There are more and more clients that demand to see the end product before they are completely sold and this often calls for the production of photo realistic renderings. However, I am curious: in the past - before the advent of all of these softwares - how did architects sell their ideas? Illustrations and drawings were further away from representing the end product. By virtue of the medium itself, images are grainy in comparison to well-made digital renderings. So I ask- has the client become lazy in terms of his/her ability to picture the brownish color on a water color sketch as a different material? I am speaking metaphorically and generally of course- the color doesn't have to be brown - it can be anything. But it's fascinating to me to understand how before the advent of this technology, clients were fine with seeing not so photo realistic renderings and hearing out the concept instead of relying on a digital model to spell out the design intent down to the last detail before the last word could be uttered.
I talk about this often with my boss, who used to produce a single hand rendered perspective drawing (only on very important projects), a physical model, floor plans, and elevations. What is interesting is that most clients didn't even have the skills to interpret what the building was going to look like prior to construction even with all of those representations, the most important being a model, which said nothing about materials, only solid and void relationships and general massing, which often times got changed when the project went through CDs anyways, the model never updated.
Fast forward to today where we have the ability to show very accurate 3d renderings and walkthroughs, which is a very powerful tool, but now the discussion revolves around how much going to show. Are your material choices going to be seen as the exact material in the final building? For example, you drop some dumb wood texture in sketchup on a portion of a model and the client is upset when the constructed wall does not look exactly like the rendered wood.
Either way, it is still just a representation, unless you spend the time doing a 100% accurate photorealistic rendering, which most projects don't have the budget for and in-house staff to complete.
In my opinion, it is almost better to show clients a blank slate 3d model, rendered in a monochrome material, which is similar to a basswood model. It gives a lot of flexibility to the architect to push and pull the design, modify materials, and make all of the changes necessary in design development, CDs, and construction. But then again...most clients want to see it all...with a ferarri and bikini clad model(s) standing in the driveway.
I try to not show stuff as much as possible. Not sure it's working, maybe I should give away more for free in hopes of landing the job, but I do like to get paid for my work. I will show what I think it takes for the client to understand but I'm not good at photorealistic stuff anyway.
Chigurh, I never put Ferarris in my presentations. I do however drop a Lincoln Futura whenever possible. (1966 George Barris version for those interested). So far, my office's principle has caught all of them before they reach the client.
"In my opinion, it is almost better to show clients a blank slate 3d model, rendered in a monochrome material, which is similar to a basswood model. It gives a lot of flexibility to the architect to push and pull the design, modify materials, and make all of the changes necessary in design development, CDs, and construction"
I like this approach, and feel I've had great luck with it -- and I think the product of this method feels more like a study or a process piece of art.
Besides, today's top shelf "photoreal" work is tomorrow's cartoon.
Baron Curtkram, I appreciate you using my new title and by the powers I gave myself, I appoint you duke or baron. I'll decide which one when I go back over this post to bold, your name.
Regarding the Batmobiles, they were caught not because I was bad at hiding them but because they often took precedence in the renderings. Strange things happen when you're racing towards a deadline. It's like those evenings in studio when one students "discovers" that fine basswood dust makes a great lubricant on polished concrete and suddenly, half the students drop their projects in lieu of makeshift surfboards.
More on point, I have a large library of ridiculous imagery ready to drop into my scenes. It helps keep me amused when things get hectic.
Presentism is a term in historical work meaning the retroactive application of current expectations and standards onto a past that was free of them. Basically "20/20 hindsight." I think that's what's behind the OP's question.
Clients were fine in earlier times without digital technology because it didn't exist yet. There was no expectation of super-realistic, detailed representations. Prevailing techniques set prevailing standards. Over time, each new innovation appears, gets the oohs and aahs, and gradually works its way into the common toolbox (for us) and then into general expectations (for clients).
In international work particularly, we're now finding that clients are expecting full renderings of the project design concept before the concept design phase has even started. Still waiting for the time machine that allows this to not be ridiculously problematic.
Feb 27, 14 12:36 pm ·
·
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.
Rendering and Salesmanship
There are more and more clients that demand to see the end product before they are completely sold and this often calls for the production of photo realistic renderings. However, I am curious: in the past - before the advent of all of these softwares - how did architects sell their ideas? Illustrations and drawings were further away from representing the end product. By virtue of the medium itself, images are grainy in comparison to well-made digital renderings. So I ask- has the client become lazy in terms of his/her ability to picture the brownish color on a water color sketch as a different material? I am speaking metaphorically and generally of course- the color doesn't have to be brown - it can be anything. But it's fascinating to me to understand how before the advent of this technology, clients were fine with seeing not so photo realistic renderings and hearing out the concept instead of relying on a digital model to spell out the design intent down to the last detail before the last word could be uttered.
I have a feeling those artfully arranged piles of basswood had something to do with the whole selling the vision thing.
I talk about this often with my boss, who used to produce a single hand rendered perspective drawing (only on very important projects), a physical model, floor plans, and elevations. What is interesting is that most clients didn't even have the skills to interpret what the building was going to look like prior to construction even with all of those representations, the most important being a model, which said nothing about materials, only solid and void relationships and general massing, which often times got changed when the project went through CDs anyways, the model never updated.
Fast forward to today where we have the ability to show very accurate 3d renderings and walkthroughs, which is a very powerful tool, but now the discussion revolves around how much going to show. Are your material choices going to be seen as the exact material in the final building? For example, you drop some dumb wood texture in sketchup on a portion of a model and the client is upset when the constructed wall does not look exactly like the rendered wood.
Either way, it is still just a representation, unless you spend the time doing a 100% accurate photorealistic rendering, which most projects don't have the budget for and in-house staff to complete.
In my opinion, it is almost better to show clients a blank slate 3d model, rendered in a monochrome material, which is similar to a basswood model. It gives a lot of flexibility to the architect to push and pull the design, modify materials, and make all of the changes necessary in design development, CDs, and construction. But then again...most clients want to see it all...with a ferarri and bikini clad model(s) standing in the driveway.
Chigurh, I never put Ferarris in my presentations. I do however drop a Lincoln Futura whenever possible. (1966 George Barris version for those interested). So far, my office's principle has caught all of them before they reach the client.
"In my opinion, it is almost better to show clients a blank slate 3d model, rendered in a monochrome material, which is similar to a basswood model. It gives a lot of flexibility to the architect to push and pull the design, modify materials, and make all of the changes necessary in design development, CDs, and construction"
I like this approach, and feel I've had great luck with it -- and I think the product of this method feels more like a study or a process piece of art.
Besides, today's top shelf "photoreal" work is tomorrow's cartoon.
sultan non sequitur, are you saying your principal caught them and complimented you on your vision?
Baron Curtkram, I appreciate you using my new title and by the powers I gave myself, I appoint you duke or baron. I'll decide which one when I go back over this post to bold, your name.
Regarding the Batmobiles, they were caught not because I was bad at hiding them but because they often took precedence in the renderings. Strange things happen when you're racing towards a deadline. It's like those evenings in studio when one students "discovers" that fine basswood dust makes a great lubricant on polished concrete and suddenly, half the students drop their projects in lieu of makeshift surfboards.
More on point, I have a large library of ridiculous imagery ready to drop into my scenes. It helps keep me amused when things get hectic.
Presentism is a term in historical work meaning the retroactive application of current expectations and standards onto a past that was free of them. Basically "20/20 hindsight." I think that's what's behind the OP's question.
Clients were fine in earlier times without digital technology because it didn't exist yet. There was no expectation of super-realistic, detailed representations. Prevailing techniques set prevailing standards. Over time, each new innovation appears, gets the oohs and aahs, and gradually works its way into the common toolbox (for us) and then into general expectations (for clients).
In international work particularly, we're now finding that clients are expecting full renderings of the project design concept before the concept design phase has even started. Still waiting for the time machine that allows this to not be ridiculously problematic.
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.