Third Seven Website!!!!!!!!

[mattclinch]

Not here to defend the guy, but how many artist of a by gone era created work soley for a client? I think what he is doing is out of pure love for his craft. Any commercial interests he has are probably secondary and, as has been pointed out mostly in film, where the time scale for production is much more generous.

 

Like you, I admire his work regardless of any finacial motivation and whats more, I know Hayes Davidson produce still work of an equal quality even under commercial restrictions. As I'm sure you do

 

thank you, but i didn't mean that the quality is high because of the timeframe - i was more implying that the images do not have the standard commercial look that a client would request (lots of vignettes, and alternative compositions etc).

[mohinder]

Cool, and without sounding patronising, alot of archvis is about communication in one way or another so maybe clarity in our choice of words,sounds and images is a skill we can all strive to improve!

 

thank you, but i didn't mean that the quality is high because of the timeframe - i was more implying that the images do not have the standard commercial look that a client would request (lots of vignettes, and alternative compositions etc).

Edited August 6, 2009 by mohinder

[Flying Architecture]

DOF is wonderfully creating the space in it i like that...

[deanomagino]

the third and seventh pillar of art.. architecture and film.... i dont think it is specifcally about either discplins... so i think rendering times and commercial viability has nothing to do with this work.

[Nic H]

i dont see any evermotion. not even one of those plants you put in the corner of the room.

 

:confused:

 

[tayrona]

Beautiful... Added to our "inspirational" Favorites web pages.

[deanomagino]

i dont see any evermotion. not even one of those plants you put in the corner of the room.

 

:confused:

 

 

 

you really dont like evermotion do ya nic?

 

[alias_marks]

Interview over on Motionographer.com I thought readers of this thread would be interested in -

 

http://motionographer.com/2009/08/16/alex-roman-thethirdtheseventh/

 

Has some animation by him too, which I hadn't seen before -

 

Personally, with complete respect for his work. I think his style tends to be dark and takes a bit of the light human aspect away from the architecture. To me, on a philisophical level, his visualzations distance the viewer from engaging in the space because I feel like they're held as icons as opposed to inviting the viewer into real spaces that can be experienced. I think many of his shots are amazing pieces of art and would stroke the architect ego in all of us, but aren't all that inviting.

 

Ultimatelly, these spaces are designed for humans, but I feel like many of his visualizations turn the architecture into distant sculpture to be observed, not experienced.

 

Please don't take me the wrong way. I think these are indeed amazing pieces of artwork & aspire become talented enough to create art at this level. I think it's revolutionary how he has combined two different disciplines (Film & Architecture) in a way that is defining the way our industry is shaped.

 

What do you think?

 

 

M-

Edited August 16, 2009 by alias_marks
added link to video

[mohinder]

 

I think his style tends to be dark and takes a bit of the light human aspect away from the architecture. To me, on a philisophical level, his visualzations distance the viewer from engaging in the space because I feel like they're held as icons as opposed to inviting the viewer into real spaces that can be experienced. I think many of his shots are amazing pieces of art and would stroke the architect ego in all of us, but aren't all that inviting.

 

Ultimatelly, these spaces are designed for humans, but I feel like many of his visualizations turn the architecture into distant sculpture to be observed, not experienced.

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

M-

 

I think you make excellent and valid points but to be fair, the architecture he chooses to depict isn't exactly of the warm and fuzzy type and his style of communication most probably reflects that.

 

This is maybe intentional as I think most of the buildings he has rendered could easily be described as temples in there own right, regardless of there function!

[carlotristan3d]

this guy is an artist! he is not about 'selling his product', which we all are. we always think in terms on man-hours, sigh.

[hughie]

I dont know if I missed the cinimatics the first time around or they are new, if you have not seen them check them out.

complication of the three teasers:

http://3dup.com/news/view.vfx?nid=269

 

This is absolutely beautiful, I don't know what else to say just beautiful

 

[url=http://3dup.com/news/view.vfx?nid=269][/url]

[alias_marks]

If you hadn't caught it in the chaos forums, thought some watchers of this thread might like to check out Alex's new film he just posted -

 

I think it's a definite milestone for the field of architectural visualization.

[EddieLeon]

Wow!! Amazing work. Thanks for sharing!

[alias_marks]

this guy is an artist! he is not about 'selling his product', which we all are. we always think in terms on man-hours, sigh.

 

Just to clarify, I definitely don't think he needs to add/subtract anything to sell his product. His work sells itself. I was just coming from more of a philosophical standpoint on the gray area of how charasmatic/photoreal/or artistic arch viz/film should be. Should it really be anything?

 

I think if all approaches (*done truly) all have their own merits. I see Alex's work this as amazing in his artistic nature, just as I see dennis allain equally amazing in his ability to bring warmth and character to arch vis, just as I see 'pure' equally as amazing with the photorealism they can bring to a project before it's built (*as examples).

 

Alex definitely has my complete respect, but also just raises a personal question of what philosophically arch vis should bring to the table. My personal opinion is that architecture should contribute to the creating more enjoyable and pleasant spaces for people to improve the quality of life (*maybe a little idalistic, but just my 2c), and thus I think arch vis should be an engaging warm experience and not separate the spaces we engage with as kind of distant cold sculptures (*however impressive they are).

 

Just an opinion and fun to discuss I think

 

M-

 

-Glad you liked it too eddie!

[Tommy L]

 

I think it's a definite milestone for the field of architectural visualization.

 

quoted for agreement

[amer abidi]

Definitely Inspirational

[Kanashimi]

every once in a while, a giant cometh to the land of men

 

i want to throw my computer away.

[kippu]

saw it , want to see more ...hes awesome ( that word has to suffice until i get something better from the dictionary)

[deanomagino]

Even his clothes are great!

[XKP]

i second that idea

 

Is he a member of this site, maybe Jeff could get an interview with this guy or set up some kind of live chat so we all could hear what he has to say. I'd love to know how he works and what kind of tools he uses.

Edited January 5, 2010 by XKP

[Ernest Burden III]

After being trained in traditional painting at a few academies, I discovered this other world called CG....

 

Were you formally trained in architecture?

 

Nope, never.

...

 

after working in VIZ for years, I realized that there was a huge aesthetic difference between most clients’ commercial demands and photography of already-built structures...I decided...to experiment with a more cinematographic and/or photographic oriented point of view of some of my favorites architects’ masterpieces.

 

As good as the piece is, I was bothered by the heavy use of depth-of-field modulation. But that may be the point. He is challenging us to take a hard look at the aesthetic conventions of modern rendering. The interview reveals that he was exploring the differences between the visual expectations of the creators of architecture and those who document it in its final form. One tends to cling to the aesthetics of traditional drawing and painting, while the other clings to the visual bias of photography. But computer graphics can simulate either, or both at the same time. Which is 'correct'? And why do those who create, illustrate and document works of architecture seem to need to limit their CG visual language to simulating other media?

 

I have been surprised at how long it is taking for CG to develop it's own unique aesthetic. Perhaps we need to really push the limits of simulation to know what to evolve the aesthetic into. First you see just what this new tool is capable of, then you find new ways to use it.

 

I do know that when someone produces a piece as close to perfection as this Alex Roman 'film' is, it forces the rest of us to ask "now what?" Do I admit that I will never reach that level and just give up and try farming? That was my first reaction. Or does seeing that it is possible to so perfectly simulate other accepted media that we finally get to stop feeling like we have to justify CG as an artistic medium? Then it becomes a question of what you have to say with it, not is the language itself adequate.

 

I see this piece as a milestone in architectural imaging.

[amer abidi]

Excellent post Ernest! I completely agree with your school of thought on this.

[Frosty]

I see this piece as a milestone in architectural imaging.

 

Absolutely. To me its like Desert House by DBox.

[Tommy L]

As good as the piece is, I was bothered by the heavy use of depth-of-field modulation. But that may be the point. He is challenging us to take a hard look at the aesthetic conventions of modern rendering. The interview reveals that he was exploring the differences between the visual expectations of the creators of architecture and those who document it in its final form. One tends to cling to the aesthetics of traditional drawing and painting, while the other clings to the visual bias of photography. But computer graphics can simulate either, or both at the same time. Which is 'correct'? And why do those who create, illustrate and document works of architecture seem to need to limit their CG visual language to simulating other media?

 

I have been surprised at how long it is taking for CG to develop it's own unique aesthetic. Perhaps we need to really push the limits of simulation to know what to evolve the aesthetic into. First you see just what this new tool is capable of, then you find new ways to use it.

 

I do know that when someone produces a piece as close to perfection as this Alex Roman 'film' is, it forces the rest of us to ask "now what?" Do I admit that I will never reach that level and just give up and try farming? That was my first reaction. Or does seeing that it is possible to so perfectly simulate other accepted media that we finally get to stop feeling like we have to justify CG as an artistic medium? Then it becomes a question of what you have to say with it, not is the language itself adequate.

 

I see this piece as a milestone in architectural imaging.

 

I have mixed feelings about this post. I agree that cg architectural rendering is an artform in its own right, but I think that you are assuming the artists are seeking a common goal ie, a style or common thread to which the artform can clasp and through which it can establish is identity. Architectural rendering (traditional) has many styles and most are derived in part fromn the buildings/designs/concepts they depict.

Traditional arc Rendering is the closest subject to which our art can be compared, however, the nearest MEANS to which we can be compared is Hollywood effects. Why question the media when it can be held in comparison to the likes of Avatar?

 

It could be said that we are budget effects guys that only do buildings. It caould also be said that we are sculptors.

 

Either way, every artist must find their own style and to damned with the market if they are to be as successful (artistically) as Alex Roman. I dont want Arch Vis to find a common thread, I want to find my own and that will make me happy.

[STRAT]

Alex Roman's piece is superb. no doubting that. and the architectural rendering looks superb too.

 

but it's certainly not how i'd aspire to present to my clients. it's very 'arty' with it's sepia/dulled out chromic feel, with it's heavey use of nearly constant DOF, but it's not a presentation level i'd reach for. Elements and feelings in the showreal are certainly inspirational and aspirational, and get the mind thinking about how certain techniques could be used in my own work, but i like this piece as it stands. Not as a presentation technique. it's more a 'silm' or short rather than a typical archi real.

 

perhaps i'm not explaining my self very well