portfolio website

[xgarcia]

Gare:

I had a classmate last year how's e-folio looks almost the same as that 2nd link you posted.

 

http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmeister/

 

hmmm.....

[garethace]

I am currently talking to a guy in Spain about setting up some kind of Architectural web site. He already has his own web site though. But I think web sites are probably a great way to show some stuff, to a wider audience.

 

Why not commission a really expensive top-notch web designing genius, to record your Architectural class trip for all time? Just kidding, but you may enjoy this format of presentation here.

 

Lecturers in colleges are currently single-ing out Computer Graphics as a way students could copy and repeat others, as oposed to developing their own initiative. I can see pluses and minuses with that argument. However, I also see colleges of Architecture have lead in their asses, over posting up a lot of digital records of class trips to great cities like Barcelona, Amsterdam, Paris and so forth. If nothing else, it would be a resource to future generations of arch students. The colleges are the ones with the money for bandwidth and servers. But here in my college doesn't even have an department home page, not to mind anything else!

 

[ September 24, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

I don't see why you can't do both. I did not leave the typical path of architecture to only design websites and make some pretty 3D models. The only reason for that is #1 money and #2 flexibility (you're lucky if you can start your own firm 10-15 years out of school). So this profession subsidizes the time and money involved with enter competitions. As I see it, the only way to build what I want to design is through competitions or really unique clients - I have no interest in designing bathroom stalls

 

I also think that this profession will continue to grow and thrive, but like any business in technology, you need to be aware of what is around and be prepared to adapt quickly.

 

Lastly, I am actually having better luck discussing building my own projects now than when I was working for other architects (as an architect). You make contact with many more developers and potential clients. Nothing has happened yet, but I am confident that that it will soon.

 

Imho, don't put all your eggs in one basket (as someone so eloquently argued elsewhere on this forum). All of my friends that are architects (I have 2 that aren't, the rest are school buddies) are not satisfied with their careers (and they work for either big names or large firms). They work too much, get paid too little, etc., etc.

You have to prioritize your ambitions. To me, money is important (7 damn years of loans!!), but so is design, oh, and uh, mountain biking, snowboarding...so I found a way to incorporate them all. It's not buttery smooth, but there is opportunity.

 

I don't see why you can't learn extra things as hobbies or side jobs, it all helps you think. Making websites can be fun and rewarding, too. Hey, if it sucks, at least you know it won't be there in 2 years! :winkgrin:

 

Hey, XGarcia, keep those UF links coming!

 

Really, a UF based site would be pretty powerful!

[garethace]

When you finally start hitting close to thirty years of age, like me, you may begin to think somewhat differently. D Wright again made a good article, which I was discussing here. I am delighted you have begun to talk about clients though. Check out my length discussion here though. You many have seen some of my posts in the Architecture section here at CGA too. But this is another problem for Architects in Ireland. What about the people who spend more time reading and writing about Architecture? They are a bit like the guys who do more web design and CG than building I suppose.

 

You know that recent Eygptian Museum Compeitition, which was entered by people around the world and won by an Irish Firm... well not exactly Irish, but working IN Ireland only, because opportunities were thight in the USA for young-sters.

 

Good post mbr. Hope you find some interesting discussion in there somewhere.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 24, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[xgarcia]

Originally posted by mbr:

Hey, XGarcia, keep those UF links coming!

 

Really, a UF based site would be pretty powerful!

How many alums would visit though? Would it be a forum type deal or just a webzine / thought digest? I agree it would be great for contacts / networking.

[mbr]

I think a lot would. I've talked about this with people before. Even the idea of a publication would be great. Columbia's Abstracts used to be huge (of course the work there went down hill once Alias/Maya was introduced) sellers (I've got about 6 or 7). I think there is a market for 'old school' designs, especially as abstract stuff (I personally love those basswood/plexi/wire/aluminum abstract models - wish I kept some to put on my wall).

 

I keep in touch with most of the UF class of 2000 from UCLA, and I am sure they'd all be interested. It'd be a great resource. If you haven't looked at the discussions on archinect, UF is pretty well respected. I think it'd be great. I don't know enough programming to do it myself, but a nice PHP (or whatever)/mySQL backend with uploading would be great. Something where people could make their own portfolios, comments, etc. There are probably kits you can buy like this, but a UF one would be great. You know, with dynamic thumbnails of jpegs, a little info, etc.

 

There was another UF grad on here a while back that wanted to do the same thing. I would love to see a 'then' and 'now' of the work. I am sure some of the Prof.s would love to contribute, or at least look at.

 

Could be fun. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further. I would be happy to contribute what knowledge/skills I have of webdesign.

 

Something like http://www.computerlove.net would be fantastic, but that's some pretty fancy work!

[fi3er]

thanks all of ya again!!! and thanks Jeff for cgarchitect. Im learning so much !!!

fi3er

[garethace]

MBR, xGarcia,...

 

You know guys, I was talking to this fellow, Héctor D. Corcín here who is trying to do exactly what you guys are doing. The thing is Hector has got a wonderful amount of knowledge of how to set up PHP web site discussion boards and so forth. Try getting in touch with him. He said, he might be available until Jan/Feb to work up some kind of solution,... perhaps a Florida/Spain idea?

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[mbr]

Brian,

 

I would welcome any solutions to presenting work in one collective area. The problem is two fold: 1. usage - who will go and use it? 2. creating something that is user friendly. The latter is the easy part - there are plenty of YaBB (or something like that) type discussion boards that are free (I've installed free ones based on Perl/CGI) and they work well. The problem is they aren't 'special'.

 

That's the only reason that I could see the UF idea working. UF grad's that I know are quite proud of their education and it's kind of like a club, UF has built a reputation at the best schools in the country this way. Most that I know (UF grads) would welcome a way to communicate with other UF grads (I've been contacted by others from this board - Go Gators! type of thing) and possible create a nice little network.

If it were a general thing, I would worry it would be diluted and no one would care. I think that's what happens with a lot of potentially good ideas and sites.

 

That said, I would love a central place to put up architectural designs, discuss designs, etc., both for students and professionals, built/unbuilt, experimental, whatever. Just lots of pretty imagery that can be discussed.

The problem lies in getting people to put up the content. I know for the UF site, I would easily get 10-15 people portfolios quickly, so that's a lot of work to show - and it's some pretty nice stuff.

 

Archinect is the other solution. I don't know what Paul P has in mind, but I pray that it's along the lines of ComputerLove, which has the most logical and sophisticated presentations. That's a lot of expert programming, and time, but it is pretty nice.

 

CGArchitect is a good example of a niche market. It's unique, and surely a copy would immediately fail. Name recognition and all .

 

My 2 cents on the subject. Thanks for the link - I'll keep my eye on it for when it launches.

[garethace]

I can see what you mean, all right. And yeah, I know of several software user forums that happened, just to cater for a very tiny group of individuals trying to build polylines, or extrude etc, etc. With very little special about them, or something attractive to make me sit up and look, learn etc. What you are talking about is something like www.coroflot.com I think, which is very like the E-Folio place you linked, http://www.computerlove.net

 

I think www.Archiseek.com is great, but having spoken to the Site Editor there, he believes in having people who aren't architects, planners, or urbanists talking and speaking about the built environment. And Archiseek is a wonderful place to do that indeed. It is just hard to get a decent flow of dialogue about Architecture going there on any deeper level, than 2 liners, 'that's shite, that's great, I like that'.

 

The Tech-geek community is another one I am very familiar with, and Greg Hess's section here at CGA, caters a little for the less Hard-core geek I suppose. Right in the middle of a CGA web site. This discussion here, should be interesting for you though:

 

http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105040261

 

Forums become popular based on the quality of their participants, not the number of them. If you want highly intellectual software and hardware engineers to use your system, you have to make it attractive to _them_. They in turn attract others based on the quality of discussion. It has NOTHING to do with glitz and glamor. Do you think a 35 year old programmer who spends most of his time running Emacs or Vi and using usenet from a CLI really cares for all the stuff you are describing? Or a 40 year old EE?

 

 

Ill admit that feature-wise the Ace's forums could use a _few_ new things, but the answer is certainly not some bloated abomination like vBulletin...

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 25, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

That is too true! I believe Archinect has suffered because they haven't implemented the registration yet and there are so many bored jerks posting bs all the time!

 

Coroflot is very nice, just updated my section :ngesmile:

 

ComputerLove is a great set up (although I don't go there anymore because they weren't interested in my 'graphics' of architecture and I feel they are a little too biased towards similar styles). I like the fact that it you can have profiles for anyone, but you can't have a 'showcase/exhibition' (or whatever they call it) unless you put it together (with dynamic thumbnails, descriptions, etc.) and submit it for approval. Only the 'good' ones get through. Again, I don't agree with their selections, but I feel that this is something that would be essential for an architecture site.

 

99% of the architects out there are poor designers and nobody would care to see their work. That's harsh, sure, but it's real. Just flip through the renderings here! Beautiful renderings that sell the bad designs! Ugh! That's life.

 

For an architecture site, there needs to be some measure of quality to keep the better designers interested in participating. I think it's entirely possible, there is a lot of great work that is easily accessible (although most is not built), there is just no where to display it.

 

The UF idea was a simple solution to a more complex problem. I, personally, don't have the time or knowledge to set up anything like Coroflot or ComputerLove. I hope that someone does, or that Archinect is doing that (they've been redesiging for 2 years now!).

 

Content is king. I would be happy with a YaBB interface with great architecture.

[garethace]

My favourite web site, by an individual practice, is the Richard Meier web site. Just a home page, and a list of books you can buy about him!

 

Very cheeky now, I must say.

 

I had not come across Archinect before though.

[garethace]

Actually Daniel should look at this web page, which zooms according to where you click the mouse. It was the favourite web site of Andrew Hartness, in the interview here at CGA.

 

here

[mbr]

Really? I guess it's an American/LA deal.

 

It's pretty good, in general. A lot of bitching (I do my share, too) and nonsense, but it's where you'll find a lot of young blood.

Some good links, too.

 

Paul Petrunia is a Sci-Arc grad and started it while in school. Not sure if he does anything architectural anymore, but the site is the most popular architectural site that I know of.

 

http://www.archinect.com

 

Here's another one that has good information and nice, oppinionated articles (instead of just praising the celebs).

 

http://v-2.org

[garethace]

I remember back in 1997/98, a student friend of mine here in Dublin was asked by Tom Mayne to do a CDROM of his buildings. The guy modelled them and stuff, but the whole project was never rendered or that. The guy now is teaching AutoCAD line/polyline/extrude... to the undergrads here in DIT in Dublin. I attended a lecture given by Mayne over here in 1995 too, those were the days!

 

Back in 1997/98 there was a move to build down on our Docklands here in Dublin, so we tripped off to Amsterdam, and starting looking at competition entries like this:

 

http://www.basilisk.com/basilisk2/RU/RUkans3a.html

http://www.basilisk.com/basilisk2/RU/RUkans3b.html

 

Similar to that Manhattan project a while back too. But generally, it is the more conservative approach that gets done here: http://www.dpz.com/projects.htm

 

The whole Sci-Arc thing was mad popular here for a while though, but mainly in the 1990s. I was reading 4 ecologies by Banham and all of that. After that it switched back towards Europe more, especially with guys like Gehry and Holl building over here.

 

This is quite a good idea of good clients in Europe who are doing nice work now. Have to register, free.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[mbr]

Thom Mayne was actually my thesis advisor (I had him twice) and I worked with the 3D guy that did much of the work from Diamond Ranch on (pretty much all of the beginning computer work, I believe - not sure about where this guy you know fits in). It was done in 3D Studio. He works for Gensler, LA now as the sole 3D guy. He's got a great set up.

 

I've got those CDROMS somewhere, too, as well as all of the Morphosis books. Mayne is a huge advocate of the computer design process and you are 'forced' to use FormZ to design while in his studios.

A former classmate-turned web designer did his site (with her boyfriend - http://www.gardendigital.com, I believe). She also worked at Morphosis for a while, and from what I know, she had a lot to do with the stellar graphics of the current book. She's a very competent designer in her own right.

 

 

I am all for the multimedia presentation stuff. I am working on a project right now to market condos over the web with 3D and animations. I am going to begin doing that for my own designs (MBR Studios designs, with my partner) in the not too distant future. Should be fun. Flash has come a long way to integrate video and the newest version will be even better.

[HeDaCoM]

Interesting...

I was only playing with the post nuke portal system..... but I think I don't like it.

 

Very complicated to administrate.

And limited design....

very poor..

I think I will do something more simple, efective and well designed. But this needs some time.

 

greetings

Héctor

[kid]

Archinect has totally gone to sh!t in the last few years.

 

It used to be a place to go to get into some real discussions on architecture, then it just started being like a whole page of threads like "Zaha Hadid is a hack, Columbia can keep her", "sci-arc sucks", "Maine is lap dog". Now, even when someone does post an interesting thread it just gets shot down by a bunch of childish BS.

 

It probably will improve when they introduce registration.

 

...but I still think it will suffer from the "There's nothing worth knowing outside of Cali" feeling I get from the discussions...

[garethace]

I worked with the 3D guy that did much of the work from Diamond Ranch on (pretty much all of the beginning computer work, I believe - not sure about where this guy you know fits in).

The guy I know here in Ireland was an ACAD/3D Studio person too since I started in college with him back in 1992. By 1995, he was doing computer modelled projects for submission. Yeah, it is that Diamond Range project he worked on too. But perhaps, in cooperation with the fellow in Gensler, LA.

 

I mean, we are talking about 'the introduction' of computerisation into top-end theory-based Architectural practices here aren't we? Like the way Holl used it really early on for Kiasma in Helsinki and of course Gehry on the LA Concert Hall. Have you seen this? Tom Mayne actually spoke a lot about Steven Holl, at his lecture here in 1995.

 

However, the renders of Diamond Ranch were simple, but clear enough. I am very familiar with his physical modelling technique. I made several models myself in the mid-ninties, and the joke was, "Can I live inside in them".

 

But looking at how Bernard Tschumi, Meier, Waro Kishi, Zaha Hadid and many others use computer visualisation nowadays, it is not so much about visualisation, in the presentation sense, as much as visualisation, to teach oneself to see the design amongst yourselves (other architects in the practice). I mean, Zaha Hadid's renderings are terrible by CGA standards, but still they are quick to do in VIZ standard renderer, without much lighting, texturing, and so forth. Rather like some of the OMA photoshopping done in the mid ninties. Dog-rough, but diagrammatic.

 

I have decided myself not to bother wasting time using Vray. But instead, using AutoCAD software even, with a decent Powerdraft driver, Quadro card and dual proc system, to just use 3D modelling like the mechanical CATIA engineers use 3D modelling. Or the chemical engineers (Hollowman) simulate proteins etc. None of this is good enough to present to any client, but it is for my eyes only, and those of other architects. Other architects initially accused my of doing renderings that look like Quake 3, and that could be so. But on the other hand, they expected the same finish as an ink-on-mylar rendering!

 

That is what I like about the diamond ranch stuff, which morphosis did. Or the one they made for the Manhattan competition - it doesn't look nearly as good as the long focal length professional photography of their models did, in the first and second Rizzoli publications. Or any of the other publications, but it is closer to how Architects should use a computer model IMVHO. (I like those light switches linked at your site too btw)

 

BTW, I just got another Cool Urban design web site here.

 

I have also spoken at great length here about the notion of computers in Architectural practice

 

Hope this is useful.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

P.S. Really strong space this here:

 

 

[ September 26, 2003, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[kid]

I can identify with your post garethace.

 

I put quite some time into learning photorealistic rendering when I first got into computer graphics a few years ago, and after reaching an acceptable level of competancy found I had just gotten completely bored with it. I'm now going back to diagramatic and representational techniques that I used to do manually with various traditional media with collaging of various printed media.

 

Moving to the digital medium I got caught up in the 'breakthroughs' of the moment like GI, SSS, soft shadows, blurred reflection, etc and had forgotten my philosophy behind why I was creating the image in the first place.

 

I'm hoping to reach a point where I have returned to that philosophy that drove my traditional work but to utilise digital tools, in a hope that with these digital tools I can better express that philosophy. It took me a little while to realise that these digital tools had taken me away from that philosphy, but I'm finding my way back.

 

Of course, if I show this type of work to regular clients they'd probably be far from impressed but it's good for school, and it's good for expressing what I want to, rather than the polished chrome of the door handle to the 3rd bedroom at the left of that corridor...

 

examples-

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000334

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000168

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000202

[garethace]

Well kid, it does take real balls to do what you are trying to do. That is all I have to say really.

 

There seems to be two 'very easy ways out'.

 

(a) Just ignore computers altogether and use this argument expressed by someone at Archiseek.

 

In one of your earlier posts you mentioned possiblity of thinking computers but perhaps we should be reminded that this is not the case yet- computers and they're programs are created by us, written and informed by humanity. Every project developed in this way is coloured by someone elses preconceived notions. So my objection to complete computer design is that intrinsicaly it must breed homogeneity.

(b) Go the full blown way, of Lightscape, GI, Vray,.... and end up becoming a CG Artist.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[kid]

man, what a quote. that's a beauty!

 

That's like saying you'd never use oils because the guy who invented oils will be influencing your work, and that your painting would just blend in to the homogeneity that is ever oil painting in the world.

 

The computer is just another medium as far as I'm concerned. When trying your hand at a new medium there's always a learning curve of coming to grips with the nuances and qualities of working that medium. Computer graphics is no different IMHO. If a person fails to grasp working with a particular medium it's not the mediums fault. If a person can't use a computer, it's not the computer's fault

[mbr]

When an architect suddenly becomes negative about visualisation, it may not be the fault of the visualisation artist ? rather an expression of the architects loss of confidence. It can also be a lack of confidence by the principal partner in trusting his/her underlings to do work, without him/her looking over peoples shoulders all of the time.

Possible, but it depends on the architect. If you look at Mayne's, Hadid's, or most of the more avant garde architects, you'll see that they all attempt to 'stylize' their work. This serves two purpose: 1. To differentiate them from the herd 2. to focus on the ideas and the space, not the perfect flooring. Obviously, it saves some time, but you'd be surprised at how long they spend making things look like they do, imho, just making it photoreal would be quicker.

 

It may intimidate the bad architects, but, ironically, good CG is needed to sell their designs. And usually the worse, are the developers, that care nothing for design and only want to sell. For them, CG is the most important thing going. It's relatively cheap, easy to distribute, etc.

 

 

I was in Amsterdam once, and smoked a hell of a lot of pot

:winkgrin:

[sorry if I shouldn't have taken that out of context, but I couldn't resist!]

 

I agree with Kid about a balance between the artistict/theoretical/design side and the 'easy' visualization that most clients want (Or rather, not letting the power of the software/hardware overcome the idea - is that correct?)

 

Here are some examples of recent things I am trying to do (competition entries, no winners):

 

[mbr]

And one more:

 

 

 

That thumbnail of the white room was a lighting experiment. Just a design I put together really quickly - it is not part of anything else.

Glad you liked it. I am hoping to use Final Render (and maybe Final Toon) to experiment with lighting for my own designs. Something I feel is particularly powerful and all too often neglected.

[garethace]

man, what a quote. that's a beauty!

 

That's like saying you'd never use oils because the guy who invented oils will be influencing your work, and that your painting would just blend in to the homogeneity that is ever oil painting in the world.

That particular poster too - was a tutor of mine from college i will bet, who thinks because he has a masters from MIT, he musts therefore by rights, hold the high moral ground on everything. Anyhow, the poor guy works very hard, does a lot of great work, and has a nice turn of phrase. I will not hold the odd botch-ed up notion about computers against him. Original discussion here.

 

But some of these tutors in college fail to appreciate the one fact, which is so important and natural. That students will always end up knowing much more than the staff. The tutors cannot hope to become experts in computers, that is for the next generation, and trying to fight that is like this account of warfare: Vietnam War, Guerrilla tactics: use your weaknesses against the enemy. The enemy is larger but also slower. You are small but more mobile. You rob, steal and capture what you can, so the enemy provides you with equipment. The Americans finished up supplying the enemy with tools to destroy them. You are growing stronger as the Americans grew weaker.

 

(Enemy of the State starring Gene Hackman and Will Smith)

 

What you are 'stealing' in effect from tutors in college is knowledge and understanding. Which you pay a very small price for compared to the previous generation. This is the nature of things. Our parents had much more knowledge and understanding than their partents and so on. We were Generation X.

 

The computer is just another medium as far as I'm concerned. When trying your hand at a new medium there's always a learning curve of coming to grips with the nuances and qualities of working that medium. Computer graphics is no different IMHO. If a person fails to grasp working with a particular medium it's not the mediums fault. If a person can't use a computer, it's not the computer's fault

In 1995, Tom Mayne even admitted, he had spent his whole life learning many different computer mediums, but computers is the one he admitted, he would have to spend years just beginning to understand it. Any similar memories of Mayne on computers mbr?

 

This is what Architecture is about - as Steven puts it, the senses, of time, movement, light, view, site, smell, touch etc Holl said, that when music strays too far away from dance, it becomes boring. Or when poetry strays too far away from song... or something to those effects in the El Croquis interview. Anyhow, it is worth reading some time. Architecture when it strays too far away from the people who walk through and experience it,... that is my ultimate point of reference, like your story board in that other thread. However, the guy who made that quote finds it difficult to get back to base.

 

Base for me is:

 

A. Interior Space, degree of enclosure.

 

B. External Skin, materials, openings in skin, manipulation of skin.

 

C. Circulation.

 

Those catagories are clear, but what is difficult to do is this Kid:

 

A + B = A/B hybrid.

 

A + C = A/C hybrid.

 

B + C = B/C hybrid.

 

Watch those hybrids, where circulation meets skin, or internal space meets circulation. There is plenty of material available on how to relate to interior space, skin and circulation. But getting it all to work in harmony is where the effort and painstaking work has to be done by you as an individual. Not much help there from books, or tutors etc.

 

Like for instance, combining Interior space with circulation, you produce abominable things like Urban rooms! Which could also be streets, which are routes. But an urban room, is something, to which a smaller interior space of a building might look out towards! THis is architectural design - remember that programme about the young superman, running around faster than the speed of light? Well that is really what you must try and do in your imagination. And fly above the sky, set down again in front of the building, stand inside in the room with the window and light/view. Then imagine the city for a mile in all four directions. This takes considerable mental fitness I can assure you. This is what the Steven Holl's etc, can do better than mere mortals like me.

 

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 26, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]