really off topic

[suitaloon]

Ok, I'm sure you guys are going to think I'm a fool or something, but everybody in this forum seems to be really passionate about what they're doing.

Every body comes here for any technical question about vray and 3d and most of the time finds the answer. But I'm starting to be a little worried about the obsession we have to get ultra realistic renderings; here is why: I'm an architect now doing renderings, and I see the influence of this representation type on architecture as being the most important way of giving credit to an architecture project, and on any project in general (cars, technological object, even political projects sometimes...). As long as there is a computer simulation that prooves that it can be real, the project is good. The problem to me is that whenever you achieve reality in an image, when you get to the point where the image looks like a picture, it's because you represent something that already exists (you reproduce a cheesy living room, you use a concrete photograph as a mapping, etc...)
How can we support a discipline that says "any project is good as long as it is already there"? What's the point? I think we should try to avoid realism if we want to be responsible creators, and even if we have to argue with our clients. Maybe some of you would like to share their thougts on this matter?

[natty]

hi suitaloon.. welcome to the forum

i think you are right in some cases only.
i work in the interior's bussines where things dont exist and the clients need to know what there 5 million pound project is going to look like. most cant read 2D plans (nearly all), so we use 3D to sell the client the space, and 9 times out of 10 im pretty spot on in my reprisentation of the design... so long live Vray and photorealness.

[suitaloon]

Well, I din't mean that Vray was a bad thing or that, in some cases, there wasn't a need for a convicing simulation of a future object that was representing a big money investment. I love using vray, and I think it's a beautiful goal for it's programmers to try to improve it in the direction fo photorealism. At the same time, I 'm starting to have the feeling that our society is facing an enormous lack of imagination because it is trapped in realism.
Therefore, I was just trying to consider the possibility for a way of being both creative and somewhat "politically" responsible by trying to intentionally "missuse" the wonderful tools that we're using to represent the objects that we have to represent in a different way, giving more space to the spectator to build his own image from our work.

[percydaman]

I get creative in striving to reproduce realism. Yes some might say that reproduction isn't exactly creativity, but if its an object or image that came out of my head, then how is it not creative?


percy

[natty]

yeah i agree .. i think trying to replicate the true enviroment through cgi is an art form in itself.
as for lack of imagination, i think that is purley down to the 3D Artist to be a cgi designer and put himself or herself wholey into there enviroment and to create a stylish and fresh, real or not real reprisentation of the space or what ever.

I dont replicate buildings or design them, i hopefully realise the architects dream or the interior designer's vision. i am the third eye ... lolol.. or try to be.

[suitaloon]

I agree with both of your posts, and thanks for sharing this discussion (that's completely non productive). Trying to achieve realism is a creative goal to me as long as this realism questions itself and its limits as a representation of things and as a phenomenon in itself. I don' t know if you guys now the work of Ryuta Amae. He is a very skilled 3d artist (and actually gets his stuff in art galleries and such), and can achieve some impressively realistc renderings, but inside his images there is always some kind of question about the artificiallity of the image(for instance, he would make a very nice and realistic image of a fountain, but he would show some kind of moive set structure at the bottom of the image to show it's fake..) Of course when you're an illustrator for architect, you can't go as far as showing the fakeness of the image just to make you're point. But I guess I'm just looking for an ethical justification: wether we wan't it or not, one of the bad consequences of our job is that it only strengthen the tendency of our society to try to scientiphycally predict the future in such a way that the prediction itself becomes the only goal of our society (and to me, that's what happen with photorealism in architectural representation).

[reza]

the world dosent stop spining.

We have to be on the cutting edge to compete with our competitors. If someone shows an image that doesn’t look as good as a person with a more realistic image...who do you think will get the job. A client will evaluate and makes a decision based on what he sees; the better image usually gets the job. Why? Because the clients know that this guy with the good image knows what he is presenting. And about it already exist...its not true, clients know that the project doesn’t exist...they know that we work hard to give the best presentation we can. So why give it to someone else. If this is your case…we might as well tell Vray to close shop, because we don’t need it. The world is moving and things will even be more complicated…we never needed PDA’s or Tablets before…cause we had pen and paper…but do you want to stay with pen and paper when you can have better equipment. go forth and discover.

[suitaloon]

Reza, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not trying to be polemical, or to bash on other's work, and I now the business, I've been in it for 5 years now, with what you could call some success (I have clients, I work alot, and I make good money...). I'm just trying to start a discussion, on the "off topic" forum" as you can see, that's not ONLY about technical stuff because I believe there's plenty of intelligent and talented people browsing this forum and sometimes participating.
I just think it's good for every body to stop and think about what one is doing and what could be the true meaning of most of the time a meaningless "artform" such as ours. Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to get of vray or rendering program, or to throw my cell phone in the trash can. But sometimes, maybe because I'm originally an architect and not a rendering guy, I feel a bit empty when I finish a job, even if I did a nice image. And I ask myself question. So if your point was just to stop this discussion, well that's fine with me and I can stop it. But if you want to stop and think for a minute about what you're doing, and not about "the client" or "the job" or "who's gonna win", then let's talk together and, for once, let's use the offf topic forum for something that's useful for all even if it's not technical.

[reza]

Sorry..

Didn’t mean to be defensive or anything...but I have been teaching Max and Viz with Autodesk/Discreet training center for about 10 years now. And what I teach is about using software to explore the things a person can do with the latest technology. And like I mention earlier technology brings us forward. It’s true than CG is taking over the architecture and interior industries, but this is just another transformation of how we do things. To some point I do agree that hand sketch requires skills compared to CG. Almost anyone can take CG it up. To see is to make believe. Once again, sorry.

[cocolas]

To some point I do agree that hand sketch requires skills compared to CG. Almost anyone can take CG it up

I think that's a good point.....infact that's why high profile FX companies look at an artist often time more for his traditional art skills rather then strictly what software one uses/knows......some one at Pixar said that you can teach an artist with a trained eye any software but it doesn't quite work the other way around.....

so the bottom line is....software itself is just a tool......

as for suitaloon's point.....I kinda see where you're coming from....I have an arch background and in school most profs and students tried to stay away from the photreal..."merely reproducing reality"...but I think percy made a good point as well: what if that what you're trying to create is just in your head and you want it to be realistic to convey your idea across......then photorealsim is just a medium to convey that.....as an artistic hand schetch would be...not inferior or superior but just a different way of conveying an idea.

as for "reproduce a cheesy living room"......well, I guess that just up to the designer then the software or photorealist rendering sofware...a cheesy livingroom, as you put it....is a cheesy living room whether you render it photorealisticly or through a traditional art painting....

so...it's about a tool used to espress or convey an idea......

paul.

[RErender]

There cannot be any better way to represent a design than through photorealism, all others are a misrepresentation or to be kind, an interpretation. The ultimate extension is/will be photoreal augmented reality. This is the only way that a design can be fully understood by any and all who see it.

Is it art? To me it is at the very least, beauty.

[suitaloon]

Re render, I think by saying that you are somewhat prooving my point. The democratic (not democrat) being is able to uunderstand and accept the non reality of representation, the "distance" between image and object. Becaue you believe in progre through technology, you consider that we're tending to achieve a perfect fusion between the two that would make the image real. I personnaly consider that it is either a lie or an enormous problem: either the images that we produce are still representations and thus not better or worse than any of the images produced before (other than the fact that they find their jutification on a lie: the truth is in technology), or they are trying to become and replace the reality by acquiring the status of object (which, in a way would be the worst of the two). As conceptors of these images, I'm just thinking that maybe we should try to adress this issue in some way... I don't know how, and that's why I started this discussion in some way. I talk about this a lot with friends, but I figured you guys know better after all.
Cocolas, I understand your point. But to me the way you render it matters the most. Only the photoshop generation can consider that the differnce between two representation is a matter of "filter" (ie a painting is the same as a 3d rendering as long as it represents the same thing from the same view point). And about the "cheesy living room", I was not deconsedering the work that's produce, and I understand that the goal of the authors is never the subject but more the technique. But I think there is generally not enough thinking on the subject. Maybe it's not the place to talk about that, but since it is the "really off topic thread", why not?

[RErender]

Silly me i thought we were discussing design viz

It is my opinion that Reza was right on when he wrote "We have to be on the cutting edge to compete with our competitors".

[Long John]

use povray....

[Dogzilla]

RErender:

There cannot be any better way to represent a design than through photorealism, all others are a misrepresentation or to be kind, an interpretation. The ultimate extension is/will be photoreal augmented reality. This is the only way that a design can be fully understood by any and all who see it.

Is it art? To me it is at the very least, beauty.

but photo-realism is no more real, no less interpretive that any other method of representation.

[photo-realism = reality] is a fallacy invented by software developers (sorry vlado, peter...heh heh). at best CG rendering is photo-imitation. by that, imean; it is striving to be a perfect simulation of a simulation.

photo-realism is not truth. it is exactly, in its very essence, a misrepresentation. it is a simulation of reality...but not a simulated reality.

a photograph of an apple is not an apple. the best camera, artist, lighting, developing, etc, is never going to change that! as stated by suitaloon in his last post - ...or they are trying to become and replace the reality by acquiring the status of object... i agree, i think there may be that belief developing...

photo-realism is a piece of the world squashed flat, as observed from a single point in space. have you read much on perspectivism in the renaissance period? never mind the mechanics of it, but how it changed people's perception of space and their place in it, becoming observer, detached from the observed objects, etc...i think it will interest you.

spelling mistakes be damned