really off topic

[jujubee]

I think you fail to realise- it is never there.

[RErender]

Hehe, Jujubee - I think you have hit on the very essence of suitaloon's concerns.

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

Ofcourse in a physical sense this is completely true, but in a metaphysical sense doesn't it become more real as our ability to discern pr works from reality blurs?

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

Yes, but it is the truest simulation of reality that does not require reality to pre-exist.

a photograph of an apple is not an apple...

That is the fun part, we are not limited to a flat reresentation. Soon we will have the tools to "display" our renderings in real 3D space. The science of Augmented Reality along with Haptics will give us the tools to see, smell , touch and interact with this apple.

It is my position that no other representation will give a person a better understanding of a design than Photorealism and it's natural progression to Virtual Reality.

edit: added one letter and deleted one word

[Dogzilla]

That is the fun part, we are not limited to a flat reresentation. Soon we will have the tools to "display" our renderings in real 3D space. The science of Augmented Reality along with Haptics will give us the tools to see, smell , touch and interact with this apple.

yeah but what apple? it still isn't going to be an apple is it. we will still be perspectivist observers of a re-presentation of an apple - it's really only a baby step past the renaissance artists and their canvas. sounds a bit like Simstim (Gibson) heh heh.

[roppin]

This is interesting. I have been thinking the same and reading the same. I think the problem is not the creative side like architects and designers, but the other side. those who by your stuff, interior design and architecture, they are realy pore when it comes to imagination, and pictures have realy gone to be the most used rethorical media of today. I once heard the centens " the copy confirms the the original" wich is a postmodern perception. and it´s many times when we refer to the copy when we see the real thing. imagin your in the countryside during winter and it is a lot of snow. What do you say to your self?- its like a christmas-card, or like disney. that must sure be the case for you who live in Culifornia
Think if IBM got constructed today? it would not be a simple IBM, it would be an IBM together whith some mascot. There is a problem allso to show a new material visualized. Whitout any referens there is no way to say if its a bad rendering or a odd material. I remember from visiting material conection that there is allot of materials that just make you wonder if its real. I mean this would be a hard thing even for a photographer.
anyway. Interesting
/Daniel

[mike_kennedy]

I think you have to look at this topic from the angle of art vs commerce.
I don't do arch viz very often, I do medical. we rarely go totally photo realistic because we have to make it obvious for legal reason that what we are doing is fake and not real. We still strive for "photorealizm, but we use bright not found in nature colors to make sure the viewer understands it is CG they are looking at.
How ever, for the arch viz that I do I strive for the most photo realistic image I can produce on budget and deadline. Why, because my designer has already done artistic sketches and my job is to do something absolutely real so the client is convinced that the concept works and signs off.
I am going for comemrce in this case and at the early stages my designer is going more towards the artistic.