CGArchitect awards - or fantasy art awards?

[jwaustincrowe]

Hi,

 

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there is no way most of those nominees for the still image award could be considered as 'architecture' images. They are nice, sure, but as an arch-viz professional, if I could find a customer who would commission such a work I would be in heaven!

 

How about images that represent the state of the industry?

 

Joe

[AJLynn]

Many of the most well known examples of architectural illustration represent conjecture, unrealistic things or structures, buildings that would never be built. Hugh Ferriss's representations of idealized NYC architecture, early works by Greg Lynn, Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid, etc., - these influenced architecture and illustration as much as any built project of their time.

[acjwalker]

I can "slighty" see the argument but they are architectual images when it comes down to it, just beacsue they are not at eye level looking up at a building in a summers day, doesnt mean they are not architectual image. And wasnt the catagory "Architectural Image" and these are Architectural Images. The title was not Architectural Images Commisoned by a customer.

 

A customer will want images to sell the building, make people buy it and make it look dreamy, the ideal place to be. The title was not Architectural Images Commisoned by a customer.

 

We always want to create images with moody feel but it doesnt sell so cannot do it.

[Sketchrender]

I would have to agree , may be there should be a " as built " or " as requested " ,and I do see the point of tarting the images up for your own portfolio.

Small clients will not take the chance or the time and money to do pff the wall illustration work.

So there is a point to be made on this fact.

 

But saying that i would stive to be as good as some of the guys entreing these competitions, and i take a little piece of everything i see and work it in somehow to mey work.

 

Phil

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Commissioned work for a customer is highly influenced by the person commissioning the work.

 

This is true for many professions... Architect, Artist. etc... It does not reflect the full creativity and ability of the artist. Instead of making things that are intriguing to them, often compromise is needed to make a piece that fulfills particular needs.

 

I am not saying that a commissioned piece can not be beautiful, but I do think there is a hell of a lot more room for creativity and interpretation when you are making pieces for yourself. So, .. maybe a sub category is would be warranted, but I don't think it should be the main category, though a commissioned piece could fit into the main category.

[jwaustincrowe]

Thanks, that's exactly what I'm saying. We have a saying, "you can't polish a turd", but we often have to.

 

Again, they are nice images, but how an exploding 'whatever' in space is architectural visualisation is really stretching it. You could put any image into the competition and brand it as arch viz.

 

And what is with the post-apocalyptic ferris wheel? Yes, it is an image of the built environment, or should I say, a post-the-built environment. But is it visualising architecture? I'd argue that some of these are not.

 

The competition outline states:

"...outstanding achievement in the field of architectural visualization."

 

Could someone explain how an exploding spaceship is architectural visualisation? But, try to do it without the collection of arty-farty shiboleths that normally accompanies the question "what is art".

 

Joe

[AJLynn]

I'm surprised at this negativity. Personally I thought the more fantastical finalists - without comment on the repetition factor - represented an excellent melding of NPR technique with an age old tradition in architecture of unbuilt / unbuildable projects. What architecture schools did you guys go to that didn't teach the pure theory projects of Eisenman, Wright, Corb, Lynn (the other Lynn, Greg), Tschumi, Koolhaas and Hadid, UN Studio, etc., etc.? That's a list of eight of the preeminent architects of the last 100 years, and of those, only Wright became famous for built works. How many well known Buckminster Fuller projects are built buildings? Did you know that most of the drawings in I Quattri Libri are not actually drawings of Palladio's buildings but Palladio's idealized versions of his buildings that he was not able to execute?

 

Look at Jonathan Gales's submissions - don't you see echoes of Rem's thesis, Corb's Terrible Idea For Paris, and OMA/REX's Louisville project?

 

Quick, who was the greatest American architectural illustrator of the first half of the 20th century? Don't even labor over it, what's the name that pops into your mind instantly? Okay, now do Bing or Google image searches for Hugh Ferriss Metropolis of Tomorrow - see what I mean?

 

The nominated image are "architectural 3d." You guys just didn't include enough of the definition of "architectural".

[jwaustincrowe]

Even those great works resemble buildings.

 

How did Paul Nicholls' space image get in?

 

Even the footnote states "Concept image for a film I made last year titled 'Royal Re-formation'".

 

Again, nice pic. Not arch viz.

[ezb]

I would consider architectural visualization to be any piece of digital art work that utilizes 3D in its construct.

 

I think that the nominees are much more about the ideals of architecture in all aspects of creativity, space, scale, material, lighting, texture and color than a great majority of posted gallery images.

 

However, I would like to see a greater variety of overall mood. It seems as though the dark and mysterious have the edge. Of course the light and airy may not have put up much of a fight this year.

 

I’m pleased with the nominations. Spectacular visions. Memorable enough to influence even the most mundane client commission.

[AJLynn]

Joseph, I don't know what to tell you except that I disagree, and that I don't think your argument is well founded enough to be giving the organizers a hard time over. Essentially what I see here is "This work is not arch vis because it's not what I do when I do arch vis work." When you say that, you exclude everything else, and of course you run the risk that what you are saying is descriptive not so much of the work you are referring to as of your own scope of understanding of the subject.

[acjwalker]

I think the main point is they are all very abstract and not much variation

Edited June 14, 2011 by acjwalker

[CJI]

I for one am very dissapointed that such a topic even exists. Are we not pigeoned holed enough by everyone else as it is, that we have to start pigeon holing ourselves. Yes, 99.9% of the commercial and personal work we do definitly does not look like this, or even come close to representing this, but that does not mean that the 0.1% is not as important or relevant. I can't really explain it better than AJ already has. But to take another example, Richard Serra is is classed as an artist or sculptor yet his work is often sighted as architectural.

 

These entries remind me of my explorations at university of conceptual architecture sketches. Both by myself and the much more prominent and talented Masters that AJ spoke of. Hell, take a look a the publication Architecture NOW!, look at some of the 3D conceptual images in there, many of which barely resemble anything but are most definitly considered "architectural images". They are conceptual, yet still architectural in form and intention.

 

I did not mean for this to sound like a rant, so i apologise as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just think our legitimacy as artists/designers within this industry is questioned and sneered upon enough without us adding to that. I can't even say that i am one of those that finds much time to indulge in work like this but i sorely wish i could. We work in a medium that has no rules or bounderies and unlike architects in the real world we have no real constraints other than our imaginations. We need people like this to push us further.

[jwaustincrowe]

I agree that they are 0.1% of the work ever done for arch viz.

 

I think the sad thing is that most of the images in the award nominations list are nothing like the images posted in the thousand plus pages of images in the gallery.

 

What does this say about the CGArchitect panel's view of 99.9% of the work being done by their members?

 

It shows contempt for the very work being done for the purpose of architectural visualisation using 3D as a medium. It says, "thanks everyone for posting their hard work, but it really means little if it doesn't look like these."

 

Tell me if I am wrong, but I have never seen images like 'space flotsam', or whatever it may be called, posted to the galleries. If such an image were, then it would be directed to a more mainstream 3D art site.

 

Joe

[CJI]

I think it's unfair to disregard the work just because it doesn't fall within the norm of what we produce. I also don't believe it shows a contempt for what is atypical of the work we produce. All its doing is highlighting and rewarding some particularly accomplished and imaginative examples that were on this occasion deemed to be worthy of an award by the panel. Bear in mind that although the awards are mainly organised by Jeff and Co at CGArchitect they are the ONLY awards that cater to our proffession/art and thus must represent the length and breadth of talent on display.

 

To say that such work would be directed else where if presented on this site is extremely short sighted and not to mention an unfair assumption to make on the part of the community here. In my experience the CGArchitect community is in general very welcoming and accepting of all forms of CG art created by their members regardless how off topic it goes. But in this case the image your talking about seems to be created from exploded elements of a building of some sort and as such is very much on topic. If it was created out of cats, dogs and lollipops and passed off as an architectural interpretation of a sweety shop i think you may have a strong case as the link would be tenious at best, but it is clearly not. Even then he may have a good architectural reason for cats and dogs that we would have to accept haha. I was always tought that you can do anything when it comes to architecture as long as you have and most importantly can explain a valid reason for doing so. Whether anyone agrees is often a point of dispute.

 

Also i would be the first to admit that much of our work, and very much including my own, is either not to a high enough standard and/or doesn't really do anything of particular note to warrant much attention. All of the images nominated elicit some form of emotional response by the viewer as well as being of a high standard which in my opinion makes them worthy. I for one feel its nice to see some variation, all too often i feel we find ourselves glossing over images not becuase they are not accomplished but because they don't really say anything about the content.

 

I'm sorry you don't see the merit in producing such pieces of work.

[FreakyDroid]

#13

 

Maybe they do represent 0.1% of the work, but that's a good indicator that the rest of us who can't produce those kind of images/animations have a lot to learn.

[jwaustincrowe]

If it is atypical, why is it in the awards, then?

 

There has been magnificent work in the past, not being ashamed of achieving the aim of showing a representation of buildings.

 

http://www.home-designing.com/2009/09/architectural-visualizations

 

(Shows previous award images - just one of the first googles to appear).

 

So, what has changed?

 

If CGA wants to mix it with the likes of KRob, then perhaps I'd suggest that there are more categories offered.

[CJI]

Why shouldn't it be? its not typical but still in some aspect forms a portion of what some people do. It is still very relevant and therefore applicable for an award.

 

Nobody here is in anyway saying that there are no fantastic examples of showing a beutiful building or space. Bertrand Benoit, Peter Guthrie, Victor Fretyan, and last but not least Alex Roman are all great examples, there are many others. Work like theirs constantly pushes the bounderies of what we do, and the rest of us just have to play catchup. But their work doesn't invalidate the more conceptual abstract and vice versa. They are all exceptional in their own right, the judges deemed those more abstract and open to interpretation images worthy of nomination. You clearly disagree with their opinion and thats up to you but to disregard the work as not "architectural" just seems false and unfair.

 

If i remember right some people questioned the validity of the Eiffle tower animation from the awards of 2009, but again it is a testiment of the creativity and imagination of some people within our field and should be applauded. Work like this is no less deserving of awards just because it is different. It is still bound by the same rules, Quality work with an architectural theme. The work on offer has it in spades.

 

I also agree with you dimitir, it annoys me how often i am reminded by all the wonderful work that is posted and in the competitions that no matter how far i climb there is always further to go haha.

 

Also to add i think we have very different interpretations of what architecture is and what it is we do. To me architecture is not buildings, it is the built environment, the creation or adjustment of space and form to create an experience, elicit emotion, and perform a function. I also feel our work is to always try to do more than represent a building, Its is to try and make someone understand and identify with the subject matter in a way that is not possible otherwise. Whether thats to create an emotional attachement to a space, or to convey the design intent of the concept, or to illustrate a quality of space or design. Beautiful Images in general haha.

 

However I am getting in to choppy waters here that will inevitably lead to whether or not what we do is art. So we should steer clear of that i think.

[FreakyDroid]

Even though I agree with Curtis, Joseph makes a good point about offering more categories.

[i2hellfire]

commentary can both be negative and constructive. it's like people here are deathly afraid of offending someone. as it were, i agree with joseph. having seen the submissions, why were the finalists chosen as such? yes they're different, and abstract, and some are even interesting to look at. but architectural visualizations? that's stretching it. i (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the awards were to celebrate the best of what we do, not to put up on a pedestal someone's archi-babble thesis. if this is the direction to be taken, then separate categories could at least differentiate the artistic chaff from what you want to consider "traditional" arch viz.

 

and while 3d visualizers come from varying backgrounds, a number of us do come from architectural backgrounds. so from that perspective, no i wouldn't categorize floating bits in space as 'architecture'. even my most self-indulgent theoretically masturbatory projects had a semblance of architectural cohesion.

[Sketchrender]

What I really love is the fact that you think everybody in this business is an Architect.

A seperate section is what peope, have suggested.

 

" When you say that, you exclude everything else, and of course you run the risk that what you are saying is descriptive not so much of the work you are referring to as of your own scope of understanding of the subject."

 

Again this is not work that we do on a daily basis. I undertand what you are saying, you really have to open your mind to make it up, but seriously if you submitted a piece of your day to day job work to a competition you would not get a look in.

 

Clients rarely want evening shots are dusk shots they won't pay for the luxury, as time is money.

 

Phil

[Tommy L]

I think its rare to get a pro job thats worth entering in a competition unless you really make it a pet job and go above and beyond the call of duty on it. But if you are considering entering a competition, then you have an opportunity with paid work to get a double whammy, you spend longer than your paid to on the job, but you get a fantastic showpiece and a super happy client!!

[PDN]

As the old saying goes, bad news is better than no news.

 

As the author of the 'exploding spaceship' and the other abstract building barnacle I thought I'd put my 2 penny's into this discussion. I am also setting up a company with one of the other nominies discussed in this board Johnathan Gales, whos megalomania images are probably the best images to ever feature in this category.

 

People have said that this kind of work never appears in the gallery. This is simply untrue. I was vis pro of the week twice, and one with a very moody collage piece titled 'elevated brood'. My gallery is a mix of more traditional arch vis and more creative ARCHITECTURAL imigery. The important thing is that they are both SPATIAL, both types of representation are spatially constructed and consider the viewer and the camera. THEY ARE BOTH ARHCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATIONS, Even the exploding spaceship, which yes is a concept image for a film I made in 2010 but still abides by the rules above...

 

The industry is changing, it is becoming far to easy to produce photorealism with certain combinations of software packages. We (and the awards) hit a peak last year with alex romans film, third and the seventh. Many of the projects entered this year were of a similar vein, slow pans and beautifully rendered shots and time lapse's are nice but that cannot win every year. Look at squints film nominations. There are better rendered films for sure but they represent their subject very well and communicably in each project, even with a subtle flare for the abstract.

 

My entry in the film category may also cause a fuss, but you would be brave to say that it is not spatial, as it is inherently spatial and considers the camera and viewer in its construction. It is architecture. All of my image and film nominations were constructed within an architectural framework for my masters IN ARCHITECTURE. I also do these kind of images professionally for clients, architecture based or otherwise. So its not something which exists solely in education.

 

Narrow minded people who live to perpetrate other's who do something different need to look at themselves and re-think what they think they know about our profession. Sure there is a differrence, I work on both kinds of work, but they both have a place.

 

Somehow I doubt we would be having the same conversation if 5 boring yet beutifully rendered house extensions were nominated, with limited 'VARIATION'...

 

Paul Nicholls

...............................................................................................................

paul@factoryfifteen.com

Director at: FACTORYFIFTEEN

[Jeff Mottle]

Preach it brother! Can I get a hallelujah! LOL

 

Are you in Coruna? Perhaps we can get together for lunch and/or dinner today.

[PDN]

Hi Jeff,

 

Im glad you like my rant...!

 

Jonothan and myself will be arriving at 8:15pm local time. Give em a ring around this time and we can meet you for dinner.!

 

if you get my answer machine then i will ring you back once we land (if were at all delayed).

 

We both look forward to meeting you.

 

Paul...!

 

 

 

Preach it brother! Can I get a hallelujah! LOL

 

Are you in Coruna? Perhaps we can get together for lunch and/or dinner today.

[PDN]

Preach it brother! Can I get a hallelujah! LOL

 

Are you in Coruna? Perhaps we can get together for lunch and/or dinner today.

 

forgot to put my number in : 07725986715