“Fundamentally, architecture is something you build and put together, and people walk in and they like it. But that’s too hard. Pretty pictures are easier.” Philip Johnson
Periodical: Design Observer
From the moment the partition spins, your project’s critique has already been decided. Despite the requirements of numerous plans, sections, and elevations, one drawing reigns supreme: the render. As architecture students, we spend days splitting up our time to finesse our drawings, for a single image to determine our fate. The essence of your design lies in a detailed look at your technical drawings, which are the most commonly overlooked images on your board.
The development of space and engineering within the architectural design has become a detail only to be realized at the critical moment when we graduate and are faced with licensure. There is no section in the licensure exam which asks for a beautiful rendering of the design. Instead, we will be load tracing and designing space. These are goals we should be striving to achieve with our design work in school, but instead we are overlooking them and striving to create beautiful pictures. The crutch of pretty renderings is synonymous with the crutch of pretty drawings, however it has been reworked to reflect the notorious term “rendering”, which we hear at every crit we attend. The renderings we see today are created by computers, and while the word “rendering” is used to include the action of drawing and adding details such as shading, it has become infamous for a computer exported image meant to wow your audience with its realism.
As architecture students, we are about to enter a hyper-competitive professional landscape; and we should be able to use everything in our arsenal to promote our work. Computer generated renders is quickly becoming one of the most popular tools in presentations, as they are highly effective. Advancements in technologies has allowed renders to appear photorealistic, which has greatly improved how accurately an architect can represent concepts to a client, but hindered the accuracy of architectural depiction. It is important to make the distinction between the depiction of architecture, and the representation of architecture to a client. Glossy images of blue skies, and gleaming glass and steel are used to depict otherwise boring architecture to unknowing clients; who are sucked in to believe that their buildings will ultimately look picture perfect, and shiny, unaffected by the elements or subjected to change for economical or technological setbacks. The client is then left to deal with a building that looks nothing like what they committed to after being shown the renders and prospective images of the project.
In Britain, there has been a movement to create accurate renderings. The renderer visits the site and photographs it from a certain spot, and then insert their design without altering the rest of the image. By presenting an actual vantage point, the design is not dramatized and it does not mislead the client. This realistic form of rendering is required by local councils and the London Boroughs. (Reidel Clog 25) The image is then submitted to authorities with accompanying documents to attest to its accuracy. On occasion when a client, a developer or architect, wishes to modify the image, it is no longer “verified” and is stripped of the supporting documentation.
Whilst this method may lack the touch of ‘whimsy’ clients want their building’s to achieve, the images ensure that the buildings and context are accurately represented. This is especially important in understanding how the building both effects and is affected by the immediate context, and weather conditions. A beautiful facade for instance can easily be overshadowed by exiting trees or infrastructure; this can only be found through renders that having undergone strict regulations to ensure accuracy of depiction.
Whilst this method may lack the touch of ‘whimsy’ clients want their building’s to achieve, the images ensure that the buildings and context are accurately represented. This is especially important in understanding how the building both effects and is affected by the immediate context, and weather conditions. A beautiful facade for instance can easily be overshadowed by exiting trees or infrastructure; this can only be found through renders that having undergone strict regulations to ensure accuracy of depiction.
In juxtaposition to the British method of verifying renderings, the Chinese have set their goals to advance China’s architectural future as quickly as possible without concern for accuracy. Renderings of shop stalls will have signs saying Gucci, although they will contain dumpling shops in reality. Affluence is of no concern when achieving a convincing rendering, and neither is the skyline. Although the skyline of China can be dark and gloomy, or cluttered with buildings, the rendering has no concern for these realities. Instead, they insert beautiful sunny skies. Most of the rendering work is also outsourced to gigantic three-dimensional modeling studios. They mass produce these fantastical representations, inventing their own contextual reality. These specialists are concerned with the marketing of urban fantasies to government officials. To present them in their contextual reality would destroy the fantasy.
Advancements in computer aided design, 3d digital modeling and rendering have contributed to photo realistic depictions of architecture. Images of people participating in various activities are included to add life and atmosphere to the renderings, enabling the clients to better envision what the spaces could achieve and represent. It’s completely acceptable for architecture students and practitioners alike to go as far as adding flying birds, crowds, falling snow/rain, headlight streaks and holiday decorations in renders. These elements add a touch of whimsy to the renders, and create atmospheres that entice clients by going after their interests. There is no way of guaranteeing the success and effect that a project will have, and so these representations are false. Buildings are rendered from angles, colors and lighting that will never be experienced by a client, however, they visually depict the building in the best light possible which is incredibly misleading. Renders essentially control the fate of a project, with minute details such as lighting, and liveliness making all the difference in the success of a project, and its impression on the client.
As the world advances digitally, so does the culture of consumerism. Digital renderings have become a means of ‘consuming’ architecture as we consume everything else today. Those who could afford to travel, would experience great works of architecture as physical objects in space. (Tsu Clog 107) One would pay to travel and experience the colosseum, Bilbao’s Guggenheim museum, or Sydney’s Opera House, whilst those who could not afford to do so would experience those spaces by looking at images and photographs of those spaces. This method of experiencing architecture applies to modern buildings constructed today, where digital renders are consumed by clients and the masses alike, leading to the final product of the building seeming dated and obsolete, as the renderings of the building have already been ‘consumed’.
Furthermore, ‘Renderings are to architecture what a trailer is to a movie’. (Tsu Clog 107) Whilst renderings may give the client an idea of what the building will look like, it subtly conceals the amount of work required to construct it, the difficulties the construction process will go through, as well as any social, political and economical factors that may be involved in the architectural negotiations. The Chinese renderings of certain buildings for instance could conceal the economic difficulties of an area, resulting in the contextually insensitive designs.
Architectural Visualization has dominated the architectural field, so much so that it has become it’s own career path. One example is Alex Hogrefe, who has become renowned by architectural students across the country for his style and tutorials. Many students have come to mimic his style, and rightfully so for its extreme effectiveness at crits. Even an illegible rendering has come to impress the judges. It has become it’s own artform, no longer informing us about any sort of architecture and instead turning us into artists, highlighting a focal point of the project which negates the rest of the design. Whilst renders is one of the best ways of communicating a design to a client as it is easy to read, it should only be used as a tool. The problem with architectural renders is their role in committing clients to a project by architects and developers alike. Renders are taken as accurate depictions of architecture, when they are-and should be-representation of an architect’s concept as one can never foresee what the end product would look like; after being influenced various technological, economical and social factors, as well as the passing of time.
Architecture is inherently a commercial business; the need for photorealistic renders will keep on rising. Hence, architects, 3d visual artists and developers must be aware of the consequences of the ubiquitous photorealistic renders, and work towards finding ways to better depict architecture realistically to clients. While different places employ different strategies, the British regulation of renderings would prove beneficial to all, and is a positive step towards creating authentic depictions of architecture. Although the Chinese fantastical renderings serve a purpose, they disregard reality. How the design affects the public has become secondary to selling the design. The rendering reflects this change in priority and furthermore is a frontrunner in supporting it. By regulating renderings and supporting the realistic representation of design the true effect and usage of buildings becomes a priority over how cool it looks and its development as an icon.
Sources:
- Quirk, Vanessa. “Are Renderings Bad for Architecture?” 06 Jun 2013. ArchDaily. Web.
- Rendering. CLOG magazine, English 2012. Print.
- Harris, Elizabeth A. “Idealized or Caricature, Architectural Renderings Are Weapons in Real Estate.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2013. Web.
- Freeman, Belmont. “Digital Deception.” Placesjournal.org. Design Observer, 1 May 2013. Web.
- Fanning, Colin. “Representing Architecture.” MetropolisMag. Metropolis Magazine, n.d. Web.
- Johnson, Philip. The Seven Crutches of Modern Architecture.Perspecta 3 (1955): 40-45. Print.
Images & Feature Image: Renderings by Peter Guthrie.