Architizer article : "How We Render"

[RyderSK]

 

Are we losing something when we render hyper-real?

It's a question that floats in the air of the New Views exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago. The curators, working in collaboration with the NYC-based journal CLOG, describe how these ubiquitous images are easily shareable (just copy and paste), and, most critically, they're breathtakingly photo-realistic. It's now within the power of the architect to easily represent a true image of a built project, regardless of whether the project is innovative and thoughtful or dull and substandard.

 

So when all projects can be easily rendered, where's the true value of a rendering these days?

 

 

http://architizer.com/blog/how-we-render-the-changing-image-of-architecture/

 

 

Another one of the articles that continues the recent arguments surfaced by Archdaily and CLOG magazine last year about current relationship between Architecture and visual communication through rendered imagery. Usually asks questions, with slightly derogative feel towards renderings, although never ultimately saying it outloud.

 

For me it's kind of, tiring a bit, because it's as over-dramatic as architectural journalism always is. It takes itself too seriously but it's still something interesting to ponder upon.

 

Kind of shorter article (compared to whole issue of CLOG) but with some good comments in the discussion, so I thought of sharing it here

[heni30]

Thanks Juraj.

 

It's funny because approval agencies started requiring photo-realistic because loose marker renderings were too vague and flashy. Now, when stylized photo-realistic can be used to make anything look good, they might start to require plain SketchUp renderings which would be more neutral.

 

Actually, rendering does go thru stylistic cycles. Pre-computer you had pen and ink (Diniz), airbrush (Jacoby), during Post Modernism colored pencil had it's day, watercolor (Schaller), and now, as the article refers to it, digital European cool.

 

Maybe someone can start doing 5 foot tall Hugh Ferris charcoals and bring that back into stye.

 

I think a Giacometti style would be interesting.

Edited February 7, 2014 by heni30

[hkahk]

Thanks Juraj.

 

Actually, rendering does go thru stylistic cycles. Pre-computer you had pen and ink (Diniz), airbrush (Jacoby), during Post Modernism colored pencil had it's day, watercolor (Schaller), and now, as the article refers to it, digital European cool.

 

 

Nice references :-)

Do you know some more (names) of the pre-computer century. I'm very interested in seeing and studying those hand drawings.

 

Thanks!

[Chris MacDonald]

I've seen a few similar articles now, all of which as you say are quite opposed to rendering, but without actually coming out and saying it; which is sad, given the number of times my images alone have managed to swing a scheme in the architects favour in competitions, etc. Architects looking a gift-horse in the mouth?

 

There would soon be cries of anguish, people lamenting the fact that clients, the public, people in general just don't "get" their ideas because they can't read drawings if visualisers vanished.

[RyderSK]

I think the view is mostly academic, and by architectural critics aimed at architects themselves, largly ignoring that mass of them are done by 3rd party industry. I think it goes deeper as there is some disdain for rendered imagery by architects who see it as "unnecessary neccesity" at better case or completely false thing [Zumthor =)...].

I mean it goes without saying that architecture can't be represented fully visually only, as the subject is much broader. But it's odd sentiment that it's rendered imagery that is blamed for portraying it in less abstract fashion, contributing to better understanding by public and its investors, which is seen positive by the latter.

 

Btw, I wouldn't dvelve into particular styles. By "hyper-realistic" they pretty much mean it all, be it as illustrative as ever (supported by illustrating these articles always with prominent imagery by Luxigon, the very creme of architectural competitions) or not.

 

I've never personally experienced this much first hand (outside of general arrogant manners of architects heh, nothing I wouldn't be used to from school) but I think it's popular notion in community.

[heni30]

Nice references :-)

Do you know some more (names) of the pre-computer century. I'm very interested in seeing and studying those hand drawings.

 

Thanks!

 

Try:

 

Cyril Farey

Marion Mahony

early Steve Oles (colored pencil)

Ron Love

Paul Rudolf

[peterhoste]

common mistake in ArchiViz. : Architects don't do visualizations because they like 3d-models or love photoreal-renderings, no they only do it because they hope it lets them build their design, if they can build it without making a rendering, they will

[Zdravko Barisic]

^

As architect, I can tell that I do not like architect at all.

Thats my private opinion, like some one simple do not like pizza or tomato sousage...

...

And yes, thay actually hate 3D...

[hkahk]

@george sandoval

Thanks!

[heni30]

From my experience, architects resent viz-ers because:

 

It makes them feel insecure because they see how woefully inadequate they are at doing it (Awwww:().

 

They feel we are making "easy" money by plugging their design into our 3D program and pushing "enter" to get a rendering (true sometimes).

 

They think we are getting paid for having fun, for doing something we enjoy doing (true - better than flipping burgers).

 

They want to grab that presentation money from us and put it into their own pockets (boo hoo hoo).

 

And if Revit had a magic "Finished Rendering" button they would be happy.

Edited February 7, 2014 by heni30

[John Dollus]

Nice references :-)

Do you know some more (names) of the pre-computer century. I'm very interested in seeing and studying those hand drawings.

 

Thanks!

 

http://www.asai.org/Search - lots of them

[John Dollus]

Try:

 

Cyril Farey

Marion Mahony

early Steve Oles (colored pencil)

Ron Love

Paul Rudolf

 

'early' Steve Oles? You should come to the illustration conference in Dallas this October and discuss with him over dinner.

[Francisco Penaloza]

I read that article in Architizer and the one before as Juraj mentioned and yes I had exactly the same feeling, some sort of hate to visualization, but I think the writer does not have a real understanding of the problem, if there is any problem actually.

I think he get scared that thanks to talented artist (thank you guys thanks you we can make any building look good. That's some serious talent right there!!! why to be mad because of that? will you blame a good photographer for the same? those pretty models are not 100% perfect, should be blame in a great Chef do wonders with a stinky fish and some spices? shoot should I get mad when I die at Michelangelo or Da vinci and find out the God or Heaven does not look the way that they paint it?? come on!! (do not argue religion here please not my point)

 

Thanks to all artist we can see greatness in simple thing, thanks to Archviz artist there is a democratization in Architectural design or competition, is like Internet any small company can look like a giant retailer, and has the same opportunity to sale (word of Steve Jobs it self) what's problem with that, does he fear competition?? I think so.

Architects now and day have more important problem to deal with than worried about good render maybe overwhelming and simple design.

Awful article in deed

[heni30]

reply to John Dollus.

 

I was trying to illustrate (no pun intended) specific historical examples of stylistic tendencies. Early Oles would show the Prisma colored pencil craze of the Post Modern era, at it's height.

 

 

I haven't seen too many of those around lately.

 

I think someone whose career spans 40 years can be said to have an "early period" (hopefully). I do see some digital images on his website.

 

I would very much look forward to having a chat with him, as someone whose work I admire.

 

There's a large b&w mimimalist rendering he did of a Miami Pei highrise in the lobby that really wowed me,

especially when you see it so big. Very similar to this one.

 

 

 

er,............any more comments on my 30 second off the cuff list?

Edited February 7, 2014 by heni30

[Nic H]

that black and white one is lovely

however my feebdack in 2014 is:

 

remove shadows from facade

glass is more reflective and also more transperant

blue sky please - too gloomy

add life to balcony

activate ground plane

add trees

more trees

more people

one person in foreground

make trees transperant

need to see more context

make penthouse more visible

looks grainy, make smooth

needs to look more 'premium' in general - this is not batmans house

[heni30]

You're right! It's starting to come to life!

[RyderSK]

[stuartkemp]

Haha, that made me laugh @ george/nic

 

Having only worked in architecture offices with architects who sit on your shoulder like a parrot, therefore know the process well, I can't say I've ever come across an architect who disliked this profession. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They've always very much appreciated the work we do and have seen us as a vital tool to help them improve and develop their designs.

 

You would think that any resentment towards visualisers would stem from ignorance, "all you have to do is click a button" etc. Either that or just a massive chip on their shoulder.

 

 

Sent from my C5503 using Tapatalk

[Derek Forreal]

surely ArchVis is just like any other discipline though and needs to be seen that way? in music for example most of the stuff you hear on the radio is awful, and it's up to the individual to go and find the stuff that they think is good. same goes for other creative pursuits, like design in general and, crucially, even for architecture itself.

 

Architecture is constantly fighting to prove that it's not just the first step in construction. Rather, it wants to be a crucible of innovation that reflects contemporary society and the long history of the arts

 

well, the same can be said for ArchVis. it looks to me (from some of the examples shown in that article), that the author has just taken the first 3 renders he saw and used them to define an entire industry and while the Luxigon image is great, the other 2 don't really inspire and certainly are not what i would call "breathtakingly photo-realistic" (at least, they're not my cup of tea). it's a bit like me writing an article on Architecture, and choosing a couple of the very average and dreary housing developments (like the many that have gone up here in the UK in the last decade) and suggesting that they are representative of Architecture in general. in truth they probably are, but it's not what we aspire to.

 

So when all projects can be easily rendered, where's the true value of a rendering these days?

 

the irony is, that while the author is suggesting that "hyper real" (whatever that means) is bringing about the loss of "something" (whatever that means), he hasn't taken the time to look into the best images the industry has to offer and what they do, not only in terms of inspiring, but also, in more practical terms, ensuring that the architecture that is being proposed sits comfortably in its surroundings.

 

moreover, it could be argued that thanks to visualisation, architects and designers are able to design anything they want and be confident that it looks the way they want it to from every possible angle... it allows them to experiment with context, form, light, shadow, angles, curvature, massing, composition, scale, materials and colour (amongst others) in a way that was previously impossible and in that sense visualisation is liberating and empowering. for me, that's where the true value of rendering lies.

 

of course, you can do a lot of that with a physical model, but you can't stand inside the model and i don't think you can experiment as freely with a physical model, so in that sense the two complement each other.

 

and in the end, as far as a typical final marketing render is concerned, maybe it's the architecture that is being depicted that is dull? and maybe the worth of any render is ultimately limited by the quality of the architecture being depicted and by the (possibly uninspiring) demands of the client?

[markparsons]

I've met both. One was a highly-academic type who thought that speculative (i.e. heavily photoshopped) renderings or traditional drawings were better because you can already tell it isn't real and therefore appreciate the architecture for what it is. This may be true sometimes but a lot of speculative work is complicated intentionally, I think to add layers and confusion to the image in order to appreciate it as something that took a great deal of time to accomplish. Therefore adding to its value. This is one of her renderings done in 2011. I find it not only boring, but unnecessarily complicated, although I should state that she is incredible at hand drawing and drew this over top of a clay rhino rendering.

 

 

Other professors that I have and a few clients all really respect photoreal renderings and don't degrade it in any capacity. I even had to teach a graduate advanced computing class last semester despite the fact that I am an undergraduate student. With that being said, though, I'm sure everyone here has had clients or profs who have no understanding of the process and ask for tiny changes and become upset when you inform them that these changes require an entirely new rendering. If people realized how much pedantic time-wasting it took to create a lot of cg work, I feel like they would immediately appreciate it a lot more. That will never happen, though - especially with publications like this taking some sort of condescending tone towards this work EVEN though an increasing amount of 'intellectual' firms like Preston Scott Cohen's are hiring people to create high-quality renderings despite thinking of it as sort of an aside to architecture. I think there are a lot of bad visualization firms, but at least these things aren't built like 90% of the garbage we are forced to look at and live in in the built environment.

 

In an ideal world, we'd have good quality architecture and viz work like the collaboration between William O'Brien Jr and Peter Guthrie. That doesn't mean speculative renderings don't work but there is definitely a place for photorealistic work.

[Zdravko Barisic]

that black and white one is lovely

however my feebdack in 2014 is:

 

remove shadows from facade

glass is more reflective and also more transperant

blue sky please - too gloomy

add life to balcony

activate ground plane

add trees

more trees

more people

one person in foreground

make trees transperant

need to see more context

make penthouse more visible

looks grainy, make smooth

needs to look more 'premium' in general - this is not batmans house

 

XAXAXAXAXAXAX....

.....

^

Epic movie!

[carlotristan3d]

Nice references :-)

Do you know some more (names) of the pre-computer century. I'm very interested in seeing and studying those hand drawings.

 

Thanks!

try ASAI.org or any AIP old issues, also NYSR some of those dinosaurs are still there.

[harryhirsch]

This thread was supposed to be about "how we render" but what is it with all the jammering about architects?

Zdravko Barisic

"As architect, I can tell that I do not like architect at all.Thats my private opinion, like some one simple do not like pizza or tomato sousage...And yes, thay actually hate 3D..."

Great argument! Who is thay? Do you actualy know all architects to judge them?

george sandoval

""It makes them feel insecure because they see how woefully inadequate they are at doing it (Awwww:().They feel we are making "easy" money by plugging their design into our 3D program and pushing "enter" to get a rendering (true sometimes). They think we are getting paid for having fun, for doing something we enjoy doing (true - better than flipping burgers). They want to grab that presentation money from us and put it into their own pockets (boo hoo hoo).And if Revit had a magic "Finished Rendering" button they would be happy."

You are kidding right? Because if not I would have to say that you just hate architects, what is that with the "they feel, they think, they want...Plenty of us here are architects. If you know what architects think then you should know that projects are not only judged by renderings but by siteplans and physical models first. You know out of your expereince that architects wont get extra money but they have to submit renderings for free...esp. when it comes to competitions...so why talk bad about them if they would accept Revit pics.

Please keep in mind that architects have to deal with projects for 4-10 years, they have to deal with a lot of specialist, politicians, investors etc. so for them a Rendering gets the project to the next stage, that is just like it is...

Stuart Kemp

"" I can't say I've ever come across an architect who disliked this profession. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They've always very much appreciated the work we do and have seen us as a vital tool to help them improve and develop their designs.""

Yep, same here... and I have worked as an architect for more then 10 architecture offices in different countries.

[marius e]

Not a good article imo, I love architecture and design and is also allowed my view on where it stands today.........."we didn’t created the so called photo real deal, that’s what the architectural industry requests, we would love to not be bound by realism……… I have been asked many times to do a real artistic illustration and every time get told that it’s not real enough and end up having to do the realistic sort…..’Even wall colours should be the same colour in shadow areas, now how do you want us to create depth without contrast?

 

Architecture has changed over the years and has become exactly what the article accuses the 3d industry off. A copycat industry and based mostly on bad design of everything looking the same. Generalizing – Very vew architectural designs have any soul these days. Gone are the days of designing and creating architecture of value and real style, the days where the architect had the interior in mind and in fact focused on the interior just as much if not more. Look at Victor Horta’s work good example of good architecture and one can call him an artist. Can’t say this about the field anymore. Anybody can become a 3d artist and anybody an architect and this is what has happened today.

 

What new architectural style has your industry created the past 30 years??? None, just adding pictures cutting and pasting off other designs.

 

Massive glass facades and buildings that are only ‘shells’ regarded as architecture today.

 

Just generalizing here so if you don’t fit in here then don’t mind it:

Many of them do not like 3d cause they cannot do it and or do not have the time to do it as well. Too bad…..and good cause every image would look like an image taken out of an engineering brochure of a detailed ‘glass and cable system’. Gone are the days of research and design intent. ‘ Let’s draw up something that only looks cool or copy something that has been done cause we like what they have done and jam all of those images into our design.’

 

Hard, cold box-like, empty shell like structures…………….. So don’t blame us, we are the ones trying to win you your bids and clients, softening the design with all sorts of extras that was not thought of by the architect and adding lighting to give it some atmosphere and bring the creation to life, without an artist these cold badly designed dreams will fall flat….

 

These designs are so sacred that not even the environment is allowed to interact with it. Forbid an image has a blowing leaf or rain, only perfect people and perfect plants, perfect environment and perfect atmosphere just as perfect as the perfect architecture. Blame it on that industry not just the 3d industry, we mostly get told what to do, the image looked good before we sent the final………………

[M V]

although I should state that she is incredible at hand drawing and drew this over top of a clay rhino rendering.

 

Does Batman live there?