graphic design - no stress, not that hard, school you could literally sleep through and be ok. Very little to learn.
architecture - tons of stress, very difficult, school you would be kicked out of immediately if you did not do well. Learning never ends.
Don't get me wrong, I love graphic design and do it daily, but comparing the difficulty/effort needed for architecture to graphic design is like comparing playing flag football and the NFL.
is that a serious question?
urban systems
structures
hvac
coordinating systems
site planning
modelling of designs (3d)
detailing....
ummm the list goes on and on
they're actually very different professions.
although i respect what a good graphic designer can do as well...
ok, so I think the big difference is the amount of constraints. Architecture has *millions* of constraints- planning code, fire code, client wishes, site constraints, WTF you can actually do with the material you choose, etc. Whereas in graphic design you can pretty much pull something out of your ass. Not that that'll be something great, but you are really wholly responsible for how it ends up looking, there aren't the competing forces that exist in architecture.
also, really architecture isn't a purely sculptural artform. and neither is graphic design well..i don't even know what designish means, but it would be closer to a pure artistic output. basically architecture is the study of the communication of a 3 dimensional object to a distant set of third parties that will need to coordinate activities in 3 dimensional space.
graphic design although having some similarity, in that it does deal with communication to distant parties, tends to do so in a more controlled fashion with fewer physical and intellectual constraints, plus it only tends to deal with 2dimensional space.
graphic design is employed in the description of architecture, but consititutes a small (although vital) aspect of the architectural profession.
Yes......certainly Architecture a tougher and tougher field than graphic design when it comes to design or anything else. There is No doubt and no reason to argue..We use graphic design as a tool to represent our ideas that are going to be built..Its not two dimensional nor virtual..You can live in it or with it..
"Whereas in graphic design you can pretty much pull something out of your ass. Not that that'll be something great, but you are really wholly responsible for how it ends up looking, there aren't the competing forces that exist in architecture."
rationalist
I see why you work much more on the architecture side.
you actually can't really pull anything out of your ass if you are doing quality work. You still have production issues, i.e. color - CMYK, RGB, Spot, film output, printing - offset, letterpress, laser, serigraph, etc...if you do not know how to set up a job for every type of situation, then you are not realling doing the full gamut of graphic design.
you need to know bleeds, pica, pixel, point dimmensions - paper types,etc. and on and on...and now you had better know your hex values as well as your pantone or spot values...just as much constraint in graphic design as architecture...just with completely different application/purpose
That's why I said, "Not that that'll be something great". I merely meant to illustrate that graphic design is a lot more based on the individual designer- architecture has more different people, more different forces pulling it and shaping it. I think that graphic design is more dependent on an individual's innate talent level, whereas architecture can be learned a bit more. So in that respect, graphic deisgn could be said to be harder, because either you have it or you don't. But, assuming that you're a person of a certain talent level, I would say architecture is harder because balancing all of those competing forces and interests is quite difficult. Being a person of a certain talent level, I find architecture more difficult. On the other hand, I've seen talentless people flinging themselves at both professions: the architecture people found a niche where they were ok, whether it be construction admin, or documents, or whatever; whereas the graphics people just floundered. So I guess it depends what perspective you come from.
And don't assume anything about my work. I know there's people on archinect who are better than me, whom I respect quite a lot, but I'm quite certain that I'll be successful in whichever field I choose.
graphic design also works in 3 dimmensions, sometimes much more complex than architecture in general...package design, environmental design (signage, etc) and now game design are all forms of graphic design that engage 3d...and there are many more...offset printing is very tactile and spacial compared to say laser printing.
silverlake- no, I'm talking about architecture as a field, as a profession. Frank Gehry isn't the only sort of architect out there, and he certainly doesn't do his own construction documents, or even manage the work on them. There are enough facets to architecture that someone who turns out not to be the next superstar designer still has options within the profession, and guess what? Many of them still involve becoming a licensed architect. You can certainly learn to be quite good at the more technical side of architecture, which is absolutely necessary even if it's not as glamorous, and even if it's not what either of us aspire to, and this can be a good out for people who discover that they just don't have the creativity to succeed as an architectural designer. GREAT architecture requires creative designers AND skilled technical professionals to get built at its full potential. So don't act as if the design route is the only one that exists within the field of architecture.
most of the comments in this thread (except from proffesional graphic designers like e and jasoncross) suggest that graphic design is easier than architecture. Though any generalization can be grossly wrong, lets put it this way - its easier to achieve innovative graphic design solutions than it is to achieve innovative architecture, because of the different parties involved, clients etc etc.
yeah, I remember about two years ago a firm (quite good, by the way) quoted Derrida - one sentence, and it was like 'wow', these guys must be really smart!! I thought it was funny.
i agree. we never ever ever ever specify any color on our buildings. we leave it up to the client and they get to do a coloring book of sorts. we might recommend a certain direction but that's it.
graphic designers use crayons while architects use magic markers. architects prefer the crisp lines of the marker over the rough quality of the crayon. you know those damn architects. they like precision.
graphics design is sort of architectural in a graphics sense whereas architecture is more graphics in an architectural context. think of graphics design as nascar and architecture as the indy series. however, switch the car types and don't consider the marketing of the respective leagues. in a sense it's also like baseball's NL and AL. but w/o the designated hitter issues. the ability for a team to generate runs because of a DH like ortiz can only be beneficial to the fans (i.e. clients) whereas the purity of sport is felt to be compromised. if you're trying to pitch from one league to another you know the results would be lopsided. it just doen'st work as such. in the end. the graphics vs. architectural design differences are best realized in juxtaposing the two fields against something unrelated. let's use the food service industry as our baseline. in food service there is a clear deliniation and heirarchy in the kitchen. in architecture the system is more malleable and must be treated gingerly. graphics design is more of a pliable but in tension not compression.
okay center for ants, what u've just said sounds like rocket science too me?
can u get any less profound than that. i've been thinking that architectural design is more like scuptural( a la frank gehry) where design for buildings are more based on line/planes/space/materials whereas graphic design is more like your every day design profession(like fashion) where colour play a bigger role.
having said that, even fashion design seem to have a closer relationship to architectural design because of the need to study structure.
is architecture a tougher field than graphic design when it comes to design
title says it all
my .. you're a bundle full of questions, Aren't you ?
well I would say each has its own highs and lows in the design process.
but during the execution stage.. of course it's architecture !!
Poor graphic design could cause eyestrain.
yes it is..cuz architecture is 3d
the quest continues!
and to answer the question. yeah, of course.
the costs, the team, the complexity, the impact, the knowledge required are all much hbigger in Architecture than they are in graphic design.
graphic design - no stress, not that hard, school you could literally sleep through and be ok. Very little to learn.
architecture - tons of stress, very difficult, school you would be kicked out of immediately if you did not do well. Learning never ends.
Don't get me wrong, I love graphic design and do it daily, but comparing the difficulty/effort needed for architecture to graphic design is like comparing playing flag football and the NFL.
(generally speaking, of course)
wat do u learn in architecture that u don't in graphic design?
is that a serious question?
urban systems
structures
hvac
coordinating systems
site planning
modelling of designs (3d)
detailing....
ummm the list goes on and on
they're actually very different professions.
although i respect what a good graphic designer can do as well...
wat about the design aspect?
would one say that architectural design is more art-like/scupltural whereas graphic design designish.
yes, you total dweeb!
really in what sense?
in the sense that you adhere to this forum like a lamprey to an eyeball. Hence your dweebiosity
i learnt 2 new words today
"designish"
"dweebiosity"
+ 1 for me
"lamprey"
ok, so I think the big difference is the amount of constraints. Architecture has *millions* of constraints- planning code, fire code, client wishes, site constraints, WTF you can actually do with the material you choose, etc. Whereas in graphic design you can pretty much pull something out of your ass. Not that that'll be something great, but you are really wholly responsible for how it ends up looking, there aren't the competing forces that exist in architecture.
also, really architecture isn't a purely sculptural artform. and neither is graphic design well..i don't even know what designish means, but it would be closer to a pure artistic output. basically architecture is the study of the communication of a 3 dimensional object to a distant set of third parties that will need to coordinate activities in 3 dimensional space.
graphic design although having some similarity, in that it does deal with communication to distant parties, tends to do so in a more controlled fashion with fewer physical and intellectual constraints, plus it only tends to deal with 2dimensional space.
graphic design is employed in the description of architecture, but consititutes a small (although vital) aspect of the architectural profession.
stooooooooop answering his questions! there is no point!
yes, abandon all graphic design threads until further notice. abort, abort, abort.
Yes......certainly Architecture a tougher and tougher field than graphic design when it comes to design or anything else. There is No doubt and no reason to argue..We use graphic design as a tool to represent our ideas that are going to be built..Its not two dimensional nor virtual..You can live in it or with it..
the big question is...
is soulikeit a fancy graphics lover???
This topic is absolutely absurd. How many of you have done real work in both fields?
I have.
i have.
I have (though much heavier on the architecture side).
"Whereas in graphic design you can pretty much pull something out of your ass. Not that that'll be something great, but you are really wholly responsible for how it ends up looking, there aren't the competing forces that exist in architecture."
rationalist
I see why you work much more on the architecture side.
*and yes, I've worked in both fields.
sorry rationalist – i don't want to be a jerk.
i haven't seen your work, and perhaps it's quite good.
you actually can't really pull anything out of your ass if you are doing quality work. You still have production issues, i.e. color - CMYK, RGB, Spot, film output, printing - offset, letterpress, laser, serigraph, etc...if you do not know how to set up a job for every type of situation, then you are not realling doing the full gamut of graphic design.
you need to know bleeds, pica, pixel, point dimmensions - paper types,etc. and on and on...and now you had better know your hex values as well as your pantone or spot values...just as much constraint in graphic design as architecture...just with completely different application/purpose
That's why I said, "Not that that'll be something great". I merely meant to illustrate that graphic design is a lot more based on the individual designer- architecture has more different people, more different forces pulling it and shaping it. I think that graphic design is more dependent on an individual's innate talent level, whereas architecture can be learned a bit more. So in that respect, graphic deisgn could be said to be harder, because either you have it or you don't. But, assuming that you're a person of a certain talent level, I would say architecture is harder because balancing all of those competing forces and interests is quite difficult. Being a person of a certain talent level, I find architecture more difficult. On the other hand, I've seen talentless people flinging themselves at both professions: the architecture people found a niche where they were ok, whether it be construction admin, or documents, or whatever; whereas the graphics people just floundered. So I guess it depends what perspective you come from.
And don't assume anything about my work. I know there's people on archinect who are better than me, whom I respect quite a lot, but I'm quite certain that I'll be successful in whichever field I choose.
^^^ which once again supports the absurdity of asking whether one is a "tougher" field than the other
graphic design also works in 3 dimmensions, sometimes much more complex than architecture in general...package design, environmental design (signage, etc) and now game design are all forms of graphic design that engage 3d...and there are many more...offset printing is very tactile and spacial compared to say laser printing.
i totally agree jason, and don't even get me started on architects and fonts.
soulikeit, grab a magazine and stand by a building. look down at magazine. look up a building. repeat until you can answer your own question.
'I think that graphic design is more dependent on an individual's innate talent level, whereas architecture can be learned a bit more'
rationalist, not if you're talking about great architecture...
ummm, yeah - all graphic design is a magazine.
don't forget those engineers, you might actually need them.
silverlake- no, I'm talking about architecture as a field, as a profession. Frank Gehry isn't the only sort of architect out there, and he certainly doesn't do his own construction documents, or even manage the work on them. There are enough facets to architecture that someone who turns out not to be the next superstar designer still has options within the profession, and guess what? Many of them still involve becoming a licensed architect. You can certainly learn to be quite good at the more technical side of architecture, which is absolutely necessary even if it's not as glamorous, and even if it's not what either of us aspire to, and this can be a good out for people who discover that they just don't have the creativity to succeed as an architectural designer. GREAT architecture requires creative designers AND skilled technical professionals to get built at its full potential. So don't act as if the design route is the only one that exists within the field of architecture.
most of the comments in this thread (except from proffesional graphic designers like e and jasoncross) suggest that graphic design is easier than architecture. Though any generalization can be grossly wrong, lets put it this way - its easier to achieve innovative graphic design solutions than it is to achieve innovative architecture, because of the different parties involved, clients etc etc.
yeah, I remember about two years ago a firm (quite good, by the way) quoted Derrida - one sentence, and it was like 'wow', these guys must be really smart!! I thought it was funny.
WHAT ASPECT OF DESIGN IS GRAPHIC DESIGN DIFFERENT FROM ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN? OTHER THAN 3D and 2D stuff.
AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS UNLIKE GRAPHIC DESIGN DO NOT INCLUDE COLOUR RIGHT?
correct soulikeit. all buildings are white.
seriously speaking?
seriously.
yeah, sometimes you can push grey, but white is really the way to go.
i agree. we never ever ever ever specify any color on our buildings. we leave it up to the client and they get to do a coloring book of sorts. we might recommend a certain direction but that's it.
so what is the difference between graphic design and architectural design at the initial stages?
graphic designers use crayons while architects use magic markers. architects prefer the crisp lines of the marker over the rough quality of the crayon. you know those damn architects. they like precision.
dude seriously, is arachitectural design more artistic like sculpture? whereas graphic design is more design-based
graphics design is sort of architectural in a graphics sense whereas architecture is more graphics in an architectural context. think of graphics design as nascar and architecture as the indy series. however, switch the car types and don't consider the marketing of the respective leagues. in a sense it's also like baseball's NL and AL. but w/o the designated hitter issues. the ability for a team to generate runs because of a DH like ortiz can only be beneficial to the fans (i.e. clients) whereas the purity of sport is felt to be compromised. if you're trying to pitch from one league to another you know the results would be lopsided. it just doen'st work as such. in the end. the graphics vs. architectural design differences are best realized in juxtaposing the two fields against something unrelated. let's use the food service industry as our baseline. in food service there is a clear deliniation and heirarchy in the kitchen. in architecture the system is more malleable and must be treated gingerly. graphics design is more of a pliable but in tension not compression.
okay center for ants, what u've just said sounds like rocket science too me?
can u get any less profound than that. i've been thinking that architectural design is more like scuptural( a la frank gehry) where design for buildings are more based on line/planes/space/materials whereas graphic design is more like your every day design profession(like fashion) where colour play a bigger role.
having said that, even fashion design seem to have a closer relationship to architectural design because of the need to study structure.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.