Purely aesthetic role within architecture

[trevwest]

I would like to know whether there is a role within architecture where one simply designs from an aesthetic stance, not keeping in mind as many of the technical constraints that a traditional architect may have?

 

I come from a visual/graphic design background but not in architecture , recently I have found myself involved with creating architectural visualisations for a few small projects. My problem with seeing myself doing this long term is not having a role in actually designing the structures themselves. Can you have a role where you not only visualise the desired plans but also conceptualise the design itself ? I suppose it would be some kind of conceptual architect who plays a purely artistic role to assist maybe the more rigid bounds that some (not all)* architects may have.*


 

I know the answer could be a flat: no go and get a degree in architecture. Not only are the financial and time constraints an obstacle to this but also I have never been the best technician. I have however excelled at creative tasks. Having to excel in technical proficiency is the reason I didn’t decide to pursue architecture in the first place so having to learn all the ins and outs of construction dose not seem like it would be the best avenue for me.

 

 

( I also just asked in a general architects forum for an opinion on the other side)

 

Anyway thank you all for your time and I appreciate any advice on the matter.

[James Vella]

I would like to know whether there is a role within architecture where one simply designs from an aesthetic stance, not keeping in mind as many of the technical constraints that a traditional architect may have?

- not really for commercial projects

 

Can you have a role where you not only visualise the desired plans but also conceptualise the design itself ? I suppose it would be some kind of conceptual architect who plays a purely artistic role to assist maybe the more rigid bounds that some (not all)* architects may have.*

- it would help if you had a background in construction as you could suggest solutions to design problems - but purely as an artist with an opinion you might be out of luck

 

Personal projects might be a way to show potential employees your additional skillset, but in the studio you will be 'visualising' the architects 'design'. You can express yourself creatively in other ways, such as incorporating the design into the renders eg. the concept is middle aged high income people downsizing their home, etc - well if they dont have their furniture stylized this maybe your fortay - its good to have artists on hand with design skills so you can prop scenes that match the demographic (interior design), this is plainly evident when there's no time/thought put into the furniture.

 

Typically designers do more design and less 3D (unless they need to show their design in 3D ofcourse), and 3D Visualisers are great at replicating designs... probably the best way I could explain it.

[trevwest]

Thanks for that, youve helped make things clearer for me. So I suppose then if there is leeway for creativity from a visualisers perspective it would be more from the interior design route and therefore it would probably help someone working in vis to study interior design principles and techniques more then it would for them to look in depth at architectural principles ( other then studying the forms them selves of course).

 

A quick question with that last paragraph are you referring to the differences in designing & visualising in any discipline or do you mean strictly in Arch Vis? It seems like this would make sense in all areas including within product design and even say the games industry. thanks very much

[SkylineArch]

Sounds like you want to become a registered Architect then. Certain colleges have the mentality for their architecture degree of "Let the Engineers worry about that", and get interns. So, design what you want and the engineers will figure out how to make it stand up and intern will do the construction documents while you get all the credit and money.

 

So yes, I have worked with people like that, strictly design oriented and no concept on how to develop them into construction docs or control costs. It would be up to me to take an onion skin sketch through the process. Good times.

[nikanikitina]

I am the sole Viz artist in an A/E/I firm and have been lucky to get a little bit of everything. At times I render what has already been designed, whether its architecture or landscaping or interiors. The creative input is typically at a minimum but my colleagues trust me that if I want to make adjustments, I will run them by the appropriate person first.

 

Other times there are pitch projects where I get to work within a team that sets up the general vision but is 100% responsive to my design opinions, aesthetic and general creative vision for how we can win a project. Again, mutual respect for each other's skillsets is paramount. I really think it is possible to have the best of both worlds. I love architecture, I follow architects and their work, photographers, designers, etc etc so I keep my interests and opinions relevant and my colleagues respond appropriately. I have learned a tremendous amount from my colleagues and it truly enriches the experience of how we can be of help to one another.

[Francisco Penaloza]

I guess the answer is yes and no, as mentioned by Nika, Mark and James it happens many ways, depending of the size of the company and type of project.

I had the opportunity to work on different size of companies, from Solo architect to large Arch Firm. Of course the roll of Visualization artist will vary depending the size and way the Company work but there are many times that Arch Viz get involved during design development, and many architect like to have an extra artistic input to their design.

 

For example; one architect I used to work with, he got really sic (He later died of cancer, very nice guy) any ways He trusted me to start the design of his project a Masjid ( Mosque) I am not related to Arabic culture or Muslim at all, but after some research and studying his previews work I came with a design that he later just made it buildable, It was a nice process in deed, that does not make me a Architect at all, and there were many things wrong but the point is things can be learned and if you have an attitude to create things, it can work.

 

 

Having said that, Architecture is so much than knowing how to build something or just how to make it look. It is everything above and below, and needless to say beauty not only comes when you are trying to make it pretty but also when you are trying to solve a simple user interaction or a construction issue, creativity comes from many ways.

 

You, having an designer background will tend to focus on visuals first, but if you dig a little on what else is involved on a project, then you find many other opportunities to develop a concept that goes beyond just look.

 

Take a example of Santiago Calatrava, Architect, Engineer. Incredible projects, his project are rendered all the time!

if they were designed only with Architect aesthetics eye, they would look totally different, but having an Engineer background and know how things work, it create a much rich design.

[John Dollus]

Sounds like you want to become a registered Architect then.

 

Nope. Designer requires no degree. Registered architect = exams. annual dues, continuing education etc. refer: SOM, RAMSA, etc. They design and let others determine how to build it.

[CliveG]

Yeah look I think there's absolutely no reason that you can't get yourself into a situation where you are creatively involved in architectural concept design, without an architectural qualification. Likewise there's absolutely no good reason I shouldn't get picked up to drive for Ferrari in F1.... but I'd have to do an awful lot of proving my talent for it to happen and though it could happen.... it's a very long shot.

 

There are definitely architectural practices that specialise in concept design who then farm out any projects they win to more technical architectural practices to make their "concepts" work in the real world. As long as both practices have registered architects on the books to sign off on the work coming out of the practice they don't care who does the work within the practice as long as they are good at what they do - so there's your chance.

 

But in reality there's an awful lot of competition for jobs in the more conceptual architectural practices because that is every architectural students' aspiration as they're going through their years of study. They're not thinking I want to come out of university and do door and window schedules for the next 5 years, they're wanting to be the next Zaha with all sweeping lines and glory - so you'll have no qualifications and be up against these guys for that job, so you'd be better be very good and have a way of standing out from the crowd. It's well known that some of the better conceptual practices pay very poorly too - because people are willing to tolerate low pay for long hours and high pressure just to have these practice names on their CV.

 

Although there's lot's of competition, don't be too demoralised though, because it is a real and rare talent to be genuinely good at concept architecture and there is much less of that genuine talent coming out of some of these institutions than many of the alumni or their teachers would care to admit to.