3D is not ART and we are not ARTISTS.

[andstef]

I feel that I should say something on this thread although most of the time I keep to myself:

 

Of course most of the people who are doing 3d and renders for clients feel they are artists, because they want to be artists and they are trying to leave a personal mark on every project. Every artist wants that.

BUT: there are two major categories of clients with different point of views on the visualization industry/visualization art:

 

1. There are the architects and designers, which both create objects (of architecture and design). To them most important is that the visualization translates the project (a 3d model or 2d drawings) into an image or animation through which that object becomes comprehensible to nonprofessionals. Therefor mood or emotions are irrelevant, and sometimes even realism. That is why, as someone pointed out earlier, an architect said that it does not matter if that will not look good in the final image. An example of compromised realism are the so often used aerial views of buildings. There are few cases when we can see a building from above (an helicopter, plane or other aircraft, a taller building, and than it is not for a long time), but through an aerial view people can understand the volume of the building. You will not see the latest Honda motorcycle concept presented dirty and full of mud because that transmits a certain mood to the people viewing the presentation. Nor will an architect want to show his house made of showing concrete, stained to better reflect the passage of time. I think I made myself clear.

 

2. There are the developers. This guys do not care about the art that the architect put so much work into. They care only about $$/sqm. And they get more $$/sqm (square meter) if more people want what they are selling. In general people buy the pretty images the developers sell, a promise of what is to be the future home. And this is where the mood and feelings that all artists like to create are needed. Because an image or film with a worm homey intimate happy etc. mood will sell their apartments/houses.

 

I have never heard of a client that demanded renderings that will strike horror and fear into the hearts of the viewers. So if you want to transmit the whole spectrum of emotions through your work don't be surprised if you will only get demands for only a small part of those.

 

The conclusion is: there are clients who want you to be an artist (mostly developers) and others who don't (because they don't have the technical know how or the time to do the visualization themselves and they outsource).

 

There are a few artist who earn good money of their art, at least that I know of. I don't know what "the man sitting upside down naked in glass box" did for a living (or any other artist who produce forms of art which one can not buy) but I don't think it's just that.

 

So, people working in the visualization industry are bilateral (both artistic and technical), so you shouldn't feel frustrated if one part in in greater demand than the other. If you win the lottery than, maybe, you can become a fulltime digital artist.

 

regards

Edited January 22, 2010 by andstef
spelling mistake

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

1. There are the architects and designers, which both create objects (of architecture and design). To them most important is that the visualization translates the project (a 3d model or 2d drawings) into an image or animation through which that object becomes comprehensible to nonprofessionals. Therefor mood or emotions are irrelevant, and sometimes even realism.

 

I disagree with this. 90% of my work is directly for architects. Mood and emotion are very important. Realism is actually not that important, and often over rated as being essential, when it is not. ....but mood and emotion are. The designer has to turn around and sell the design idea to the client. The client understands mood and emotion better than they understand design intent. So if the client is happy with the mood and emotion, then it is easier for the designer to sell the design concepts.

 

If a designer does not believe this, then they can't see the forest for the trees, or the visualizations that have been created for them are crap in the first place. Both are problems in this industry.

 

 

There is a different level of rendering, that will probably appeal mostly to a architect who is not a designer. Those are the technically precise details that you get with programs like Revit. The diagrams that show how the details function.

[chadw]

I am in aggreement with Travis 100%.

 

On another note...

I think it is interesting that this conversation is being held on the heals of the Salary question which was posted a few days ago. This idea that many architects seem to have about the visualization profession being somehow inferior to their own (IMHO) drives the lower salaries that Arch Vis artist seem to be paid. If one were to compare the skill set of Arch Vis professionals to those working in say Commercial and Advertising we would find them to be very similiar, however the Commercial and Advertising sector is better paid because they are more respected by the companies they are in business with. I have spent the last 2 years in the Advertising sector and the studio I am at has a number a ex arch vis guys working here.... they all feel the same. I miss arch vis and play at things here and there but at present have no intetion of ever going back. Just my two cents.

[Guest percydaman]

Next time an architect says that to you, just reply: 'I'll remember that next time your begging me to make your shitty design look 'good'.

[Ricardo Eloy]

Good point, lol...

Seriously, though, I think that statement (what we do is not art) is really narrowminded. I mean, it takes a lot of both technical and artistic skill to take a drawing and make it come to life. Traditional painters render what they see, putting a bit or a lot of themselves into the painting, so it has their style. When I create a piece, it has my fingerprints on it. People may not recognize the design (good or bad, what the architect sees as art, probably), but may recognize the image as mine. Besides, we compose (visually), we use colors, lights, angles... all tools at our disposal in order to create a remarkable visual piece.

I think people still think anything created with a computer can't be art. And that's so 20th century, LOL... Which is sad, imo.

Also, I'm an architect myself, and don't see much difference between what I do nowadays (3D) and what I used to do before. Like before, I'm still doing something that my client wants, regardless the media. Bricks, canvas or pixels, I'm still working under my client's wishes/supervision, creating works that often do not represent my ideal. But I do my best to please whoever is going to see it, like any artist out there.

My 2 cents...

[luckymutt]

I think we are artists and 3D can be art, however most architects see themselves as some bizarre cross between Howard Rourke and Francis Ford Coppola and they wind up beating what could be amazing projects into polished turds. And that can apply to both their design and "art direction."

 

Occasionally you'll find an architect/client that accepts they are not versed in all matters and will let you do your thing...but it doesn't happen often enough.

 

There is also a matter of who the intended audience is. If it is just needing to sell a concept to a developer, then fine, it'll be more informational.

If it is for marketing purposes (to the buyers of that condo, or whatever) then there will likely be more creative freedom.

[ihabkal]

And what about Architects thinking they are good business people????

I am going to start a new thread, talking about some large companies here place architets who have no managment skills or degrees, at the top of the managment ladder in these companies. Dealing with them is so hard becuase they lack that managment experience, yet they manage! managment is not for everyone, you need people skills at least!

[leoA4D]

Next time an architect says that to you, just reply: 'I'll remember that next time your begging me to make your shitty design look 'good'.

 

No-no. Just remind him he is not an artist either.

 

Art, the pure stuff, is work that is not commissioned ($) and is not dictated by budgets, time, codes, clients, etc. It is about an idea born in the mind of an artist, with that idea being under the total control of the artist and the artist being the soul arbiter of what, when and where external factors will impact that idea and how that idea will be expressed. Blah, blah. You get the idea.

 

An architect is far more than an artist. Look around the room you are in and everything you can see and what cannot be seen or touched, an architect has to know or learn about its origins, use and how it goes together to make a building that does not fall down. Again, you get the idea.

[andstef]

I agree with Leonard. It has to be accepted that not all that is subjected to aesthetic critique or can be done in more than one way is art. Choosing a good camera angle is not art. The frontier that defines art is blurred and much debated on.

I used to work in the visualisation industry, and now I am an architect and work in an office, so I have experience with both positions.

Not all that I did in visualization INDUSTRY was art, and not all that I do as an architect is art.

 

You are sometimes artists and sometimes you are not, this is the truth, live with it, or go cry in a corner, this will not change. I am not trying to insult or underestimate anyone.

[William Alexander]

Artisans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan

 

Not a strict interpretation but accurate given how most archviz is done. Very rarely does an ArchViz artisan work on their own original work for commision or sale - That would be functioning as an artist and probably not pay that well anyway. Many astists take on work that is not art but thier skills and expereince make them marketable as highly skilled tradesman. Analogy- take a metal sculptor who sells his art, good chance many people may come to him with a complex gates design and have him fabricate it. What would set him apart from a 'metal fabricator' or 'tradesman' is his ability to interpret the intent of the desgn and make the appropriate decisions on the finite details to ehnance rather than bastardize the original concept. But this artist is not functioning as an artist but rather an artisan.

 

The term artisan is being used here and there in the greater CG and CGvfx world in the above described application.

 

As a blanket statement ArchViz is an endevor by artisans to express the 'intent' of anothers' original design, unless you are the architect or designer of the original design. LOL Then you are an architect or desinger in the AEC fields and archiviz is a tool-media that you use to communicate the design.

 

Lots of tools out there

 

Wax

[Ernest Burden III]

is an architectural photographer an artist?

 

That's funny--that was the first thought that popped into my head when I read the original post. Yes, they are. Some are. The good ones are. Peter Aaron sure is.

 

The first sentence of the first DMVC Conference was "art is when something you have made is greater than the sum of it's parts". Thank you, thank you--yes, I did come up with that one all by myself. By that standard there is art in 3D visualization. Not all of it by my stated standard, but enough that we can call ourselves artists if we want to. But doing so should call upon us to aim for that standard.

 

I don't really care if a client thinks I'm not an artist, I care if his check clears.

[eagle_ear]

[Matt Sugden]

It seems like a slightly inflamatory comment on the part of your architect in the first place what was the context for him to say such a thing?

 

You should have turned around as said "well your buildings smell of shit"

[BVI]

It seems like a slightly inflamatory comment on the part of your architect in the first place what was the context for him to say such a thing?

 

Came up in general chit, chat but I left it, rather than debate it further, which he clearly wanted.

 

I deal with architects all day, and most are really pleasant people - I guess they study for as long as doctors, and don't get the title

[ihabkal]

 

I deal with architects all day, and most are really pleasant people - I guess they study for as long as doctors, and don't get the title

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

not only we study as long as they do, we also slave all day in front of computers, get paid a sixth of what specialized doctors can make in the US per year (50 to 60 thousands compared to 300 thousands a doctor friend of mine wa smaking in Toledo), our work is not buried under ground so whatever shit we make is either on walls for everyone to criticise or built for everyone to piss on, and we are bad business people, we think we are very smart, but who knows.

and we also talk to people as if we were a better breed, even architects talk to younger architects as if they were ants.

you know it used to be cool to be called architect, people looked at us with respect, even more repect than doctors. I don't know what happened...

 

HAHAHAHAHA (those last ones were crazy laughs)

Edited January 25, 2010 by ihabkal

[jophus14]

I think our work can be consided art, but not everyone that creates a 3d image is an artist. The software is becoming easier and easier to use and with thousands of free models and tutorials out there it is easy to slap something together, use default light/render settings and come up with an image. The difference is the thought process, the eye for design and color as well as knowing when an image conveys what you are trying to get across to the viewer. It takes years to create beautiful images. I know Alex Roman has been getting tons of praise for his latest short but he deserves it and whoever says that isn't art is out of their mind. He is one in a list of many that prove that architectural visualizations are indeed pieces of art and that we are or can be known as artists.

[Ghiath]

I think our work can be consided art, but not everyone that creates a 3d image is an artist. The software is becoming easier and easier to use and with thousands of free models and tutorials out there it is easy to slap something together, use default light/render settings and come up with an image. The difference is the thought process, the eye for design and color as well as knowing when an image conveys what you are trying to get across to the viewer. It takes years to create beautiful images. I know Alex Roman has been getting tons of praise for his latest short but he deserves it and whoever says that isn't art is out of their mind. He is one in a list of many that prove that architectural visualizations are indeed pieces of art and that we are or can be known as artists.

 

Completly agree with you jophus this is the conclusion of this argument.. thousands of people know how to make 3d view but few who's have artist's sensation, so dont call anyone working on 3d program is an artist...please , most of them just like it and study it ... it's easy guys anyone can learn it with few months ..but give me an artist of this hundred thousands who's learn max ,,very few comparing to the huge number of who's learn max.In addition,some artist design a mug could have taste and imagination better than thousands of Architects ,also not everyone study Architecture deserve to be an architect same thing for 3d Artist

Edited January 28, 2010 by Ghiath

[leoA4D]

Those that believe archvis is art and that all or some who do archvis are artists need to do the following:

1. Using reputable sources, provide the full definition of Art and, providing descriptions and illustrations, demonstrate beyond a doubt how archvis fits each and every connotation of the term.

2. Provide a list of art institutions (universities, museums, galleries, etc.) and art historians (faculty, authors, etc.) that have argued in favor of and concluded that archvis is *ART*.

 

So far, this has not been done.

 

Just saying, "I am an Archvis Artist!" or "Archvis is Art!", conveys the passion one has for their craft. But, from within the industry and from outside the industry, it has to be proven to be art and recognized as art. Archvis has been around a long time and it has, historically, been known as illustration.

 

Labels are a serious matter. In many places, any person declaring themself to be and/or practicing as a doctor, lawyer, architect, etc. without proper credentials is inviting much unpleasantness with the authorities. Here, it is illegal.

[DanGrover]

Those that believe archvis is art and that all or some who do archvis are artists need to do the following:

1. Using reputable sources, provide the full definition of Art and, providing descriptions and illustrations, demonstrate beyond a doubt how archvis fits each and every connotation of the term.

2. Provide a list of art institutions (universities, museums, galleries, etc.) and art historians (faculty, authors, etc.) that have argued in favor of and concluded that archvis is *ART*.

 

So far, this has not been done.

 

Just saying, "I am an Archvis Artist!" or "Archvis is Art!", conveys the passion one has for their craft. But, from within the industry and from outside the industry, it has to be proven to be art and recognized as art. Archvis has been around a long time and it has, historically, been known as illustration.

 

Labels are a serious matter. In many places, any person declaring themself to be and/or practicing as a doctor, lawyer, architect, etc. without proper credentials is inviting much unpleasantness with the authorities. Here, it is illegal.

 

Aah, but who gave the authors and art historians their remit and credentials? And, whoever did, who gave them their credentials?

 

Joking aside, someone somewhere along the line had to decree something themselves, with no one else affording them it.

[mkofmainchester]

My german colleagues are able to provide the definitve answer. Have they been accepted by the artists health insurance? If yes then Archviz is an artform , if no it isn't. Aftre all you cannot get better credentials than govrement approval can you? (I also applied but it will take a while until I get feedback, so watch this space).

[TheAllusionisst]

Cocoa the sign language speaking gorilla splatters paint onto a canvas and it is sold as art. Lots of artist with very little technical ability do "modern art" (not saying all modern artist are not skilled), and the list goes on. I think if you have an opposable thumb, like "purdy" colors and can splatter some paint and the general public thinks you are an artist, then most of us should feel comfortable calling ourselves such and move on, we need thicker skins. Besides, artist and architects scrape by while technical trades and consultants make more money, maybe we should look at it as a blessing in disguise.

[ronll]

"All art is a vision penetrating the illusions of reality . . . "

 

Ansel Adams

[mienq.blom]

In my opinion.. if 3d is not art justified by his reason - I can say that his architecture is not art, because its not creatively designed, but rather according to the clients specifications. Not much innovation in copying a clients specs and example pictures, is there?

 

Im not saying architecture is not art - in fact, i think it is - but if 3d renderings arent art, neither is architecture

 

Besides, if 3d visualization isnt art, why does everybody have different styles? Why when I render the exact same building (even from the exact same revit model, for instance) as the next person, it will never look the same.

 

The art of it lies in colour choice, lighting, camera angles (ie. photography is an art too!), scene settings, the ability to create smooth realistic models (think superreallism for paintings - uhm.. yes, its art - or is it? They copied the exact image in front of them - no creativity there) ect.

When architects render by hand (those amazing pen sketches!), is that not art either?

 

Just a thought.

[Lutz1973]

"When architects render by hand (those amazing pen sketches!), is that not art either?"

 

That's indeed art.

Scattering i.e. evermotion trees and interchangeable furniture across a scene just to make a sterile picture come alive is certainly not art.

 

My worst nightmare (beside my mother-in-law) has been freehand sketching everyday since he/she was a child and does in 5min with ink and watercolor what it takes me at least three days for.

 

Bought an intuos a few days ago, maybe I should have bought a sketchbook instead:p, but like most of us I just can't keep my hands off that computer stuff, even in spare time...

[dheersreedh]

In my opinion without any artistic touch we cant make it possible...

 

in thart way we r artists...definitly..