<div class="page traditional" style="
background-color: #fff;
">
<article>
<header>
<h1 style="
font-family: 'Open Sans';
color: #000;">Light Switches and Power Cords</h1>
<p class="byline">John Budinsky </p>
</header>
<div class="main">
<img src="/uploads/558c55361a435.jpg" class="title-pic" alt=""/>
<p class="summary" style="
color: #000;">The Future of Architectual Rendering: An Essay </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It is generally accepted that modern computer graphics can effectively
emulate genuine photography, and reliably fool the human eye. In fact, given
the decades of anticipation that preceded it, this milestone has been crossed
without much fanfare. Artist and animators may still struggle to generate perfect CG humans, but plants,
animals, landscapes, and structures no longer need to exist “in the flesh” to
be photographed and published. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The majority of images in the Ikea Catalogue are
completely digital, and it has probably
been a decade since car commercials regularly ended with an actual photograph
of their product. The same is true for watches, computers, phones, and even
food. The world of architectural visualisation has naturally followed suit and adopted
this new approach, but only slowly and cautiously. It seems like architects
have not discovered
the potential that these other industries have long appreciated.</span></p><p><img src="/uploads/55c102e828ae1.jpg"></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Ikea, flaunting their capabilities<em>.</em></span></em></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Most archiviz produced
today fits into a long tradition of art renders, although the creators have abandoned
traditional tools in favour of Sketch-up and Photoshop. Genuinely convincing “I
can’t believe that’s not a photo!” renders are still rare, and almost never
employed by real working firms for marketing or promotion. The further we stray
from the world of academic architecture and top-of-the-line international
firms, we begin to see even less innovation, and more small builders and
developers who still market with crude 3D images, CAD elevations, and
black-line floor plans.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The industry
has not moved beyond the phase of gingerly experimenting with this new
approach, because they generally fail to apperciate that
it is more than just the latest incremental advance in 3D capability;
photorealism represents a sea-change in the world of concept development. The
potential offered by this relatively new field, as a marketing tool and
promotional vehicle, makes it almost obligatory for firms to adopt. We will certainly be seeing a lot more of it in the near future, even though we probably won't. <a> <br></a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">For now, old habits are reluctant to die. Today’s preferred
form of architectural visualisation employs a thoroughly modern approach, but
it traces its origin and stylistic method back through decades of art rendering.
The typical work-flow involves taking a crude render from Revit, Sketch-up, or
any number of engines that work with those two programs, and putting it through
an intense post-processing regimen. Glows, textures, shadows, and a bevy of 2D
accoutrements are added to the scene, in order to create artworks that can be truly stunning. The
results can be as psychedelically conceptual as the Archigram collages they pay
homage to, or resemble a brilliantly realistic painting, like those that have
been used for centuries. No one can deny that this category of art is valuable,
within the field and without, and it will undoubtedly stay relevant for long
time - but unfortunately, the usefulness of these images is held back in many
respects by the fact that they are visibly and self-consciously <em>artistic</em>.</span></p><p><img src="/uploads/558c509fb491d.jpg"></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Archigram collage
visualising the Instant City concept, in
1968</span></em></p><p><img src="/uploads/558c513cbee04.jpg"></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">A contemporary collage
by Quadrangle Architects, 2015</span></span></span></em></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Art is wonderful. But, with that said, a member of the
general public who wishes to buy a product will probably not settle for seeing
a painting of it on craigslist; they will want a photo. We scoff at “artist’s
impressions” in the same way we hesitate when we see the word “dramatization”
at the bottom of our TV screen. Everyone knows that the fascinating scene in
front of us has only a tenuous link to reality. It is fairly common for public
meeting attendees to stand in front of a set of meticulously photoshopped charetee panels <a href="#_msocom_1"></a>panels
and whine to their companions about how “it won’t look like that in <em>real</em> life”. Art invites cynicism. <a href="#_msocom_2"></a></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In the political sphere, which is unavoidably where
architecture must reside, art may be somewhat out of place. Conspicuously <em>artistic</em> art certainly is. When speaking
about property values, views, unit sales, building costs, material quality, and
visual impact, a collage or misty art rendering can appear frustratingly imprecise Unfortunately, these topics are very important to developers, buyers,
neighbours, politicians, contractors, and pretty much anyone else who cares
about a building besides the architects themselves – and other architects, of
course. If the goal is to market our product or idea to a general consumer,
a captivating artwork or abstract piece may not represent the best approach. Buyers
want to be reassured that the finished product will match their expectations,
and a photorealistic image creates the sense of a veritable <em>fait accompli</em>.</span> </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">With today's readily available technology, we can present our dramatizations without any disclaimer. If
the render looks like a photo - even if the viewer is aware that it’s CG - it
will not immediately register as something deceptive. It seems logical that if
the image looks like real life, the real thing would have to look just like the
render. This approach hides its artistry, and makes the methods of subtle manipulation less
apparent. All the persuasive elements of a promotional image can still be
applied, but with heightened credibility. Instead of thinking about how “it
won’t <em>really</em> look like that” viewers remark
“that looks <em>real!</em>”</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Digital artists can make sunlight brighter than the sun,
create any shadow arrangement imaginable, design impossibly clean or shiny
surfaces, or use unobtainable materials. Beneath their surface veneer of
pedantic literalism, modern renders can create a reality that is both
compelling and convincing while still being fantastical. Other tricks can be
borrowed from the world of architectural photography: finding that perfect
angle, making the space neat and tidy, using impeccable interior design, and
applying interesting focus techniques. The unique benefit is that all of this
is possible without having access to a room or structure to photograph. The
render can be produced before construction starts, even before the design has
been drawn, and before the client has paid.</span></span></span></p><p><img src="/uploads/558c51e00e3bb.jpg"></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Bedroom Visualization
by Monica Corduneanu, posted on cgarchitect.com</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Photorealism communications frankly and universally, instead of through abstraction or evocation - appearing more trusthworthy. it offers a straightforward 'what you see is what you get' visual vernacular, which simplifies and streamlines the message, while still allowing an artist to manipulate the viewer covertly. <br><a></a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Photorealistic renders are more perfect than real things, and often so impeccable
that artists must intentionally add flaws to make their images convincing. One
of the most common criticism on CG forums is that an image needs more scratches
or dust specks to look authentic. In effect, we can create a
perfectly-constructed and immaculate facsimile of real life, adding only the
tiny amount of imperfection needed to sell the illusion.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It can be difficult to convince anyone to change their
time-honoured approach, and the construction industry is notoriously
risk-averse. Furthermore, I am advising digital artists to abandon their
diverse styles in favour of a pseudo-literal approach: to aim for the
equivalent of an airbrushed Victoria’s Secret model, rather than Les
Demoiselles d'Davignon; Telling them to create a crass but plausible ideal,
rather than a piece of creative art. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">To buttress my position<a href="#_msocom_2"></a>,
I can only point out that architects are not purely artists, and the
Demoiselles don’t sell a whole lot of lingerie. If the archiviz field is
willing to modernise, our beloved 2D
entourage, coloured glows, matte overlays, and abstract backgrounds must give
way to a seemingly more pedestrian set of priorities needed to make an image
look <em>real</em>: light switches, power
cords, sealant, carpet textures, and the GPU’s capacity to render realistic
vegetation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Among the general public, photorealism will be far easier to
sell. At the very least, we can rely on the support of the not-insignificant
demographic who immediately equate the realism of a render with its quality.
Like any creative professionals, digital artists think about their craft
constantly, and become immersed in the scene; internalising its lore, values,
and heritage. This is a dangerous thing in the marketing field, where appeal to
the out-group is <em>far</em> more important.
Ads that marketing professionals love are not necessarily the most successful,
blockbuster movies win few awards, and Archigram collages may not be the style to emulate if your goal is to visualise
a place where people will want to live. Selling the product is important, and
designers need to embrace the new and amazing tricks they can now employ to
that end.</span></p><p><img src="/uploads/558c543da5afd.jpg"></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Mix familial &
workshop house by enricoceric, posted on blenderartists.org</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In addition to its straightforward marketing value,
photorealism has power to transform the very role of architectural graphics
within the industry. A more abstract, but possibly more significant, change this
technology brings is the power for designers to realise their unbuilt designs,
not as a concept drawing but as photographs from an alternate world. If the
render is as good as real life, any architect can have their work featured on
ArchDaily, without being excluded due to unfavourable real-life circumstances.
Right now, the boutique design field is monopolised by those few firms and
individuals who can sell themselves to high-paying clients while contractually
retaining design autonomy. Photorealism throws open the doors to new
contenders, and grants concepts the credibility they need to compete with
finished projects.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Upstart firms can now fill their online portfolios with an
impressive collection of buildings they have designed, without the need to find a obsequious millionaire client and undergo the hassle of physical construction. It hardly seems fair that only older firms are allowed to show off their full creative potential, and a change is well overdue. The photorealistic render
represents the highest pinnacle of architectural visualisation by becoming
invisible, and breaking the barriers between concept and substance. It might as
well be a real building. Concrete and brick are not necessary.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Armed with this new potential to transcend art
and compete alongside real life projects, the archiviz field is ripe for a
transformation. New methods have thus far been <a href="#_msocom_2"></a>relegated to old-fashioned roles, but the
building industry will eventually catch up to companies like Ford or Ikea who
have long ago ceased to rely on real props and sets. Photorealism allows
architects and designers to speak with their clients in tangible, real-world
terms. It lends their concepts a level of credibility that was previously
unachievable in a project’s design development phase. These methods, which are becoming
increasingly affordable, allow old firms and newcomers alike to communicate
their ideas with absolute precision, compelling realism, and a degree of
tangibility that rivals that of the finished product. Renders no longer need to
be perceived as an artist’s conception, but as the power to photograph our
ideal future</span>.</p>
</div>
</article>
</div><!-- /page-->