieved.

 

One statement imparticular stuck out... "digital rendering is just a case of pressing a few buttons" or words to similar effect.

 

It was this sentiment that turned me away from the SAI. Having finished the conversation i never felt any need to try again regarding gaining full membership and let my membership lapse at the 1st available opportunity.

 

in answer to your questions tho:

 

i view the society as an "old boys club"

 

without actually knowing the SAI its kind of difficult to indicate what i'd change, but i would say that it needs to become more dynamic in its approach to Archutectural Illustration and embrace all mediums. It probably needs to be more open to all and any members rather than an being an elitest club.

 

Changes that would attact me - if the qualification to the SAI actually carried some indusrty weight / recognition. Benifical high end gatherings with indusrty leaders on a reasonable / regular timescale, in convient locations. High end tutorials etc. Good exposure to potential clients.

 

reinvent itself as a forum / network to discuss knowledge much like CGA or, probably more locally to the UK, the London Max group which has recently begun.

[Bwana Kahawa]

I'd second James's view - although I've only been a member for a few months, a few things have struck me:

 

I found the website through a google search just to see if there even was a society for architectural illustrators in the UK - it certainly doesn't seem to advertise anywhere I'd have come across it, so it's obviously not aiming itself at folks in our situation.

 

The story that sticks in my mind most from my initial browse through the PDF newsletter on the website ended with a description of how a meeting had lots of tea and cakes. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it gave me a good clue to the average age of its members!

 

All the illustrations in that particular issue also seemed to be traditional media. Again, not a bad thing, but it hardly gave the impression that the organisation was open to digital images.

 

Once I joined, I got the impression that the organisation is a bit 'home-made', what with it being run by a husband and wife team (I think) and my certificate of membership looking like it was printed on a home computer!

 

I chose not to attend the meeting in Leeds at the beginning of December because the programme seemed to be aimed solely towards people of a traditional media background. I thought it was great that part of the theme of the day was to educate the older members about CGI, but the content didn't seem too relevant for myself.

 

Although I think it's great that the organisation exists, I don't think it's reached it's potential. Although it's important to keep the traditional skills alive and practising, it needs to acknowledge the vast input CGI has to the architectural industry. At the moment the CGI feels like an 'addition' tacked on the side of the organisation, rather than being at the heart of what it's about.

 

It could also raise its profile a bit more - maybe showing its face in publications like FX of Frame when relevant. Publicised events would be good, like an annual show or competition, or a printed compendium of work (I think the ASAI does one?). Stuff like that would raise the profile and mean that membership carried a bit more weight to it.

[aaron-cds]

One statement imparticular stuck out... "digital rendering is just a case of pressing a few buttons" or words to similar effect.

 

That statement sounds like it comes from someone worried about losing work to photo-realistic renderers. That's too bad.

 

I've been a member of ASAI for a little over a year now. It has a nice balance of traditional and digital artists. As new as our industry is, it's great to have organizations like these that welcome us. However, I feel like we're trying to jump on their bandwagon. The ASAI has been a lot more warm and friendly that the SAI apperantly has. I've even gotten two repeat clients who found me by looking through the ASAI directory. When will it be time to form a digital rendering organization?

[Sketchrender]

My two cents............

 

I personaly think it is place I go to see what architectural illustration is all about, and only wish i could do it as well by hand as I do on a computer.

(That sounds Dodgy but anyway).

 

There is a nice mix of work , and websites.

The American site is great, but the homepage image slows the page down.

I prefer the American Association and it has been recomended by an Australian artist as they are now affiliated.

 

I love the tradional work, and it is something i would prefer to do than 3D work, but I have a morgage and a family, and don't see a constant flow of work in the industry, may be i am wrong.

 

Phil

[hughie]

I'd second James's view - although I've only been a member for a few months, a few things have struck me:

 

I found the website through a google search just to see if there even was a society for architectural illustrators in the UK - it certainly doesn't seem to advertise anywhere I'd have come across it, so it's obviously not aiming itself at folks in our situation.

 

The story that sticks in my mind most from my initial browse through the PDF newsletter on the website ended with a description of how a meeting had lots of tea and cakes. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it gave me a good clue to the average age of its members!

 

All the illustrations in that particular issue also seemed to be traditional media. Again, not a bad thing, but it hardly gave the impression that the organisation was open to digital images.

 

 

same experience except I decidied not to join at this point

 

If the SAI wants to catch up with reality they need to have a bigger profile, attract some of the industry heavy weights to give some seminars, Hold a high profile competition, look to the furure of the industry not the past, get involved with the British Film Insitute and the Serious Games Conferance, both very good institutions that look outside their own industry to develop.

but most of all it needs to become a important networking tool for architectural illustrators.

 

Has anyone though about having CGArchitect get-togethers?

[Jeff Mottle]

This is a very interesting thread and one that hits home for me for sure. It's a subject I've been actively discussing with the current and past presidents of both the ASAI and NYSR.

 

Many of the arch viz organizations in the industry of course started their roots with traditional artists, as CG did not exist at the time. All of these organizations are going through some growing pains trying to figure out how to cater to the new generation of artist. I think the one thing to recognize with these organizations is that the "boys club" and "tea and cake" parties are a direct reflection of the generation. When these organizations were started the internet and online social networking did not exist. These local gatherings are very much akin to online forums. All of the organizations are actively working to include and recognize CG artists, but it will take some time for current membership to come to terms with how quickly their craft has changed and how to address an entirely new set of needs.

 

I spoke at length with the outgoing and incoming president at the ASAI conference this year in Pittsburgh, and we are going to try jointly working on several things. One of which will be to add a new forum to CGA for industry organizations to allow the dissemination and sharing of knowledge. Also, I would like to find ways of including the traditional artists in our own community. There are a lot of ideas on the table and you can be sure I'm all over ensuring these initiatives come to fruition.

 

There are a few things you can do to help this cause. First, become a member at one or several of the organizations. The benefits of being a member are not as strong as they should be, however, the only way for that to change is for the CG community to become actively involved in the organization and push for what is important to you.

 

One thing I noted while attending the last ASAI conference, which was fantastic by the way, is the EXTREMELY talented people that make up that organization. Although a generalization, I made the comment that there was probably more raw talent in the room of the awards dinner than makes up the entire arch viz CG industry. There is so much many people in our industry can and should learn from traditional artists. While I too have heard some scathing comments about the CG industry regarding the "push button" mentality, having given this some thought here is my take on this opinion:

 

The industry started very much as a technical exercise with less importance placed on core aspects of illustration like composition and color etc. This is where their comments have stemmed, but as we all know the last few years, the "art" of CG visualization has definitely been in the forefront. That having been said, it is a lot easier to enter the CG industry with less talent. A skilled application operator can make a rather impressive image by virtue to all of the GI engines out there. I'd say you can get to 50-60% just by knowing how to use the application. This however can not be said for a pencil or brush. Just because you own one, does not mean you can draw or paint anything or surely not well. As a result we typically see traditional artists who are much more talented because they simply HAD to have a deeper level of understanding of composition and light to create a drawing or painting. This is where I think our industry can learn a lot and I am hoping to facilitate some of this information exchange moving forward. Don't get me wrong there are some amazingly talented people in the CG industry, but there are a lot of really poor talent as well (the "button pushers").

 

Anyway, just thought I'd chime in to let you know I and several others are trying to move things forward. Iain, we should talk by phone. I'd be happy to give you a call sometime.

[Ernest Burden III]

One of which will be to add a new forum to CGA for industry organizations to allow the dissemination and sharing of knowledge. Also, I would like to find ways of including the traditional artists in our own community.

 

I wasn't going to mention that since we haven't talked about it publicly, but now that you mention it...

 

One of the most important goals of the 'organizations' forum is to bridge the gap between digital and traditional media renderers. Those of us that are digital already know how to use forums and find what we need on the web. "Old school' artists may not, or may be intimidated by appearing to be unskilled in this environment even as they may be masters of their craft. So its not about digital vs analog, its about how to get everyone together to see the similarities and learn from each other. I've done both so I know how much you can use the lessons of one method in the other. In my vision of this forum the mark of success is how well the traditional media artists integrate.

 

Anyway, we'll give it a go and see what happens.

[JamesTaylor]

I agree totally with your sentiments Jeff.

 

I believe that the traditional and modern CG methods ultimately aim for the same goal - great illustrations - but have come at it from opposite ends of the spectrum. Over the last 2 years however i feel there has been a massive steps taken by the larger CG community to embrace the skills you highlight as being bread and butter for traditional artists, not to mention embracing the skills from other areas most noticably the film industry.

 

CG artists can definately learn a lot from traditional mediums, who better to teach us the fundamental concepts / rules of illustration than those who have developed them and have been using them for years already.

 

However, i feel the question on that front will be wether the societies that embrace traditional methods are ready to accept CG as an artistic medium and help improve the standards which are already being reached.

 

Bring the combination of both mediums together will once again open the way for artists to become regonised by their work rarther than everybodies work looking like its from VRay or whichever renderer of choice. It is rare that we see work such as Iain Denby's that has a very personal touch to it.

 

It will be very interesting to see how CGA can involve the traditional artists within the community, certainly benifical areas that are rarely covered in depth here relate to more artistic side of creating images such as composition and colour would be very useful and interesting to read.... perhaps a visualisation insider type series presented by traditional artists covering fundamental topics would be a great resource?? It would also be invaluable to add views from additional industries such as photography professionals and cinimatography professionals regarding their techniques??

[jkletzien]

Iain...I don't want to talk about ASAI, because that is obviously not your thread, but I do beleive that most of the posts are correct in identifying SAI's issues with ASAI's issues so they are spot on.

 

To answer your questions, first and foremost it would appear less forboding if there wasn't a review process for applying members. I think that it makes membership mean more to be accepted, but if you apply and don't get full membership as a practicing professional, than I think that is kind of a crappy feeling and you'll be less inclined to join again. I like the idea that there is a hurdle, but honestly beauty is in the eye of the beholder (isn't it?) and if someone is getting work in the field who is anyone in the SAI to tell them they aren't worthy?

 

The other thing that is a pain, and will become more and more necessary as the landscape of the field changes is membership beyond individual names. Many CG firms use a company name as opposed to a person's and as long as you're forced to register under a person's name, you won't get much involvement from folks working in larger houses as they won't feel enfranchised if only their boss can register. So I would allow companies to be listed by there names as opposed to individuals.

 

This is difficult (believe it or not) even for us Americans, but...you have to get your name out there. For far too long the ASAI has been taking it's cues from the AIA here, where it was considered dirty for Architects to advertise themselves, or the AIA itself. That has changed recently, and as sad as the passing of that more civilized age is, it is necessary to remain relevant and in the mind of the public. I have a feeling that the RIBA, and the SAI feel similarly restrained, but people in the UK should be going to the SAI website to find an illustrator right off the bat, and you should be able to prove that and then sell that as a benefit to being a member (similar to Aaron's experience with the ASAI - which has a GREAT find an illustrator function though my understanding is that it is terribly slow if you're operating it from Europe).

 

So that's my view, I think you guys do a great job, and I love the newsletter, the high chair's admonitions, and the work that comes out of there is really impressive. Best of Luck.

[Iain Denby]

Great feedback guys, thanks.

 

If the SAI wants to catch up with reality they need to have a bigger profile, attract some of the industry heavy weights to give some seminars, Hold a high profile competition look to the furure of the industry not the past?

 

These were some of my suggestions too.

 

To answer your questions, first and foremost it would appear less forboding if there wasn't a review process for applying members. I think that it makes membership mean more to be accepted, but if you apply and don't get full membership as a practicing professional, than I think that is kind of a crappy feeling and you'll be less inclined to join again. I like the idea that there is a hurdle, but honestly beauty is in the eye of the beholder (isn't it?) and if someone is getting work in the field who is anyone in the SAI to tell them they aren't worthy?

 

The SAI has always reviewed applicants' work simply to maintain a 'standard' and generate some kind of Kudos for being a member. But I take your point about it being in the eye of the beholder. It has cause d few problems recently, as it seems easier to pass judgment on traditional stuff than digital, as the artist's hand is more obvious.

 

newsletter on the website ended with a description of how a meeting had lots of tea and cakes. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it gave me a good clue to the average age of its members

 

There's always tea and biscuits at meetings...even AutoDesk provide that!

 

I feel that a few members working traditionally don't like the digital images they see, because they only see the bad ones (maybe because they don't spend time on the internet like we do)...which are usually the ones they are asked to re-do.

 

I suggested a name change from SAI to SAVI (or SAIV) The Society of Architectural Visualisers and Illustrators. Good idea? bad idea?

[Jeff Mottle]

I suggested a name change from SAI to SAVI (or SAIV) The Society of Architectural Visualisers and Illustrators. Good idea? bad idea?

 

Sounds good to me. The one problem with the ASAI is the "American" part. When I did that survey a few months ago a lot of people did not think they were allowed to join, even though they are an international organization, simply because they saw the word American. Also some even said they would not join it simply becuase it was an American organization, but I guess that's an entirely different discussion. Do you guys allow international membership?

[C.Vestal]

 

What could the Society do to attract top quality digital visualisers?

 

etc

 

Do they not have a group health care package?? I would be interested in that.

[Tommy L]

I agree with many of the points raised here. I had a similar experience to James Taylor when I tried to join.

Also, I failed to measure up to the standards required to join. I dont remember the piece I submitted. Maybe I would cringe at it now, but I was pro at the time and certainly felt I had something to give and that my membership would have been mutually beneficial.

The knock-back was a real slap in the face and if that was the attitude of a society looking to expand its membership.....

I think that if members all have a gallery, like in the ASAI, potential clients etc can judge for themselves.

 

This isnt plumbing or healthcare, we're artists. Let anyone join. Maybe there should be some reward and recognition for degree of involvement rather than perceived ability? That could be a really sustainable approach?

[Iain Denby]

The SAI has always been different to the ASAI. The ASAI says if you pay your money you're in. The SAI says you need to be of a particular standard before you're in (I know, I know...who's standards? Well about 12 of us seasoned and respected members actually! ;-) ), which is part of the reason you'd want to be a member. Also,the SAI has never been about getting as many members as possible, although you needa reasonable membership to keep it significant and relevant.

 

Maybe these values are outdated, and it needs to be 'more the merrier'. Not convinced myself, but this is about what you guys think.

 

Jeff, the SAI does accept international applications. We have a few overseas members, but not that many.

 

keep the views coming guys, this is very useful.

 

Smoothe and Uniform dudes...where are you?

[jkletzien]

Do they not have a group health care package?? I would be interested in that.

 

Is healthcare really an issue in the UK like it is here? If so I would definitely offer it like the ASAI does.

 

The one problem with the ASAI is the "American" part.

 

Yes I agree, America is a problem. In all seriousness, what is funny is that the organization changed it's name 10 +/- years ago and during that time many people pushed to have the word American removed, but who REALLY wanted it to stay were the Japanese, and Australian members because it is more exotic to belong to a foreign group. (In addition to plenty of ASAI members in the Red states ). Go figure.

 

 

Smoothe and Uniform dudes...where are you?

 

Maybe if you allowed larger houses to join as an aggregate, those guys might pipe in and you could take advantage of all that young energy?

 

SAVI or SAIV

 

If you're criteria for membership is quality of art, and you want to emphasize your long standing tenure why would you use a word that hasn't stood the test of time, nor has any art associations like visualization? I wouldn't be into that were I a member.

[Nic H]

^ I agree with most of the sentiments raised here, the Australian Association of Architectural Illustrators (http://www.aaai.ws/) seems to be based mostly around traditional media which is a shame as it doesn't really represent the balance of digital/traditional work being done in the market today.

 

It looks a bit 'stodgy' and I haven't been interested in joining because of this.

 

Can anyone tell me how it is associated with the American branch? Can we enter their competitions etc? Im very interested in joining a organisation but would rather join something without the 'American' prefix. I cant believe any Australian would actully choose to keep the American bit! I would of though a county neutral 'international esque' group woukd be far more appealing for everyone as its not alienating anyone by location and association.

 

I think any sucessful organisation would also allow and encourage larger office s to join, most arch vis people seem to drift between inhouse vis for architects, freelance/solo or as part of larger dedicated arch vis offices. Bizzare not to include them

 

Maybe someone can create a international professional body and delete / make obsolete the existing ones?

[Jeff Mottle]

Maybe someone can create a international professional body and delete / make obsolete the existing ones?

 

That thought had crossed my mind, but then I thought it really does not make sense to toss aside the good parts that all of these organization already bring to the table.

 

That having been said I think it would make sense for there to be a higher level worldwide organization and the existing organizations could remain local/country based chapters. Not too disimilar from how SIGGRAPH works with their local chapters. It just seems really odd to me that there exists all of these organizations who are now trying to make a push to garner a worldwide membership base. In the end they are all trying to do the same thing really. I think there is only one of three things that will happen. One will find the groove and take over as the recognized worldwide organization, they will all continue to exist in limited capcities as they do now, or there will be a new organization formed that hopefully will find a way to bring all of these individual organizations together in some manner.

[Iain Denby]

Maybe if you allowed larger houses to join as an aggregate, those guys might pipe in and you could take advantage of all that young energy?

 

If you're criteria for membership is quality of art, and you want to emphasize your long standing tenure why would you use a word that hasn't stood the test of time, nor has any art associations like visualization? I wouldn't be into that were I a member.

 

The trouble with a group membership is that 1. individual staff quality varies. 2. staff come and go quite regularly.

 

The idea of introducing the word 'Visualisation' is to attract the guys working digitally. They are the future and this is the term they and their clients use. Also, the working methods used between Digital and traditional are worlds apart (even though the end is the same).

[ikinman]

Several people have commented on the idea of individual versus group memberships in these organizations. As the President of NYSR (The New York Society of Renderers), it's something that I face as well. And it's interesting because it gets to the crux of the matter.

 

The main issue is what the nature of the rendering organization is, whether NYSR, ASAI, SAI or the others. In the case of NYSR, our primary focus has historically been marketing, specifically for those who want to market in the New York City Area (whether or not the renderer is actually in NY) as well as the rest of the country and indeed the world. For that reason, it makes sense for the membership to focus on individuals and companies: entities that market, as opposed to renderers who work inside a company or architecture firm, who don't market themselves.

 

But NYSR also has been a group of renderers who get together and work together to deal with other issues of concern to the overall profession; the sales tax issue raised on a thread a month or so ago being a great example. Members work with each other to view and critique work, offer tips to new members of the profession, etc. In this case NYSR does offer benefits to those who work inside other companies, either visualization studios or architecture firms.

 

Of course, much of that 'get togetherness' is being supplanted by the ease and immediacy of the internet, as Jeff and others have pointed out in this thread. Also, as my tenure as president continues, I am discovering that running NYSR is akin to running two different organizations - one a marketing one, and the other a community. Each of those has different requirements and their needs are often heading into different directions.

 

So the answer to membership types lies in what the purpose of the group really is, and if the group, like NYSR, functions as both, then there is room for both. But the danger is that such a group is going to be like a printer/scanner - it can do both things, but neither one particularly well.

 

If one approaches Jeff's idea of using a SIGGRAPH organizational approach, which is one that I like, an overall international organization could focus on the community end of things, and more national and regional groups could focus on marketing and local issues. Obviously the world isn't so cut and dry, but I believe that approach could be much more effective than the ad-hoc way things are set up now. I doubt that any rendering organization has a clear understanding of what it's specific purpose is.

 

One of my frustrations has been trying to enhance the community end of things for the rendering community, but to be completely honest it probably isn't NYSR that needs to take point on this. Rather ASAI should - of all of the different 'national' organizations, it is the one most set up to operate on an international level, and it doesn't focus on marketing but ostensibly focuses on growing a community. But it's a large and cumbersome organization, and getting it to do things, let alone change course, it like steering a battleship. I've also been a member of ASAI for ten years and have thoroughly profited from it, but watching the organization operate is wince-inducing.

 

Having a group set up like NYSR to focus on marketing (even a worldwide membership marketing in a specific 'target-rich' region like New York), is actually easy. It's the community that is hard. Because the needs of the rendering community are more than just what can be provided for on a website or forum. A professional organization also needs to be an advocate, and even to operate in the political world. Again, the sales tax issue is a great example - while it made sense for NYSR to deal with New York State sales tax issues, a national organization needs to take care of the sales tax problems for all 50 states. And an international organization is needed to have a clout to deal with any taxation issues around the globe; that's just one example.

 

I think that too much has been set up by ASAI and SAI and the rest to throw it all away and start something from scratch in this vein. But I'm not seeing any group step up to the plate. And our profession will be the poorer for that.

[Ernest Burden III]

Identity is an important issue, as demonstrated by the Australian not wanting to join a group call "American" or one called "Australian" because of one word or suggestion of identity.

 

There is an organization that I believe is American in focus, or North American, called The Graphic Artists Guild. After being a member of ASAI for its first decade I decided not to renew in frustration and instead put my money in the GAG. They do great work, both on the marketing, promotion, business practices and community-building. They represent all types of graphic artists, so rendering or arch-vis would only be a small part of the pool.

 

When I started as president of the NYSR many years ago, I looked at folding the group into the GAG as a chapter. There were many benefits to doing so, but our members were unwilling to lose our specific identity. That was fine, it was just an option which we didn't do.

 

What's in a name? The usual name we have used in this industry is 'renderer'. When my father started doing rendering work, he decided he hated that word and started using 'delineator'. He thought that better described what we do. I didn't like any of them, since I came into the field through art and not architecture, so I like to call myself an 'illustrator'. Now we have 'visualization'. The word is perfectly fine, but for the first time attempts to make a distinction between traditional media and digital. Also, the existing terms often do not in any way suggest 'film-maker'.

 

We don't have to be defined by a single term, but the degree to which we are all hung up on a few words suggests we have some work to do before one organization can represent us all. Not that its not possible, that's not what I'm saying, just that roles and characterizations need some careful thought first.

[Brian Cassil]

I can't take the time to read through all of the lengthy posts right now but I wanted to chime in real quick that one of the things that attracted me to the SAI over the ASAI was that not everyone is accepted immediately, and Just as Iain said, that makes membership mean more. I intended to submit my work for review except for one problem. They would not review my work untill after I paid for membership. That makes absolutely no sense to me, but I was willing to go along so I attempted several times to arrange payment which was £95.00. I asked what it would be in dollars and they couldn't/wouldn't tell me. Allright I figured it out for myself and asked if I could pay via credit card or some form of online payment and they said that only some sort of international check would be accepted. Baisically it all gave the impression that this was really an organization that catered to artists who lived in the UK or maybe Europe. I can see that there are a few American artists on the members list but not many and there are very few American digital artists. I gave up on the idea of joining out of frustration over the payment issue.

[Jeff Mottle]

I gave up on the idea of joining out of frustration over the payment issue.

 

If there is one thing I have learned from working at VisMasters it's how even the smallest things can affect a sale. I think if these organizations took more of a business approach (in many areas) to the organizations, rather than being an organization who needs to charge a fee to sustain itself, they would be A LOT more successful.

[Ernest Burden III]

I think if these organizations took more of a business approach (in many areas) to the organizations, rather than being an organization who needs to charge a fee to sustain itself, they would be A LOT more successful.

 

Do you mean like having advertising on the organizations' websites to generate revenue instead of membership money financing the site and other initiatives? A few groups have tried sponsorships, though I don't get the impression its been all that successful so far. The NYSR funds our Portfolio publications through participant fees above membership costs. That has worked well over the decades we've been doing it (a new book every four years or so).

 

Perhaps I'm thinking too much in the box. Did you have something else in mind?

[Iain Denby]

. I intended to submit my work for review except for one problem. They would not review my work untill after I paid for membership. That makes absolutely no sense to me, but I was willing to go along so I attempted several times to arrange payment which was £95.00.

 

Brian

I'm sorry you had problems, but I think there must have been a missunderstanding along the way some how...

 

The SAI policy is this: You pay an application fee of £40 (until recently it was £25) This gives you a minimum of Allied membership for 1 year. There is no suffix after your name, but you are encouraged to attend meetings etc, and you get the newsletter. (the only thing you don't get is a vote). If you work is judged to be of professional standard, you are rewarded with full membership, which is £95, of which you only pay the £55 balance. You can use 'SAI' after your name.