Archiviz Aesthetics
style (n.) : early 14c., stile, "writing instrument, pen, stylus; piece of written discourse, a narrative, treatise;" also "characteristic rhetorical mode of an author, manner or mode of expression," and "way of life, manner, behavior, conduct," from Old French stile, estile "style, fashion, manner; a stake, pale," from Latin stilus "stake, instrument for writing, manner of writing, mode of expression," perhaps from the same source as stick (v.)). Spelling modified incorrectly by influence of Greek stylos "pillar," which probably is not directly related. As distinguished from substance, 1570s. Meaning "mode of dress" is from 1814. - Source: etymonline.com
What happens when you achieve "truly realistic" or "almost realistic" architectural renderings?
In the first case, your work is done. You have achieved a near perfect photograph, indistinguishable from reality. You play the guessing game with your friends trying to distinguish "real" photographs from renderings and everyone is happy. Of course a hyperrealistic rendering has rules of its own and in any case, you have to at least brush up on your photographer's skills (framing, composition, light manipulation etc).
When you achieve non-realistic results things are very different. Your renderings scream mediocre through not being "real" enough and require more tutoring, work and research and you just might not have time for that.
So what should you do? My answer is to find your own style. It is not easier or safer but in my opinion, it is worth the effort. Style is linked to the medium. Why? Because of medium restrictions. Restrictions give birth to aesthetics. This has always been the case in art and any kind of representation. The medium in our case is, of course, the computer.
When restrictions cannot be overcome, they should be embraced. You never know where they will lead you if you keep experimenting. If you keep up long enough you might end up with a style of your own.
Remember: Photoshop is your friend. (And any raster graphics editor for that matter).
In the case of architectural renderings, restrictions will always come up even with the best of computer systems, either by reaching hardware power limits or because of tight delivery times. I have developed various techniques to balance time and aesthetics as I am sure many of you have too. A good rule I follow is to produce more "stylized" concept renderings early on the project until you reach the final solution which in turn will be rendered as realistic as possible. Time management is key here, as you should always focus on what you want to communicate at every stage of the design.
I have to admit I miss the times when I came across variety in architectural renderings and the norm wasn't hyper-realistic photos of projects in ideal environmental conditions. To be frank these settings are a bit of a lie, as built projects live in the real world, offering different experience phases for the user.
Now, I know that clients will ask for realistic visualizations, we have trained them so, and I am in no way suggesting to abandon realistic rendering altogether. There are many companies who do that extremely well, even finally pushing VR technology into the game.
Many architects migrate to doing exclusively 3d visualizations, specializing in exactly that, which is great. And it is the way to go if you find yourself more comfortable in that setting.
But we should focus on concept and solutions, not be lured into becoming Visual Fx artists. Producing renderings in your own style forces you and the viewer to focus on the concept. I have seen many young and seasoned architects alike focus on how real their renderings look at every stage of presenting ideas but mention nothing about the actual design. And always remember: style should not be confused with manière or you'll find yourself back to square #1, presentation overshadowing concept once again.
As some architecture students asked me during my 3dsMax walkthrough animation course:
- How can I add realistic human figures walking and interacting with the building?
- Don't, you are not a 3d artist, you are an architect. You need too much software for that. Please focus on designing a better building.
What happens when you achieve "truly realistic" or "almost realistic" architectural renderings?
In the first case, your work is done. You have achieved a near perfect photograph, indistinguishable from reality. You play the guessing game with your friends trying to distinguish "real" photographs from renderings and everyone is happy. Of course a hyperrealistic rendering has rules of its own and in any case, you have to at least brush up on your photographer's skills (framing, composition, light manipulation etc).
When you achieve non-realistic results things are very different. Your renderings scream mediocre through not being "real" enough and require more tutoring, work and research and you just might not have time for that.
So what should you do? My answer is to find your own style. It is not easier or safer but in my opinion, it is worth the effort. Style is linked to the medium. Why? Because of medium restrictions. Restrictions give birth to aesthetics. This has always been the case in art and any kind of representation. The medium in our case is, of course, the computer.
When restrictions cannot be overcome, they should be embraced. You never know where they will lead you if you keep experimenting. If you keep up long enough you might end up with a style of your own.
Remember: Photoshop is your friend. (And any raster graphics editor for that matter).
In the case of architectural renderings, restrictions will always come up even with the best of computer systems, either by reaching hardware power limits or because of tight delivery times. I have developed various techniques to balance time and aesthetics as I am sure many of you have too. A good rule I follow is to produce more "stylized" concept renderings early on the project until you reach the final solution which in turn will be rendered as realistic as possible. Time management is key here, as you should always focus on what you want to communicate at every stage of the design.
I have to admit I miss the times when I came across variety in architectural renderings and the norm wasn't hyper-realistic photos of projects in ideal environmental conditions. To be frank these settings are a bit of a lie, as built projects live in the real world, offering different experience phases for the user.
Now, I know that clients will ask for realistic visualizations, we have trained them so, and I am in no way suggesting to abandon realistic rendering altogether. There are many companies who do that extremely well, even finally pushing VR technology into the game.
Many architects migrate to doing exclusively 3d visualizations, specializing in exactly that, which is great. And it is the way to go if you find yourself more comfortable in that setting.
But we should focus on concept and solutions, not be lured into becoming Visual Fx artists. Producing renderings in your own style forces you and the viewer to focus on the concept. I have seen many young and seasoned architects alike focus on how real their renderings look at every stage of presenting ideas but mention nothing about the actual design. And always remember: style should not be confused with manière or you'll find yourself back to square #1, presentation overshadowing concept once again.
As some architecture students asked me during my 3dsMax walkthrough animation course:
- How can I add realistic human figures walking and interacting with the building?
- Don't, you are not a 3d artist, you are an architect. You need too much software for that. Please focus on designing a better building.
Comments
Post a Comment