Artist's pride Vs commercialism

[STRAT]

greets guys.

 

this is a quick conversation thread taking this thread a step in a sidewards direction -

http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000009;p=1#000006

i think garethace made some interesting observations.

 

anyways......

 

Personally i've always worked in either an architect's firm or a cgi beuraux doing whatever my boss asks of me. i've never had to pick and choose the actual jobs.

 

i've always prided myself in doing the best job i can with the software provided in the given deadline i'm given, no matter how mundane the project.

 

This has worked nicely for me and my bosses for years now. In the last year or so we've been getting in a much heavier work load. I still do the best i can.

 

Trouble is i'm now finding that my bosses and my clients aren't really after an artistic finished peice of work as much as they want more an illustrative piece of work.

 

By this i mean they're more interested in looking at how the finished building will look rather than how realistic or 'arty' i can make it look.

 

GI and radiosity was the last big jump for me. In my opinion GI and radiosity make an image look 10 times more real than basic scan lining.

 

But it now seems clients couldn't really give a damn. I give them WIP's throughout a project. basically textured and scanline rendered WIPs. Clients and my bosses are more than satisfied with thses WIPS as the finished product. gives me more time to crack on with the next project.

 

Now this move towards basic visualising and less emphases on the realistic or artistic side of visualising totally pisses me off. i sometimes ask myself why do i bother? why dont i just rush every job through and basically render it? they'd be equally as happy.

 

i still spend as much pain stakeing time as i can afford doing nice gi rendering and photorealism montages, but clients and bosses these days are just as happy with bog basic output.

 

As i say, maybe it's just the way it's getting, but it saddens me some what. i came into this business to create pieces of art, either i was neive or blinkered into it. These days i'm more and more being asked to rush the jobs through just to up the bulk of work/fees we get.

And everybody (except me) is happy.

 

I understand the commercial aspect of the work, but i wonder why i dont abandon the stressfull life of realistic rendering and go back to my copy of Viz 1!!!

 

praps i'm just looking at it wrong.

 

Whats it like in your market place?

 

(phew, i talk too much. time for a coffee and ciggy break )

[garethace]

I will point blank refuse to present anything in scanline anymore. Because i agree with you whole-heartedly, the baseline just got too low in the cgart world where architects were concerned. There was a huge glut of badly composed, out-of-scale (I mean please people that are one story high? I mean basic stuff) awful looking commercial 'crap' used to sell projects to clients and the general public. This is what was behind my post here:

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000028

 

I have gone back to presenting an architect with work done as hidden line B+W perspective. At least, at this level i know i can still have some dignity in my work - if i can present a really neat, punchy, but still quick. . . . economical is the word i am looking for. I no longer describe myself even as a cgartist, but rather just as an illustrator.. which is a much older and more respected profession. Since the days when drawings were done using home-made inks on stretched vellum and parchment. Those old Beaux Arts lot you know.

 

Maybe even a couple of accent colours here and there. In style it is probably closer to 2 dimensional artwork than 3 dimensional. It is very graphic, often no larger than 4x3 inchs in printed size. Yes understated but still dignified. Someone, should really write a plug-in for VIZ that converts VIZ renders to nice hidden line image output. At the moment, I spend about 1,2,3 or up to 6 hours if needs be, to trace the VIZ image output in a 2D CAD software before printing.

 

I can print out alot of different versions of the image on a standard A1 CAD plotter. I like to use a grey tone to indicate a sky, and sometimes i will use a pale pastel colour on a part of the building. I think, because the orginal VIZ render was simply traced in a 2D program it has a way more 'casual, sketchy, artistic' license and appeal, which architects only love - architects love hazziness, because it compliments their own huge egos and 'hazy' ideas about design, life, people and the visual world around them.

 

What drove the development of computer rendering algorithms was not something 'arty' like architecture but rather something very, very precise, meticulous and scientific such as here:

 

http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/plm/pub1/05256965005d4817/6/ffb4a23fc08751d387256c540047055e.jsp

 

Architects as people, by their very nature cannot stand anything to be defined, fixed, definite or straightforward and clear. Because if everything was like that, what would these 'hazy' intellectual misty, murky, mysterious architects type do for a living?

 

I am a way more confident that my stuff is better than some of the rubbish the other guys do using VIZ scan-line printed using a photoquality Epson inkjet. I started out really caring about raytracing reflections. It is not uncommon to use Lightworks or Mental Ray etc. to render a nice mechanical CATIA model. I have shown work like that to architects - it is alot like putting a cross and a clove of garlic under the nose of a vampire!

 

[ April 05, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[nisus]

Hi all,

 

Although I understand your point of view very well strat, I don't agree with many of your statements/ideas. Anymore that is, because I happened to be in the same situation...

 

Trouble is i'm now finding that my bosses and my clients aren't really after an artistic finished peice of work as much as they want more an illustrative piece of work.

 

By this i mean they're more interested in looking at how the finished building will look rather than how realistic or 'arty' i can make it look.

The world is a bit more cruel than many people want. But reasonable: Why should they be interested in you? or how arty you can make it? It's just about the money they get from selling a design/building. Imho it's a mistake to think one should be interested in the art look an artist can provide as bosses are not involved in the production of images as you are. Of course you find your job important, but different people have different opinions. In fact, every one likes his own view best. No one wants to be forced to act in a certain way, so why should the bosses have the same idea about the production of images?

To me, this is not even appropriate. In fact, doing so can get you frustrated.

The only things that can help is search for people in the same position of you and keep up to their appreciation.

 

GI and radiosity was the last big jump for me. In my opinion GI and radiosity make an image look 10 times more real than basic scan lining.

 

But it now seems clients couldn't really give a damn. I give them WIP's throughout a project. basically textured and scanline rendered WIPs. Clients and my bosses are more than satisfied with thses WIPS as the finished product. gives me more time to crack on with the next project.

I totally disagree because I strongly feel a preoccupation that architectural rendering has to be photoreal. In my personal experience, I've understood that architectural rendering is about everything BUT photorealism.

First, it's all about making cg-reality better, more shiny,... No client wants his building to perfectly match into a photo of the environment, because no one could point out their design anymore. No client wants his design to be in the environment 'as is' because it's not 'nice' enough. They want to enhance sunlight and shadows, clean up the dirt, etc.

Second, photorealism is not the way to go (imho) as it cannot provoque dreams to well. In my opinion NOT photorealism makes a good image, but the presence of a good (visual) story. This story can be a basic concept, an overview, an organigram, a scheme, an impression, a simulation of atmosphere, many of which will gain interest when abstracted/stylised in some ways.

Forcing every story into photorealism is a SERIOUS mistake architectural visualisers make.

Simulating realism is by far the WORST case to abstract/generalise feelings and emotions, the latter being a very important issue in the communication of the design.

For more on this topic I strongly recommend reading Scott McClouds 'Understanding Comics'.

 

As i say, maybe it's just the way it's getting, but it saddens me some what. i came into this business to create pieces of art, either i was neive or blinkered into it. These days i'm more and more being asked to rush the jobs through just to up the bulk of work/fees we get.

And everybody (except me) is happy.

I strongly suggest to quit the firm and start your own company, especially since you want to make pieces of art. Ideas like this just don't fit in many companies as the reason why people need your work IS different than the reason why YOU want they hired you.

Realising this gives many people a hard and solitary time and as many cannot stand this reality, they'll start battling the ghosts/windmills (Don Quichotte). To me, this is but a matter of EGO vs reality. Not many people will accept a very uselessness of their existance, many want more. The birth of so many ANGER...

 

On the other hand, excepting this kind of uselessness will empower a person at an unimaginable scale. Strong souls will start their journey into creation instead of frustation and find many alies once overcome their ego.

 

I understand the commercial aspect of the work, but i wonder why i dont abandon the stressfull life of realistic rendering and go back to my copy of Viz 1!!!

'Your ego' is the answer to this rethorical question. But would you except this? find your way? or simply kill the messenger?

 

Yet remember: Bosses, girlfirends, people, etc. cannot make you happy! The only person who can do so is YOURSELF! (Now go make yourself happy...)

 

If you don't like your situation, change it! If you don't want to, stop complaining! Happyness is but as simple

 

rgds

 

nisus

 

[ April 05, 2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: nisus ]

[ingo]

Hi Mr. S,

 

first of all i'd like to ask Jeff if there is a possibility not only to display the number of posts, but also the number of posted words

 

Ok, back to the topic. I think what Mr nisus said in his long poetic way is kind of true. You wrote this because you didn't like what youre doing, so the only thing is to accept or change it. If you want to change it try to catch your boss and ask what he expects from your work, what he likes to see. Than explain him that you are not that satisfied with the quality of the pictures and want to deliver better work. Otherwise you sooner or later end up with no job, because your boss realized that you are dissatisfied.

And personally i think you cant expect to do better work if you work inside a company, if they want to get exiting picture i guess they look for a cga guy or company to give that job away, like Sm****; thats how it works at least here in the bigger offices.

So take your cuppa coffee and rethink your future, if you wanna be a famous painter or a rockstar

 

regards

 

ingo

[Sawyer]

Interesting topic. First off I would love to think that I only get the cool pretty work, but it aint so. And I have only ever turned one job down, the Architect came to me after seeing my protfolio and said "gee I like this guys stuff better" (he then showed me a link) I looked at the other guys stuff and said I thought the architect should talk to the other guy. I really did not want to try to copy another mans style especially when I thought mine was better. That is a set up for failure.

warning ranting ensues:

 

We are illustrators, not content creators. We have the most difficult marriages of art and science that I have ever seen. We take technical drawings, make them come to life as form and yet we must dance this little dance of real world physics and convoluted programing content. Our job is really to recreate the world. Or recreate the world as seen in a tiny portion of an architects mind.

 

Maybe the question is really this. "What should we do when we get an ugly building, an ugly building is going to be an ugly rendering." This is true, but not everything is a portfolio piece. I wish I was soo proud of everything I did, but somethings really sucked. Some project were baboons butts and others I had such little time to work on it it came out looking half done. Some projects I did just never worked. This was my fault. My least favorite project (from just how pleased I am at the results) actually has given me the most work. The client still loved it and had me do his own home. So it is so hard to say what works.

But hell if anyone can AFFORD to turn down work just because its ugly-DO IT. I am serious. Personally I would rather turn down pissy clients but who needs it?

Anyhow, I doubt anyone has read this far. Good topic.

[STRAT]

thanks for the replys so far guys, very encouraging.

 

perhaps it's my time of month :gebigeek:

 

i've noticed this trend over the last year or so, so it's not exactly new on me, and i can easily adjust to this way of working, i just not 100% happy with it thats all.

 

please dont get me wrong, ultimately i highly enjoy any form of artistic work i'm doing, i just enjoy other sides more than most perhaps our elitism and ego's are getting pushed out of the market some what these days.

 

i personally think it would be nice to preserve the 'artistic' side of things, but hey, current ways of thinking and all that.

 

Nisus - i've often thought about going it alone again, and many ppl in my work reckon i should, but i've been there and done that once before. too much stress and worry. i like my comfortable world as it is at the mo.

[nisus]

Hi Strat,

 

Me to I've done it alone, but didn't like it too. It's so hard hunting for jobs and be creative at the same time. Almost impossible to combine imho. For me AMS is the best things that happened to me: my partner really likes the things I don't like AND he's extremely got at it. This makes sure I can do my thing, he does his. It's a wonderful combination that I would not want to change!

 

rgds

 

nisus

[Chris_A]

In my experience, one thing to keep in mind is that 'architects' look less at CG as an artistic way to show their design than as a way to get an image of what it could look like. They see the digital realm as being very 'acurate' and that it's more convincing to a client to see it in 3D than as a sketch, even a very good one.

 

While what we do can be very artistic when given the opprotunity (see work from many of this forums members as an example) it's rarely called on to be so by the people who will pay for it. All the more reason for you to express yourself through the Challenges, eh?

 

Principles are good to have but can't always be held to without loosing something else.

[yog]

In my mind it depends on the client and then even what the client wants the image for.

 

I'm in the lucky position of being able to show most of my clients WIP's and getting very fast feedback, so obviously that is what I do.

 

For my clients there are two basic image types, the image that sells the project to their client, and the image that persuades the the local planning department that the project will not be very detrimental to the surrounding environment.

 

On the first type of image I often get acused by the architect that the image is too photoreal, and they would prefer it more styalised. Although sometimes their client would prefer it less styalised.

 

On the other hand, (to briefly disagree with Nisus), if the image is going to the planning autority, and increasingly the planning authority are requesting them, then the architect would prefer me to make it as photoreal as possible and have it blend with the surrounding architect as much as possible.

 

If you are an independant like me I think it is in your best interest to give the client what they want. Personally I lean towards the photoreal, but I also realise that that is not always what the client wants or what would be appropriate to the images end use.

[STRAT]

yog is correct.

 

in the UK clients ARE mainly looking for photoreal imagery. And allot of my work does go to the local authorities for planning. I've always been asked to produce images as close to photos as possible.

 

if they want more of a visual or conceptual image we usually get one of our architects to physically sketch something up.

 

but thats what a major part of my gripe is about - they still want the most realistic image i can produce, but standards seem to be slipping and basic WIPs seem to satisfy them these days.

[yog]

Hi Strat.

Do you feel that part of this slipping of standards could be to do with the fact that a lot more projects these days (at least in the UK) are often led by Project Managers that may or may not have an architectural background, and the architect is sometimes relagated to "lead designer" ?

 

A point in case was probably the most ambitous and stylisticly creative building that my main architectural client was involved in. I did the initial visualisation for it at the request of the architect and even being the conservative I am I had to admit it was a bold and thought provoking building. As it turned out the Project Manager was a Quantity Surveyor, and before long the design was a shadow of it's former self. Out went the copper domes, tapered timber towers and dry stone "Cornish Hedge" exterior walls, all to be replaced by vertical concrete block.

At this point the Project Manager asked me to re-visualise the building (which had so drastically changed it was a complete start from scratch). Anything I produced would be fine by him as long as it took no longer than two days.

As it turned out I quoted the two days as being Friday and Monday so that I could also spend Saturday and Sunday on it to bring it up to my standards at no extra cost to the client. Idiotic to do I know, but even I have some standards

[Chris_A]

As in any endevour the client will dictate the outcome of a project as much or more than the design itself. Good and bad things can happen at the direction of the client.

 

I agree that there are more and more projects using CG as a presentation method, even bad ones. These are probably projects that would have never been sent to a traditional architectural illustrator, but rather, would have been presented with sketches and colored elevations. In part the output depends on where in the project lifecycle the visualization is being created. I see many more projects earlier in the design process now than I used to.

 

Sometimes what the client "wants" isn't what they "need". We are in fact 'content creators' when it comes to the image itself. The bulding may be awful but there is always hope for the image with regards to it's style and composition. A diverse portfolio will help you demonstrate to clients other (potentially more artistic) ways to depict their projects. EB3's recent WIP's are a good example, many are now requesting this 'sketch' look based on what they've seen posted to his web site.

[Iain Denby]

Strat(acaster)

I have a traditional architectural illustration background, and I've been saying for some time now that claims of Photo-realism within architectural illustration is over emphasised, over-used, and very often false. I beleive that the important thing is that the image is 'beleivable', which is very different to being Photoreal. (Ernest B 111,s latest NPR are still beleivable). The best traditional illustrators never went for Photoreal (partly because it wasn't achievable with the medium they were using), but instead went for stylish and beleivable images, whether polished or sketchy.

 

3d Software has been sold on it's ability to produce Photoreal images, and many new CG artists are slaves to this, producing images without any artistic merit at all. Now the tied is changing and these people are being left in the cold.

 

I have been freelance for over 15 years, and since going digital 4 years ago, I have been so busy that I'm turning work down on a regular basis.

 

Go freelance, and then you are not tied to the constraints and wishes of your current Company. Just produce good images whatever the style, and you'll get work.

[kid]

I've got nothing against photorealistic illustration or abstracted/stylised illustration.

 

I use what feels right for the project. I'm also working on ways of merging the two. I'm trying to use realistic GI lighting and crude modelling techniques to create a physical architectural model look. I know it's been done before but I'm working on making a distinguished style.

 

The freelance work I've done they've wanted a photorealist look. I've been quite lucky as the clients perception of photorealistic has been the same as mine. By that I mean, a lot of people think that as long as it's got photographed people, cars, trees, dogs, etc, in the scene the it is photorealistic, with very little attention given to the actual lighting and material qualities. I view photorealistic as giving greatest importance to the quality of light and materiality of a project, hence my photorealist renders incorporate very little entourage.

 

I feel my application of photorealism appropriate when the body of the architecture purposely uses light and materality to tell its story.

 

eg.

 

If I feel a body of architecture mostly uses such things as sense of place or setting (ie people are of great importance to the telling of the story), then I refrain from expressing light and materiality and place most importance on the other aspects of the architecture. For this I feel a more stylised illustration to be most effective.

 

eg.

 

but that's just my approach orangeshy

[3dp]

hi strat

sounds like you are at the crossroads

i'd give going freelance some serious thought

you will still end up doing work you are not happy with, work probably much longer hours, and always be behind with invoices paid but you'll have control of some sort.

you will be able to move and shake with impunity with wider client base although you may miss the intamacy of some earlier projects where you had some design input i suspect like many of us it's the journey not the destination that is important

3dp

[garethace]

Thanks for that post Kid, i believe you have hit the nail firmly on the head with that post. I spent 3-4 years exploring the photo realistic methods of previewing architecture. But the problem was I could not sell that way of visualising/illustrating architecture to any architects i know of. On the other hand when i presented anything like what you have shown, the more graphic diagrammatic style the architects loved it immensely. :angecool:

 

So for the last couple of years i have investigated more and more about nice diagrammatic ways to present building concepts and designs for architects. I feel i have 'made my peace' with architects at long last, and can 'work with them' rather than the opposite. I think it is very hard to know what a potential client architect will want from a cgartist. But i have learned from hard experience NOT to assume i know what they want, not to force them down a road they are not willing to travel, and try to focus on what services i can provide for them.

 

It was much easier said than done for me. But that is a big part of the service one provides - interpreting the clients needs.

 

I have made some more strong observations here:

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000009;p=1#000006

 

Alot of it is exploring a negative view of architects/clients/illustrators relationship, rather than the positive side of the coin. But I still felt like making some strong points anyhow.

 

[ April 07, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: garethace ]