People talking into your creative process

[Yama]

Hi folks,

 

I just had a little talk about how too many people beeing involved in the creative process of your visualization can ruin a good image in the end.

 

So I was wondering how you guys deal with this issue.

 

I am talking about the situation where I am doing a visualization and in the middle of the process I have about two or three architects plus the investor and two of his partners discussing about the image, adding wishes, correcting and changing stuff and in the end it feels like having a patchwork image where everyones wish is considered but nothing fits together.

 

And when I look at the images that I consider to be my best, I realized that all of them where made by just leaving me alone and letting me do my job and not more than one person discussing the image with me.

 

So is it just me, or is it generally bad if you have too much people adding their wishes into an image?

 

I just remember the saying that people always want to get what they ask for, but if you give them exactly what said they wanted, they are not happy.

 

So yeah I was just wondering about your thoughts on that.....

 

 

greets

 

Yama

[marius e]

Yip, mostly like that....but thats what the client wants...

[Corey Beaulieu]

I think you have to take everything as a suggestion. in the end, clients recognize a great image and that is what they want, but we are the experts. Their suggestions are novice, should be considered, but need our artistic balance so that the image turns out well.

 

Too many cooks in the kitchen is a bad thing, but if you limit your reviews and speak confidently to the decisions you made in navigating the advice of so many people, you can stay in control of your image and keep the quality high.

 

My two cents.

[notamondayfan]

I think the key is to take all comments from everyone on board, and then work from there. You can't simply ignore a comments because you disagree with it, as you'll just end up annoying someone, and they'll just make sure you do the change on the next revision.

 

What I do / try to do in situations like this, is once a draft has been issued, I make sure everyone who wants to make an opinion or make changes has seen the image, and commented. I'd then collate the comments, and feed them back to everyone, along with my comments and try to give my advice and opinion on what I think is correct. Sometimes simply explaining why things need to be done a certain way will satisfy a lot of clients, and as clients they should / might trust you as a professional.

Then once all these issues / amends have been agreed, will I produce the next draft. I know it sounds long-winded, but it really isn't, as it saves you time in producing less drafts. Also it shows you value everyone else's opinion, but you also give your professional advice too.

[RyderSK]

For now only, check the new MIR's website :- ) They formulated it nicely

 

 

Natural visualization is our way of honoring each architect and each piece of architecture. Our design process is based on four guiding principles.

 

1.Natural light

A sensible relationship between light and shadow is the foundation of every Mir image. Architecture "becomes itself" when lit naturally.

 

2.Unforced process

All our best work has started with the freedom to explore and invent. The industry standard of ordering specific viewpoints with mood references does not take into account the interdependence of lighting, composition and color.

 

3.Unstaged entourage

Staged and unnatural-looking people can reduce art to kitsch in an instant. We believe that entourage should be an integral and unimposing part of the story in the image.

 

 

4. Natural setting

Nature provides a sense of time and place. Natural elements from the specific location sets the scene for the architecture. -A rugged urban street in soft morning fog. -Heatwaves from a scorching sun in the desert.

 

 

http://www.mir.no/info/

 

And how to deal with the communication. It's tough, MIR obviously has authority to command such but how to build one could take years and that's only if you do the right things. Until one has such authority and influence over clients, it's simply something to live with.

Edited February 25, 2014 by RyderSK

[CliveG]

Interesting thread - The old maxim "a camel is a racehorse designed by a committee" is pretty true in my experience. I groan inwardly at every project where there is to be any sort of a consultation group or steering committee, which unfortunately happens more and more in our politically correct world these days.

 

Again it is my experience only - but I feel that for the best chance of a good result in the creative process there needs to be someone with balls. It is so - so much easier if that is the client, but whoever it is you need one person who say's "this is what we (really to be interpreted as "I") want".

 

But failing that if you're faced with a group of people wanting diverse often contrary (to each other) outcomes, then it sometimes comes down to me to pretend to be the one with balls and stand up and "manage expectations".

 

Puszyfooting around trying to keep everyone happy doesn't work and ultimately makes you the most unhappy. Worst case scenario if you don't want to grab the bull by the horns, then pick out who seems to wield the most power and concentrate on what they want.

[harryhirsch]

Agree with Dean here:

""And when I look at the images that I consider to be my best,""

well, that is your personal feeling but Investors care about money, they pay the architect and he payes you. If the Investor wants green trees and not autumn orange then he will get green trees. Architects want to see their vision in 3D and have to keep the investor happy. But thats the job, the picture is not developed for personal satisfaction, the Investor or architect wants to use it.

Make a list, write down the wishes and ask them to give you some time solve the issues. And if you think that it should be different in some aspects then show it to them via other renderings or prepare a second option to show the effect (if u have the time).

[Justin Hunt]

Having all comments/ options come through one person (usually the project manager) really helps. They collate and (hopefully) condense the comments and then passes them onto you.

 

One of the biggest pitfalls is where each person comments directly to you and no-one else, then politics takes over and it guaranteed to fail.

 

jhv

[CliveG]

One of the biggest pitfalls is where each person comments directly to you and no-one else, then politics takes over and it guaranteed to fail.

 

jhv

 

Oh yes..... you're then assuming the role of project "scapegoat".

 

That's the time you'll need to spend more time minuting everything and circulating those minutes to all stakeholders, than you do working on the actual project. And it'll probably still end up a mess.

 

No gimme one person with big "cojones" anyday.

[heni30]

No gimme one person with big "cojones" anyday.

 

I know.

 

I temped at this one studio on a big project and client people were coming in and out in a total panic. And the studio boss didn't bat an eye and just TOLD people that everything was going to be fine. He just took control with so much no-nonsense self-confidence that everybody just calmed down and everything did turn out fine. I'm sure they all greatly appreciated his reassuring big "cojones".

 

I would NOT have been able to handle a situation like that being that I only have medium "cojones".

Edited February 26, 2014 by heni30

[Yama]

I like this statement by MIR very much.

 

I think it proofs the point that if you want to make outstanding images like them, you have to have a strict policy about the process of your renderings and how much you let people talk into your design.

 

Specially point two caught my interest:

 

"2.Unforced process

All our best work has started with the freedom to explore and invent. The industry standard of ordering specific viewpoints with mood references does not take into account the interdependence of lighting, composition and color."

 

I think this is crucial for good renderings.

 

I am pretty glad they made a statement like this, because now I can show their work to the customer and say: "Look at this it's nice isn't it? Well then, take a look at their policies and how they work, I think they may have a point here, if they can produce results like this without getting fixed viewpoints and mood references before they even start their work."

 

To Harrys statement:

 

"If the Investor wants green trees and not autumn orange then he will get green trees."

 

Yes maybe, but if you let the investor make decisions like this, you will most likely not end up with images like MIR have. Because a change from autumn orange trees to green trees can mess the whole image up in some cases. And thats when you end up in images whrer everybody has his favorite color in it, but nothing fits together.

 

Its like cooking a meal, where everybody can throw their favorite ingredience in. In most cases it wont taste good in the end.

[RyderSK]

Strict policy is definitely way to go, keeping full direction in your own hands. But it still comes down to how much control the clients want. It's very individual, I definitely experienced whole range by now, from utmost freedom, to absolute control. Both extremes can be detrimental to quality at times.

MIR can be trusted by clients, they have a very visible track record of successful results, but I know they also fight it, and are very upfront about this, so they might not take a project at all if the conditions aren't to be met. It's worth to take notice, that their very best projects, are by small to mid-size architectural studios from Scandinavia. I can't even imagine this to be case for some of the big dogs like Foster or S.O.M. Design "bureaucracy" goes up almost lineary with size and renome of the company in question ("We have internal processes, our teams").

 

I know I can't dictate the terms much at all, so I simply fish around for the most compliant client. This really means I only take less then 5perc. of the offers I get (but also for capacity reason, we're just small), and even then it's not ideal now. Takes time, and I simply...take a big breath and do what must be done at times.

[Nic H]

i think every job is different and requires a different approach. of course everyone likes the jobs where you get 'control' much better but ultimately you are working to execute the clients aims and ideas and to try and help them along the way as best you can.

 

if i hired a renderer i certainly wouldn't want to be hearing about his 'creative integrity' even more so if it was just some generic vis company without a track record or folio of excellent work, most often you just need to suck it up, be professional and try to instil confidence - people tend to get overly involved if they feel things are going awry. if you engaged mir you would probably be aware of the style and type of work they do and expect that type of work

 

tbh the best place to flex your creative muscle is on your own jobs and then hopefully that will eventually feed back to you and people will approach you for that particular thing you do. you cant expect to be given reign without first taking risks and demonstrating ability.

[Justin Hunt]

Nic has hit the nail on the head. If you can demonstrate that you can listen to the client, take on board their suggestions and improve upon them you will end up with a happy client, and a good image you are happy with.

 

Our job is interpreting what a client wants/needs and give it to them.

Michael Angelo had clients sitting over (or under) his shoulder giving their input, while he was painting the ceiling.

 

jhv

[RyderSK]

Michael Angelo

 

Sorry, just had to. Made me chuckle

[Jon Berntsen]

I agree to what many say here.

 

Yama, make notice of all suggestions, then use your charisma to make them believe their suggestions has been taken into account. Or actually make use of them. Remember that they probably has been in this construction game longer than you, and they use to know their plot they are going to build on very well, which alone is a very good argument to listen to your client. (Side note:Architecture illustrations isn't all about creativity. I don't know why so many people think that. Also why are we all allegedly artists? Artists, really? Like musicians composing our own music, or painters creating our own pieces?) Anyway, another trick to show your expertise and eventually gain more respect is to argue and question suggestions you find to be unwise. Don't prove anyone wrong, ever, just use the words "strongly recommend". That way you can increase your respect, and perhaps get a little more freedom the next time the client comes for a job.

 

Too many cooks can mean trouble, yes, I definitely second that. I think you can try to deal with this by inviting them all to a meeting before you start the job. If not in your office, then just on skype. Then everybody can have their say. Then stick to one contact person from there. Require that before you take on a job, is my suggestion.

 

Furthermore, in 99,5% of the time, you will be directed by the client who pays, so that you get food on the table. That is how it is. If you are trying to keep up with all the "cool stuff" you see out there (which many of them wouldn't even be accepted by your clients) all the time, how early are going to die from stroke? Hehe. You need sleep, and for your personal mental health - will you sit at the retirement home thinking about all the creative stuff you did spend alooooot more time than needed to in your "youth", or would you rather think about the exciting discovering life you had? Just to put things in perspective for you.

 

All in all, thinking that you will get your creative freedom continuously satisfied in a long term job situation would be directly dangerous to yourself, I believe. Please see yourself as a hired expert who interprets architecture for your clients, and use the fact that you are an expert as an argument to be able to require one contact person to work with.

 

Else you would also have the option to do all the "phat stuff" in your sparetime, for free.

Edited February 27, 2014 by chroma

[RyderSK]

Side note:Architecture illustrations isn't all about creativity. I don't know why so many people think that. Also why are we all allegedly artists? Artists, really?

 

Exactly my words. I am always buffled by the "artist" word. I don't think this applies anymore in contemporary understanding of art, which is no longer synonymous with craft and sciences. But it dwells into never-ending debate of applied arts vs fine arts etc...so, each person has their own interpretation they are willing to defend so it's not worth much discussion. But I personally find it still a bit misleading to label ourselves so high as to art, since that's barely any intelectual stimulation from visual interpretation of architecture.

 

Yeah off-topic, don't wish to spawn an off-discussion, was just glad to read similar point of view :- )

[Nic H]

uh oh im getting deja vu....

[Jon Berntsen]

Juraj, nice to see some with the same opinion about that.

 

Sticking to the thread topic, I think nic and Justin above here actually said what I meant, in a better way, with very many fewer words than me.

[RyderSK]

uh oh im getting deja vu....

 

Sorry I just can't help myself :- D

 

Whoa, just saw your website. Well you do qualify as artist in my book. Quite odd and interesting.

 

I love this one:

 

http://nichamilton.tumblr.com/image/29673356231

Edited February 27, 2014 by RyderSK

[Nic H]

well perhaps its time for a cgarchitect excercise...base model to be provided, something a little out of the ordinary

6 week limit. lighting texturing, whatever you want.

[CliveG]

Exactly my words. I am always buffled by the "artist" word. I don't think this applies anymore in contemporary understanding of art.... etc

 

It's not often I'd be bold enough to say you're wrong Juraj (& Jon) but as I think you've already acknowledged there are definitely "Artists" here Nevertheless you are absolutely right in that what we are all creating for money here in Arch Vis isn't "Art". Creative - yes / Art - no.

 

Nic put's it well here

The reality is even at the more 'creative studios' (cant think of a better term) the clients are extremely conservative white middle class men and there isn't that far you can push things outside of the accepted norm.....

 

So the distinction is that there are definitely Artists, but frustrated ones because our work isn't really art. Obviously some get a lot closer than others bringing a lot of their artistic skills and applying them to our fairly prosaic work then presenting this to the "white middle class conservative" clients.

 

Hopefully that clears that up.

[Jon Berntsen]

It's not often I'd be bold enough to say you're wrong Juraj (& Jon) but as I think you've already acknowledged there are definitely "Artists" here Nevertheless you are absolutely right in that what we are all creating for money here in Arch Vis isn't "Art". Creative - yes / Art - no.

 

I was talking about all the "newcomers" that ain't cool before they call themselves "Artist". I think you can count the real artists doing commissioned work (which this thread was about) on two hands, amongst the thousands of people trying to be cool by striving to become an artist. C G, I don't know much about your clients, but your clients has clients too... Look back at the old architectural drawings, why should one be able to call themselves an Artist just by being able to balance the light/shadow color on a 3d tree, when they call(ed) themselves Illustrators by creating the whole piece from scratch?

 

Anyway, I did write this about being an artist or not because I found it indirectly relevant to the threadstarters case. It's essentially about how much freedom you can except to get from a client, and how much input is actually needed to make a good piece. I mean, no-one can say that their product will be better if they just could be creative and make whatever they liked, because every project has cruicial aspects that HAS to be taken into account when interpreting a building. If not, you will just end up with a stunningly good image without any root to how the real project is going to be finished, and then you surely didn't do your job.

 

The job as one that makes imagery of architecture like us is not about being an artist, it is about taking every aspect of the clients needs into something good and correct looking for that specific need. I am aware that some peoeple can have a different meaning about this, and that is fine, because I can only talk for myself and how I look at things.

 

I still think this is an important thing though, because if everone sits in their office thinking they are artists who creates their own exceptional stuff with spending one or two weeks more than needed, I think you must take a reality check and look around you. Everyone can make stunningly images enough to overbid you today. If it only was about the look. Is isn't about that anymore. So what to put in, then? The grade of project related correctness, IMO. That's where you can overbid your others, by sticking to that philosophy. And where can you get the correct project info? Yes, by taking in and listening to what your clients tell you. But anyway, I think requiring only one contact person is important. As stated earlier, to get everybody have their chance to come with their ideas, invite them all to a meeting early in the process... I think many would be surprised how strong a project can be if you bring all ideas up front before you really start the project.

 

To be a little constructive, I'd suggest the threadstarter to bring in your expertise into how you quick you can read your clients mind, and then transfer them best possible way into your creating, and still keep the instruments you've got to make your composition look good. Then the client will get a correct and good looking image, and he will come back to you the next time. Success.

 

We have outsourced jobs in hectical periods sometimes, and yes, some people get blinded of their references and stuff. But when it comes to and end, all our inhouse architects and even the client is unhappy because the details are all wrong - and we never use them again. So that's the point when the Artist thing falls through. Of course, sending things out to MIR is something different, and is in fact something that takes a lot of intern resources by project managing and being the link between your firm and the product they are making. It doesn't come by itself, I'm sure of that.

 

So to summarize my (too long) post, there is no point in having an "Artist" created, nice looking image if the project specific details are wrong just because the "Artist" had to be too cool for his client.

Edited February 28, 2014 by chroma

[Yama]

"So to summarize my (too long) post, there is no point in having an "Artist" created, nice looking image if the project specific details are wrong just because the "Artist" had to be too cool for his client."

 

Second that.

 

Of course there is an other extreme side, so called "artists" who are not realizing that they are doing a job and not a self expression.

 

Personally I would never consider any of my work "art". To me it is design. Or advertising. (But lets not get into a "what is art and what not discussion here please, that would be enough to start another thread)

 

BUT

 

I like those images bi MIR not because I consider them art (which to me none of any arch-viz is) but great designed advertising.

 

Be realilstic folks, what we do is sell or explain an architects idea. Thats all. No van gogh or cezanne, we are just advertisers.

 

But the best way to sell something is to create an interesting, good looking image, that makes people go "wow".

And thats what I ment with too many people talking into a picture. Meanwhile I am convinced that it is impossible to create an image like that with ten poeple talking into it, specially if these people have no clue about design or visual communication.

 

And heres another problem I often see:

Many architects used to do their visualizations by themself, before they turned their viz to get done by a professional illustrator, and therefore they think they have a lot of knowloedge about creating illustrations and images.

 

Sorry guys, you don't.

That's why you are architects and not illustrators. On the other hand an illustrator is not an architect and therefore has no idea about architecture. So an architect talking about how an image should look is a bit like an illustrator talking about how the building should be.

And that's when problems get created.

 

So as long as both sides realize where they stand and are not trying to tell the other one how he or she should do their job, a great image can be created with best inputs from both sides. Thats my experience and opinion.

 

A god input is fine and can come from anyone. But its a difference between an input and telling someone how to do his job.

 

So thats what I like again about the MIR statement. Basicly they say: let us do our job and you get nice results like this.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Yama

[RyderSK]

Truth

 

100perc. agree with all you said. I would write the very same :- )