3D is not ART and we are not ARTISTS.

[mienq.blom]

I completely agree. Especially when it comes to those pen sketches. But my point remains -

Free hand renderers have a skill to present an exact 3d designed by someone else. Not everyone has the skill to do this. So its an art. But then the same goes for us 3d artist. Not everyone has the skill to this. If it was as easy as that architect claims, why does he pay so much to have it done?

[quizzy]

Just reply to the architect by saying:

 

"Then how come I can make your crappy designs look so damn good!"

[mienq.blom]

wahahaha! i completely agree. he should be added to this thread. i would definitely respond to such a vain remark.

[pipjor]

Alot of people didn't(don't) consider Norman Rockwell a artist, they say he's a "illustrator"..

 

van Gogh didn't sell a painting during his lifetime...

 

so who cares what people name us..

[mienq.blom]

Im sure Van Gogh wouldve kicked sum butts in thread discussions if he knew then what we know now.

Besides - his stuff was never disregarded as art.. it was just not popular. Good art, bad art.. it remains art regardless of the measuring stick of others.

 

0 0

 

 

0 0

0 0

000 there... ART!

[leoA4D]

You guys are doomed to be saying the same things all your career and get no closer to being called artists than you are today. Make friends with the inevitable - this is not art and you are not artists. Get on with what really matters - your lives and careers.

[mienq.blom]

I am regarded as an artist in my firm and in my country. So what you (or other people i havent met before) think, doesnt really matter. At least we had valid grounds for claiming that we are artist and we didnt just make a groundless statement like you and "the architect".

I dont mind being disregarded as an artist by architects - as long as they dont mind me disregarding them as artists.

[ZFact]

I wonder does he consider himself, as an architect, to be an artist?

He is definitley a bull shit ARTIST!...

[leoA4D]

I dont mind being disregarded as an artist by architects - as long as they dont mind me disregarding them as artists.

 

Architects *are not* artists. You are right. I explained that a few pages back. *I am an architect* and with a lot of formal education and much experience so I know what I am talking about. Any architect who calls himself an artist is an insult to the very great profession of architecture and to fine artists and art.

[Ernest Burden III]

Architects *are not* artists.

 

Leonard--a bit harsh. I would say that anyone can be an artist doing anything so well that it transcends our normal expectations from that endeavor.

 

Art is made in:

painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving, collage, mixed-media, illustration, graphic design, photography, film, prose, poetry, playwriting, theatrical performance, spoken-word, singing, opera (well, maybe not opera), musical performance, arrangement and re-mixing, woodworking, pottery and flower arranging.

 

Why not architecture, too? To me, it's not what process you use to produce a result, it's the result. Does it rise above the ordinary? Does it 'speak' to people? Does it inspire, teach and make people see things in a new way? Then it's probably art.

[TheAllusionisst]

Actually, architecture and art were taught side by side in days gone by and many great architects of the past were actually artist and the real good architectural designers of today are artist. Don't confuse the architects who got into architecture because they had nothing better to do or like writing specs, doing construction management or handling the business end of things with those who got into it for the love of design and architecture.

 

Architectural designers are artist and their medium is building materials and their canvas is the built environment around us. Just like the really talented and artistic archvis people out there, there are artist in both fields, but to snub the architect like one has snubbed you is to be just as ignorant as he is. He may be a cookie cutter architect regurgitating the same work over and over as to make the most profit, but that isn't who the architect who got into architecture for the love of design is, we can't make blanket statements about both.

[leoA4D]

Leonard--a bit harsh.

 

Yes. And?

 

I was accepted into a five year architectural program on the strength of examples of "art" I produced and submitted. I have sold pieces in the U.S. and the U.K. I have practiced architecture for years working for tiny no names and stars doing work here and abroad. As you can see, I have a record. But, I am not an artist or Artist.

 

I think what you are saying is that elements of art can be found in most any man made thing. I agree. Even the policeman in the intersection directing traffic with such gyrations that it makes the evening news embodies elements of art. Robot-generated circuit boards can be visually elegant with its colors and line work but it is not art.

 

"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." (I posted this earlier in this thread.)

 

Neither art nor architecture is solely about the product for different reasons. Not even the Dada movement was solely about the product. When most people see a Dymaxion House or Bauhaus building they see a building, shelter, a plain box, ugliness, etc. These were a sea change in architecture and culture.

 

Artists are fortunate because they have the maximum amount of freedom to create and execute their ideas. One of the dilemmas for the architect is that from the client's brief the ideal solution surfaces like the most perfect sphere or gem. By the time the project is completed on site, to the architect it is more like a deformed accident after complying/compromising with all the codes, budgets, project and construction managers, poor workmanship, client's internal politics, community concerns, etc. And, it is so satisfying to see it actually done.

 

Herbert Muschamp in an interview asked Richard Meier a question that included something about Meier being an artist. Meier skipped over it.

 

Yes, I fully agree there is art in architecture and lots of man's endeavors.

 

Ernest, can you cite examples of credible art-related sources, institutions or art historians, noting that archvis is or should be considered art? Personally, archvis has always been wonderful to look at. It was influential in my decision to become an architect and why I am (trying) to do it now and why I find your work so enjoyable. Hand produced is still the best.

 

I have the same passion for archvis as those who proclaim themselves artists. If archviz was meant to be labeled "Art", it would have been done long ago by artists, art historians, institutions, newspapers, and magazines.

[Derek Forreal]

i find it hard to believe that a bunch of seasoned pros are arguing over this.

 

3d is NOT art. it is a TOOL.

 

at the risk of sounding like a tired cliche', it's what you do with it that counts. and because of this, art can manifest itself in any profession (including architecure and archvis) but it comes from the mind, not from a tool.

Edited January 31, 2010 by derekforreal
added

[luckyluc]

""Art, the pure stuff, is work that is not commissioned ($) and is not dictated by budgets, time, codes, clients, etc"

 

That is a false argument.

When you walk to any big ART-museum in the world, in let's say Florence, the Uffizi most of the work is:

 

A :commissioned

B :dictated by budgets

C:dictated by time (or there was a infinit budget)

C:dictated by clients

 

The same we can say about all the 7 wonders of the world.

 

You can make art at home, purely for your own creativity and to express your feelings.

 

But the most beautifull art in my opinion are creative skills, passed from generation on generation, often stimulated by Hard Cash.

That is why the best art was made in times when one part of the population had a lot of money, and could make othr people work for little money. (think of kings, pharaoh's emperors, dukes, etc.

 

WOW, that has become a long story.

 

My point, you don't deceide yourself if what you do is art ( I don't consider myself an artist but a skilled and creative person, trying to make better things all the time)

Other people will see you as an artist or not.

 

Example

If someones makes a nice picture, like attached, do you see this as art?

The only thing he does is make the scene he sees look nice, even plays with the colours. but is shure looks nice. It gives me inspiration.

 

Now, if someone payed him to do this, is it art then.

 

Good luck to you all, and I hope you make a lot of money making a lot of nice work, or maybe make a lot of art and make less money but be happy a lot. Whatever you want.

[leoA4D]

i find it hard to believe that a bunch of seasoned pros are arguing over this.

 

Arguing? Please, no.

[braddewald]

As soon as you add light to a scene, it becomes a subjective perception, it becomes art.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

If people want a fancy title the sounds cool, they would be better equipped to say they are designers rather than saying they are artists. Design does not only deal with buildings, but deals with the assembly of all things, including renderings, illustrations, and visuals.

 

There is little subjectivity in calling yourself a designer compared to calling yourself an artist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer

 

A designer is a person who designs or creates something. Perhaps the broadest definition is that provided by psychologist Herbert Simon: 'Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.' [1]

 

As well as amateur designers, there are many professional designer occupations (see list of Examples). To become a professional designer usually requires study to degree level and certain work experience or training. Entry to some design professions is strictly controlled or limited by legal requirements, but use of the title 'designer' is generally un-regulated.

Working as a designer usually implies being creative in a particular area of expertise. Designers are usually responsible for developing the concept and making drawings or models for something new that will be made by someone else. Their work takes into consideration not only how something will look, but also how it will be used and how it will be made. There can be great differences between the working styles and principles of designers in different professions.

 

In the 1980s the term 'designer' began to be applied to products such as furniture and clothing that had distinctive aesthetics or were the work of certain 'signature' designers. So, for example, there were 'designer chairs' and 'designer jeans'. The term later came to be applied to anything that was ostentatiously created for a purpose, such as 'designer drugs', or even the 'designer stubble' worn by some fashionable men.

a designer is a person who designs objects.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Noise]

Chillout gents, we are artists.

 

nonsense to think otherwise.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Noise

[mienq.blom]

I guess each has to decide for himself.

 

To me architects and 3d specialists are artists. You dont neccessarily have to agree, but I get my confirmation from the reaction and the "wow"s I get when people (and the architects I work with) view my work. If I am able to give it a wow factor, I believe it to be art. It is a workpiece that no one else (or even myself) could copy exactly ever again.

 

But like I said.. each to his own.

[Ernest Burden III]

Yes. And?

 

I don't mean to be attacking you, just being light.

 

 

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.

 

Actually, I'm in the attic of my house, where my studio is. This house was hand-built by an Italian immigrant during the depression. He over-did a lot of things--you should see the beams in my basement. Skilled labor came from people who could not pay their tabs at his grocery store. No architects were involved in the building of this house. Still, I get your point.

 

Ernest, can you cite examples of credible art-related sources, institutions or art historians, noting that archvis is or should be considered art?

 

Off the top of my head...

Hugh Ferris

Cyril Fairey

Leonardo DaVinci

Canaletto

Piranesi

my father

Lebbeus Woods

Syd Mead

Eugene Tsui

Rodger Dean

Michelangelo

 

these are all people who did arch-vis and who's work would be considered art by most credible sources. Yes, some of them were rendering their own proposed designs, but were drawing real architectural proposals for real clients. That's arch-vis. DaVinci, Michelangelo, Dean and Tsui may never have drawn someone else's design.

 

I think what you are saying is that elements of art can be found in most any man made thing. I agree...Hand produced is still the best.

 

It frustrates me that digital media are removing the aspect of art creation being a physical act. There is no experience that can match drawing, painting of forming clay with your own hands. A new medium calls for new approaches, but I hope we don't lose our species-long bond with hand-produced creative creation--art.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ernest Burden

[leoA4D]

I don't mean to be attacking you, just being light.

 

Another millstone around all architect's necks is hyper-seriousness from an autoclave-like existence with building codes (= law), product specs, lawsuits, etc. Consequently, I "naturally" poke my head out looking for sound rationale in matters such as this thread and pounce reflexively when none or little is found. Then a much deserved brickbat is applied by someone here to wake me up.

 

 

Actually, I'm in the attic of my house, where my studio is. ... Still, I get your point.

 

50 years older and the structural framing members in your house might have had roman numerals carved in the ends to match up with the r.n. at the the mortise. I think you did get my point, i.e., architecture is a team effort made up of folks in the office and out. An open-minded client with money allows for great design, if the design team (architect, engineers and consultants) is capable. Why should one person get the credit ... and title of "Artist" for a TEAM effort?

 

Off the top of my head...

Hugh Ferris

Cyril Fairey...

 

BTW, another inspiration for me, your father's books.

 

these are all people who did arch-vis and who's work would be considered art by most credible sources. Yes, some of them were rendering their own proposed designs, but were drawing real architectural proposals for real clients. That's arch-vis. DaVinci, Michelangelo, Dean and Tsui may never have drawn someone else's design.

 

Two points.

1. That is great talent but a drop in the glass. Those that illustrate for medical books, flora and fauna, print advertising, ornithology, video, etc. deserve to be considered talented. Where does it stop? If all of this talent is called "Artist", will that not devalue the title?

2. Prehistoric cave paintings/drawings of France and Spain are referred to as art. I may be mistaken here but the Impressionists broke the art/artist mold as science and technology permeated culture. Classical artists were still revered but going forward, art and artists were expected to conform to new "laws" engendered by the freedom in this new style of "art" which was quickly embraced and promoted by art critics. Artists today are taught these laws and contemporary art and criticism still conform to them. Galleries make big bucks on art made under them. Architectural design programs follow similarly.

 

It frustrates me that digital media are removing the aspect of art creation being a physical act. There is no experience that can match drawing, painting of forming clay with your own hands. A new medium calls for new approaches, but I hope we don't lose our species-long bond with hand-produced creative creation--art.

 

Amen, brother.

[mashedpot8er]

Hmmmm. I do consider what we do as an art form. If it isn't then neither is photography. I do consider photography as an art form.

[mondex]

It's art if you have the freedom to give your scene life in the most realistic or stylized way: all these irregularities that make a 3D image look real, all these little imperfections, hundreds - thousands of details that have nothing to do with the actual house/building etc... but most of the time the client wants a sterile, clean image, so it's always a challenge to try and deliver beautiful images. Sometimes all it takes is the right choice of lights, skies, time of the day... and I tend to struggle with that. I'm very gratefull of the talented artists here who are very generous to give their advice - which is also an artform in human behavior!

[YOHKOH]

Arty farty.

[mondex]

Yes hopper452, farting can also be an artform