Question for 3d Illustrators: "Has photorealism supplanted idealism?"

[hendrix2430]

Hello, i'm currently in research mode for my arch thesis, and I figured this place would be great to ask questions!

 

I would love to be able to do a thorough interview with some of you, some excerpts of which I may include in my thesis to illustrate some of my points (if you agree of course).

 

I've always been interested in arch representation and I've noticed that in the last few years, companies have been coming out with the latest "most real" selling point.

 

I know that some architects still use more artsy representation, but most architects seem to be commissioning photorealistic images.

 

So, my questions are:

 

1) Would you say it's true, that architects seem to be wanting photorealistic images vs artistic images (piranesi etc...)?

 

2) What about the architects' clients in your opinion? What do they seem to fancy more?

 

3) If so, when have architects started to like photorealistic images more?

 

4) Was there a time when absract/idealist images were preferred? If so, what triggered the change?

 

That's about it for now. I appreciate VERY much. If you accept to answer more questions through email (which would help me a lot for my thesis), thanks for leaving me your email address or sending me an email directly at khaled.hajhussein@gmail.com

 

Take care and I look forward to reading you all

[JonRashid]

All I know is that for planning applications the more photoreal the better. If a council is to be convinced they are now quite aware of the leeway afforded by artistic representations. Quite often the realworld accuracy allows for the 3D model to be used as an expert witness in these situations.

[Devin Johnston]

 

1) Would you say it's true, that architects seem to be wanting photorealistic images vs artistic images (piranesi etc...)?

Yes it's true however there is still a place for artistic images when the project calls for it.

2) What about the architects' clients in your opinion? What do they seem to fancy more?

It's just a fact that photoreal images are what clients and architects want now because they present the project in a way that removes all doubt about what it will be unlike a sketch or hand drawn image that leaves many things up to the imagination.

3) If so, when have architects started to like photorealistic images more?

Yes they like it for many reasons some of which are flexability, speed, impact, quality, cost.

4) Was there a time when absract/idealist images were preferred? If so, what triggered the change?

The change happened when computers became cheap and fast enought to make it just as easy to create photoreal images as abstract ones. Like I said before there is still a place for abstract imagery just as there is a place for photoreal but the latter is definatley used more because more clients ask for it and as BIM software has become more common creating these types of images has become much easier. There's also an aspect of artistic tallent that goes along with abstract imagery that one just can't pick up by doing some online tutorials, photoreal imagery is much easier in this regard and most anyone with a computer can teach them selves how to do it. In the end photoreal images are just easier and cheaper to produce than abstract imagery is for many people and it's far easier to find someone to do that kind of work.

[Justin Hunt]

Photorealism can be a tricky. If you do it too early in the design process it tends to scare clients into thinking that this is the finished product and cant be changed. As such in the early design stages it is often better to go the abstract/ sketchy style of things. Later as the design gets firmed up, photorealism is more appropriate.

 

I have seen a treand back towards stylisation, a kind of hybrid photorealism but softened with stylisation. This has the benifit of the accuracy that photrealism has but is enriched emotionally through stylisation.

 

jhv

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Photorealism can be a tricky. If you do it too early in the design process it tends to scare clients into thinking that this is the finished product and cant be changed. As such in the early design stages it is often better to go the abstract/ sketchy style of things. Later as the design gets firmed up, photorealism is more appropriate.

 

I have seen a treand back towards stylisation, a kind of hybrid photorealism but softened with stylisation. This has the benifit of the accuracy that photrealism has but is enriched emotionally through stylisation.

 

jhv

 

Quoted for agreement on my end.

 

More and more I see the request for photorealism diminishing. I have more requests for an image that can be inspiring, ...something that has emotion behind it.

 

The truth is, a lot of thought and design needs to go into a photo real image, and the project typically does not reach that level until it is very far into the design process. The early design concepts are just that, concepts. Suggesting they are a design that can be rendered in full detail creates headaches for everyone involved... designers, clients, and illustrators.

[hendrix2430]

thanks guys! very interesting opinions thus far. keep them coming!