CGArchitect awards - or fantasy art awards?

[mattclinch]

I also do these kind of images professionally for clients, architecture based or otherwise. So its not something which exists solely in education.

 

You might silence a lot of people if you were to post some of this professional work. Both your personal website and Factory Fifteen's do not mention the clients involved, nor does the more abstract material in your CGArchitect gallery.

I would suggest this has prompted the 'fantasy' title levelled at your work here. Showing others that there is a viable commercial market for this work may even inspire others to push the boundaries.

I understand that 'commercial' was not a requirement for the competition, but it has clearly been a thorn in the side for some who work solely on commercial projects and don't feel they have the opportunity for this kind of abstraction in their daily work yet are being judged against it.

 

As a side note, best of luck with the Factory Fifteen collaboration with Jonathon et al. The website looks great.

Edited July 5, 2011 by mattclinch

[jwaustincrowe]

As the originator of this thread, may I try to keep it on course? What is with the justification of 'spatial' being the main criterion?

 

So, what, "considering viewer and camera"??? How does this make this an architectural visualisation? For the 'Elevated Brood' it was, as Nicholls states, a "Personal project from way back". So, pure fantasy. Totally cool and moody, mind you, and would look great in a modern nature park, but, sadly, pure fantasy.

 

Cool, if you can convince a client to say "Er, okay, you can make that fantasy pic if you WANT, but really we need x,y, and z. A post-apocalyptic image of the country club we are proposing would, er, um, be NICE, so make it if you like, but we really need something more mainstream. I've seen your work in making global meltdown scenes, but now, how about something that JUST DOES WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO, THAT IS, REPRESENT THE ARCHITECTURE!"

 

I think that is far more to the point.

Edited July 6, 2011 by jwaustincrowe

[CJI]

Now that is plain rude. I have no idea where your getting this "first language" nonsense and don't see how that has a place in this discussion other than to be derogatory/inflamatory.

 

Now back to the issue. Spatial is one of many things that can make up "architecture" but arguably it is one of the most important if not the most important factor in any concept and/or project that relates to architectural themes. So Paul is quite right to acknowledge that as his driving notion in these images.

 

I still think you are widely missing the mark here Joseph. No where is it stated that work submitted to the awards had to be comissioned by a client for work, why are you assuming that all work has to be of that nature. Most of the work in this and many other competitions are personal projects. Like Tom Livings said, clients rarely pay for the privelege of an all singing all dancing image. These competitions would be a whole lot more dull if we were limited to the kind of work clients often demand. I also dont understand your issue with "pure fantasy", How in any way is a fresh exciting idea sub standard when compared to something existing if executed to a high standard??? As happy as i may be duping a photo to a high standard, or taking someone elses design through to finished image, nothing compares to self satisfaction of creating your own exciting project when time allows. whether its for a client or not, is neither here nor there.

 

Although clients are few and far between that will pay for this sort of image, as Paul states, they do exist and he has been comissioned to do just that before. (i hope he can provide examples, More juicy images to look at hehe). And to finish, you said so yourself "represent the architecture". Represent being the key word here, Paul did just that. He represented architecture in its entirety, from the whole mass to the exploded parts

 

that is exactly what these awards are NOT about my friend. no where does it say "your submission should look like a building". Architecture is the theme. And as you know that is the broadest of terms. You need to expand your horizons a bit.

[AJLynn]

As the originator of this thread, may I try to keep it on course?

 

No. What you've done here, quite inadvertently, is open a discussion on the definition of "architectural". I think - not meaning any disrespect here, but it goes to the mutual misunderstanding - that you are not an architect and so misapprehend the scope of this question, which is one that has plagued theorists basically forever. My working definition is "a delusion about space" but I have friends who would tell me that's too narrow.

 

What is with the justification of 'spatial' being the main criterion?

 

Because that's one of the few words that most architects agree is part of the definition of architecture.

 

Why does any of this need justification? What Paul and Jonathan have submitted are clearly architectural 3D works, and quite good ones at that. I can see how one might not understand them as such, but they fall within a well established tradition of architectural speculative representation that's been a significant driver of both theory and practice since way before any of us were around. The assertion that these representations are not architectural would have to be based on an overly narrow working definition of architecture.

 

But anyway. I understand that it is frustrating to enter a competition and not have your work selected. Trust me, it happens to everybody, and I do sympathize, but it's really not personal. If you'd like some help, I'm sure the audience would be happy to give you some advice on how to improve for next year, especially if you post images on the work-in-progress board.

[Tommy L]

But anyway. I understand that it is frustrating to enter a competition and not have your work selected. Trust me, it happens to everybody, and I do sympathize, but it's really not personal. If you'd like some help, I'm sure the audience would be happy to give you some advice on how to improve for next year, especially if you post images on the work-in-progress board.

 

now thats a sly dig if ever I saw one

[jwaustincrowe]

I tried to be more arty, but I keep getting my work rejected by my clients. Could the audience please help with this one?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43664[/ATTACH]

[CJI]

My first impression is that you need to do it at a higher resolution, your missing out on the detail by having it so small. All in all not bad though. Create a wee grid and some quick adjustments and you have something reminiscent of pop-art.

I still dont think you have grasped the theoretical idea we are talking about though. May i add that, maybe because i am scottish, i found your sarcasm really entertaining. We use it a lot here! haha.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43671[/ATTACH]

[Dave Buckley]

I tried to be more arty, but I keep getting my work rejected by my clients. Could the audience please help with this one?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43664[/ATTACH]

 

Must admit this made me laugh. However, I do agree with the comments of Uddie and AJ Lynn

[Ernest Burden III]

Interesting discussion. Architecture? Spacial? Habitable structure? Fabricated environment? Uh, sure.

 

Personally, I love the finalists. I'm about to revive my Architectural Visions website, looks like some great material is being produced still, judging from these finalists. Speaking of judging, obviously I'm not one this time around, but the list is great! Frank Ching? Jeff, that's brilliant!

 

I do agree with Travis that we should think about a self-commissioned category as opposed to a separate client commissioned piece, since they can differ significantly in what you can do as an artist. I think the Society Of Illustrators has always done that with their annual competition.

[PDN]

Seriously, what is the fuss...!

 

I met with some of the judges in La Coruna whose professions ranged from visual effects, architectural visualizer, and even architect, and they agreed that it (all the nominations and film) was very much an 'architectural representation' how can you disagree with that. It visualizes an architectural concept. Many more mainstream architectural visuals are pure fantasy, a concept for an architect trying his luck in a competition with not much more of a clue on how it would be built, my elevated brood image which you are saying is pure fantacy, is very capable of being built, i know as i drew all the details for it years ago...!

 

Year after year the same old stuff wins these competitions, and knowone bats an eylid. eventually something would have to change, to let in the more abstract and the more fantastical. You are acting like this happens every year... look back at the best image and best films from last year.

 

I best people thought that Tianyi Zhu would win this year. His beautiful animation is fantastic, but nothing new. The best bit was the beginning with the flowers, but how is THAT ARCHITECTURE.... you see my point.

 

This year marks a change, and a welcome and needed one at that... But next year it seams that there may well be 2 image categories, commercial and non commercial.

[PDN]

Also, Jonathan and myself had designed every bit of those images and animations. Composed all of the elements, and done a heck of a lot more DESIGN then most architectural visualizers out there, who get given 99% of their models and even have their camera view set up... We are designing the spaces and the image..! A lot more architecture then an evermotion bathroom...

[Dave Buckley]

A lot more architecture then an evermotion bathroom...

 

Brilliant quote

[jwaustincrowe]

Yeah! Nice quote*. Seriously.

 

Doesn't that sum it all up though? Let's introduce into the competition the commissioned jobs versus non-commissioned.

 

Then, let's get the results of each and hold them up to the customer and say "Well, you are used to seeing your Revit/ArchiCAD one-click export polished with these vray materials, (IES lights only a fistful of dollars more), only because you are only talking to us because you haven't got a photo because it hasn't been built yet."

 

Then, we can show them what they, collectively, the customer, AREN'T asking for, and AREN'T getting, and say "Now, how about something a little more emotive/creative/interesting....?"

 

Then, as an industry, we can go forward and push some boundaries.

 

How do we go about getting this creative stuff into the mainstream?

 

How do we convince developer/estate agent/builder 'X' to invest in the slightest piece of web or print space in which to put the avant-garde? Even if it is offered for free, as part of the mainstream work, it is treated as nothing more than an artistic amusement.

 

Especially, before someone releases "Autoarchscenegenerator for ArchiCAD/Revit/Sketchup/MSPaint version 1"?

 

Joe

 

*I have to say that as far as quality stock 3D content goes, Evermotion is the best I know of.

[Dave Buckley]

*I have to say that as far as quality stock 3D content goes, Evermotion is the best I know of.

 

For sure it's good stuff, however I do prefer the likes of Design Connected and Model+Model. I wasn't digging at the quality of evermotion stuff by quoting Paul. I just found it funny as I can relate to it, have done it myself in the early days (just re-rendered pre-made scenes) and I still see it daily (including some submissions to the CGA Awards).

[jwaustincrowe]

The best thing is when you see an Evermotion scene included in the folio work of people applying for jobs!

 

(Or worse still, when we are being spruiked to by outsourcers....)

 

I'm getting off topic here.

 

Also, thanks for the tips - Design Connected and Model+Model are sweeet.