clichès

[CliveG]

So if I'm to tick all of the "clichè" boxes, what am I doing:

 

A "Scandinavian loft in the forest" ?

 

Inside - Eames bird amidst a sea of DOF and outside - vegetation right up to the building on all sides and a flock of seagulls on the wing?

[Lewis Garrison]

lol

A White on White on white interior with light wood flooring being the only color, complete with a super closeup of a single chair with fabric draped on it.

[SkylineArch]

Don't forget about 60' cantilevers with floor to ceiling glass zero chance of getting anything structural in there. Oh, and an unkempt lawn full or wild flowers and weeds.

[Lewis Garrison]

All exterior urban shots must have wet pavement.

[Ernest Burden III]

So if I'm to tick all of the "clichè" boxes, what am I doing:

 

A "Scandinavian loft in the forest" ?

 

Inside - Eames bird amidst a sea of DOF and outside - vegetation right up to the building on all sides and a flock of seagulls on the wing?

 

1960's Aston out front

[John Dollus]

1960's Aston out front

 

Red Ferrari fall out of favor?

[Larissa Holderness]

People walking their dog. People with shopping bags in areas that don't have shopping. Kids with balloons.

[bertabob]

Bloom and glare everywhere...

 

 

https://kallai.net

[notamondayfan]

Knoll Barcelona Chair! The favourite for any indoor public space!

[heni30]

Having a blinding wall of light coming in from the side as if the sun was 10 miles away.

[Chris MacDonald]

First post is still the winner. Have seen myriad "house in the forest" CGI's now, and whilst they are all absolutely lovely they don't really reflect the work you get asked to do in arch vis.

 

Perhaps that's why people make them. Escapism.

[Ernest Burden III]

Red Ferrari fall out of favor?

 

Yes. One can easily see my lasting impression on our industry. You're welcome.

[John Dollus]

Yes. One can easily see my lasting impression on our industry. You're welcome.

 

Speaking of which...will I see you at the architectural illustration conference in Houston later this month?

[CliveG]

I'm going to add to the clichès with the current interior favourites:

 

Creases and wrinkles in floor rugs (because without them it just looks like a 2d plane with bad hair and fur)

 

Random bits of cloth draped over chairs (who has odd bits of cloth draped over their furniture in their penthouse suite?) even a sheepskin FFS?

 

Framed artwork leant against walls (because we thought we'd show off an unfinished decoration job) I don't think I've seen a property in 100 countries over 50 years that has paintings leant on the walls.

 

Piles of books on the floor (because we read so many books at once these days but don't have bookshelves)

 

We're all apparently trying to tell a story with our scenes, the story these things suggest to me is just "CGI" !

 

Did I miss anything....?

[heni30]

The ubiquitous tripod lamp next to the couch with the wooden legs and the million watt metal can theater-grade light on top.

Edited January 22, 2018 by heni30

[ahmeds]

I sweat buckets every time I go through these types of threads, I'm guilty of one or two...

[Lewis Garrison]

I'm definitely guilty of wrinkles in floor rugs haha. It's interesting because if you were actually photographing the space you would NEVER leave the rug with a wrinkle in it.

[Josef Wienerroither]

I'm going to add to the clichès with the current interior favourites:

 

Creases and wrinkles in floor rugs (because without them it just looks like a 2d plane with bad hair and fur)

 

Random bits of cloth draped over chairs (who has odd bits of cloth draped over their furniture in their penthouse suite?) even a sheepskin FFS?

 

Framed artwork leant against walls (because we thought we'd show off an unfinished decoration job) I don't think I've seen a property in 100 countries over 50 years that has paintings leant on the walls.

 

Piles of books on the floor (because we read so many books at once these days but don't have bookshelves)

 

We're all apparently trying to tell a story with our scenes, the story these things suggest to me is just "CGI" !

 

Did I miss anything....?

In my real flat i got all of them except the artworks leant to the wall ;-)

[Derek Forreal]

First post is still the winner. Have seen myriad "house in the forest" CGI's now, and whilst they are all absolutely lovely they don't really reflect the work you get asked to do in arch vis.

 

Perhaps that's why people make them. Escapism.

so just because they don't reflect the work some of you get asked to do that means you should ridicule the renders that, let's face it, have made ArchVis what it is today?

 

you yourself say that they are lovely, so why all the hate?

 

to those of you having fun ridiculing, please go ahead and educate the unwashed masses and show us what a stand out, masterful piece of arch vis work should look like.

 

fact is, whatever renders you look at - commercial, non commercial, residential, hobbyist, professional, whatever - great renders are few and far between and few of them get the juices flowing. so called professional commercial renders are hardly head turners; terrible 2d people integrations, flat lighting, poor quality materials, dull composition; these to me are far worse crimes than adding a few birds to your final render (not that i've ever done that myself).

 

and finally we come to the story - the biggest cliché of them all that i've heard so much about but never actually seen in the flesh. so please, anyone, show me a render that tells a compelling story.

[RyderSK]

Some nice point Derek :- ). Yeah cliches, trends and fads come and go like within any endeavor, but the ever-lasting rant against them was always bit akin to "why don't these people get a real job/'jerb' ?" A slightly mocking response stemming from preconceived notion of what "real" archviz is, or should be.

(My other favorite discussion is the one "who's 'more' artist?" , i.e. "my tools/approach are better than yours".)

 

There are some people who made a career by creating the best 'house in the forests' and went on to start industry-leading London studio.

As in the saying: "If you build it, they will come".

 

But to not derail thread: My personal pet peeve (of which I am guilty too) is pointless close-up to show interesting shader/model, unconnected in any way to the project. My inner LEGO soul wants to do it, but I try to show restraint when possible :- ).

[CliveG]

Discussing clichès isn't necessarily ridiculing the work, I assume most here are professionals and are producing work for customers that have creative expectations... often those creative expectations are the issue, not the technician producing them.

 

..... let's face it, have made ArchVis what it is today?

 

"Home in the Forest....?" You really think so? OK...

 

go ahead and educate the unwashed masses and show us what a stand out, masterful piece of arch vis work should look like.

 

Ummm your stuff looks pretty good , but generally I look to Juraj and Veronika as to what I'd like to be producing. Both your portfolio's seem grounded in a reality I can generally relate to though. However I don't think it's up to us to determine the stand-out Archviz standards, it's for our clients and customers. Sometimes as Juraj admits we can get a bit too close to the technical aspects of a vizualisation and want to show a material or asset off, or put a crease in a floor rug when it might be to the detriment of what our clients actually seek. I've never had a client ask me to crease a floor rug

 

My other favorite discussion is the one "who's 'more' artist?".

 

My favourite too.... I fully design the projects I vizualise so I have far more creative input than most and yet I know I'm nothing close to an "artist"... creative ? yes.... Artist...? No. Not even close But that's just me of course.

[Scott Schroeder]

The only cliche that grinds my gears is the mentality that "Well, I learnt Vray back in ought 2 and I stopped learning at that point. I refuse to change my mind because that's how we did it in Vray 1.0 dagnabbit!"

 

The house in the woods is a way to exercise our brains. How often do we get to do really good vegetation? How often are we rendering grass that doesn't look like it was cut by someone with a ruler, scissors, and a severe OCD to get every blade the exact same length? No, those are not necessarily cliche's either as those are more often than not, client requests. And clients are never wrong because they pay for my house.

[John Dollus]

to those of you having fun ridiculing, please go ahead and educate the unwashed masses and show us what a stand out, masterful piece of arch vis work should look like.

 

Though I certainly have personal preference, I do not ridicule because you never know why certain decisions are made in any work. It could be the client is an avid bird watcher or is trying to solicit a major donation from the Audubon society in order to get a project out of the ground and that's why they have flocking birds. I'm cherry picking the example but it makes the point. Anyway, it is our responsibility to educate on ways to elevate the profession and hold off the commoditizing of the work as much as possible.

 

To that end, there are collections of stand out, masterful pieces of architectural illustration work-

 

[Derek Forreal]

the ever-lasting rant against them was always bit akin to "why don't these people get a real job/'jerb' ?" A slightly mocking response stemming from preconceived notion of what "real" archviz is, or should be.

There are some people who made a career by creating the best 'house in the forests' and went on to start industry-leading London studio.

As in the saying: "If you build it, they will come".

precisely. ArchViz, much like Architecture itself can be so many things and the house in the forest is just one expression, and a beautiful one at that when well executed.

 

who can forget their first time pouring over the work of Alex Roman, drinking in every detail and wondering how on earth he managed to do something like that? Forest Refuge is one of the earliest 'house in the forest' renders that i ever saw, and even beyond the already incredible static renders the project was then poetically brought to life in a series of unforgettable scenes in the epic 'Third and the seventh'.

 

more than 10 years on nobody has even come close to releasing anything like that. is it just a collection of clichés, or a watershed moment in ArchVis?

 

Discussing clichès isn't necessarily ridiculing the work

fair enough but most comments in this thread have a ridiculing undertone to them.

 

"Home in the Forest....?" You really think so? OK...

absolutely. they really pushed both artistic and technical limits - lighting, materials, composition, post processing, model creation, poly counts, hardware requirements, mapping resolution, software (from CAD to SU to Max et al, ZBrush, Marvelous Designer and countless other apps and plugins).

 

how many variations of Farnsworth House have been posted over the years? or Church of Light? some were naff but many pushed the art of ArchVis forwards and sparked lengthy useful and interesting discussions on forums like these.

 

I don't think it's up to us to determine the stand-out Archviz standards, it's for our clients and customers.

i think clients and customers are the last people i'd ask. most developer marketing images are plain awful but of course there are exceptions and certainly some of the images that John Dollus linked to are fantastic.

 

i haven't got stuck in to a personal project for a number of years now but i have a couple of scenes i'd like to finish and both of them, while not strictly house in forest, do feature extensive vegetation.

 

of course some of it is about escapism and picturing somewhere that i'd love to spend some quality time in but it's also as Scott Schroeder says above an exercise in pushing one's knowledge and learning new things.

[khaledbou]

this guy, I've seen him like a hundred times