202 thoughts on “Post-Digital Aesthetics & Representation”
When reading Rendering Air, the discussion of ‘air’ as a picturesque object reminded me of the English romantic painters; namely J.M.W. Turner, who painted many scenes exploring the effects of the elements on landscape. The Fighting Temeraire, Snow Storm, Rain Steam and Speed, and The Wreck Buoy come to mind as images where the atmosphere drastically impacts the mood of the painting. There was a time in art history when it was rare to see depictions of the weather, especially not in an especially impactful way. The development of the sublime widened the possibilities for what a painting could be. Renderings allow us to create photorealistic images that use lighting, effects, and elements that push them firmly out of the realm of reality. We can feel free to use these tools to express our designs in whatever way we please- a sort of digital sublime. What is the place of para-photorealistic renderings, images that stretch the limits of reality and suspend disbelief, in architectural discourse?
Architecture has a strange interaction with the concept of precedence. Architects love to build in styles, work in schools, and harken back to the classics. Architects will never admit to copying anything (not that it’s nearly as simple as just copying), but a plagiarism of sorts almost certainly happens. This brings up questions of authorship, ownership, and originality. These sort of questions are also being discussed in relation to the ‘post-internet’ age we now find ourselves in. In Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post Internet”, the author claims that “even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance (substance in the sense of both its materiality and its importance) of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of its copies”. Abrons and Fure claim that “post-internet art informs contemporary notions of creativity and authorship. If historically creativity implied imagining something new, today it is a matter of gathering existing content from the web”. There is no question that the internet has changed the culture of copying; but should architecture as a profession accept these ideas? What are the implications of Vierkant’s statement on any of the classic works we study? What are the implications of Abrons and Fure’s claim, which essentially endorses plagiarism?
The first architecture firm I worked in was headed by an old hippie who graduated from McGill in the 70’s. He worked in CAD, but any time he was working with the clients, he preferred to both work in and generate final drawings by hand. “The Image Object Post Internet” echoed many of the thoughts he had on digital representation vs. physical production; “if an object before us in a gallery is only one of an infinite multitude of possible forms that object could take, its value to the viewer becomes little more than a curiosity.” Now that architects have 3D printing and CAM technology, not only images but 3D forms can be digitally reproduced. Does the physical, original object/drawing/model still have a place of importance for architects?
1. In the reading “The Image Object Post-Internet”, the author says “culture and language are fundamentally changed by the ability for anyone to gain free access to the same image-creation tools used by mass-media workers, utilize the same or better structures to disseminate those images, and gain free access to the majority of canonical writings and concepts offered by institutions of higher learning”. With the concern of “everything is anything else”, how should we interpret the change in art as the population of internet? Will the reality of everything becomes everything come true? How should we see this involvement came along with internet, is that positive or negative for the development of culture and society?
2. In the “Rendering Air” we can know the huge difference (from meaning to method) between “rendering” before and after computer’s presences. Nowadays we are more often use digital rendering instead of hand-drawing renders, not only because it is has more visual effects built into those software but it is also saving more time. But are we losing some of the special features of hand-drawings while try to render digitally? How should we see those two as different representations rather than one is more advanced than the other?
3. In both “Rendering Air” and “Digital Divide”, they both see digital drawing as a new media and technic; and this perhaps brought more dramatic changes than the appearance of any other media, because digital drawings brings more possibilities to work between 2D and 3D. However, besides new compose methods, is it opens up new ways to think in terms of arts? Since the presence of computer and internet changes people’s way of living, does it also changes the way people think and represent?
In this week’s topic we are focusing on the post digital influences upon architectural representations, where I think is really a significant but often-ignored issue in our design routines. Being affected by the presence of digital tools, we are more into those computer-based modeling and rendering tools, but sometimes it is not meaning digital is having more advantages over hand-drawings.
Digital tools brought us convenience that letting us to imitate every style we want, just like in “The Image Object Post-Internet” that “everything is anything else”; we are able to create various perspectives, graphic styles, colors, and textures. And it at the same time opens up the possibilities to understand volumes, and easier ways to visualize what we have in the mind. Differ from the old times, it is also possible that the consideration of space may be made rashly. During the hand-drawing period, every aspect was considered carefully, and then drew and crafted; people had more senses of what’s the outcomes. But right now many spaces are created under certain commands—while giving the uniqueness to the space, it may lose some features as a space. I believe post-digital enables possibilities, and it may require more awareness of the designers to the space, otherwise digitization will just bring excitement rather than the precise control of space. Those digital tools should’ve brought more experiences and thinking, not slow down and reduce our thoughts.
1. In “Rendering Air: On Representation of Particles in the Sky,” Andrew Atwood compares the methods of rendering in the past with those of the present. If the technology we use to create images has changed so much, why hasn’t the process by which we create them also changed?
2. In “Digital Divide,” Clair Bishop writes about a lack of connection between contemporary art and technology. Why does this disconnection exist?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality,” Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure talk about the Postdigital era and how it affects different areas of architecture. How far can the postdigital age go, and can computation eventually entirely replace architects?
Do you think that there will be any art that will stem from something brand new and exotic or do you believe that all art will have some sort of prior existing source of inspiration?
When presenting an idea we produce both a digital and physical model, do you think that the physical model holds a certain aspect of the project that the digital model cannot?
With the evolution of technology and the more its applicable to architecture do you believe that, buildings will start to take an algorithmic function to better suit the technology that gets integrated with it?
In response to the presentation, it had brought up several questions to mind. A one of which being “What do actually lose actually when we go with a full digital representation of a project rather than a full physical one? Or a digital with physical one?” with that question pondering my mind I had thought about the effects that both would have on the representation. A digital model is great for showing things that would be hard to show in a physical model such as a what the environment would look like with furniture or how it would react to various stages of the day. But a physical model gives you a feel of how the spaces interact with one another better plus the actual depth of each room and can be seen in full. As well as the shadow casting that takes place on both the interior and exterior. In the end it wouldn’t be beneficial to go full digital and we would benefit from having both variations.
1. It’s interesting thinking about rendering air. It’s all around us, yet we can see it. Im waiting for the day when it will be sold to us… nevertheless, how have architects begun to design the air around their buildings? How should it be represented in the renderings?
2. Is it more important to design architecture for the infamous “money shot” aka Zaha Hadid, or to design good architecture. In reality, buildings directly affect the community and surroundings.
3. Can communication between users become the subject of an aesthetic? One of my classmates thinks they have a good balance between creating playlists and actually listening to them.
First things first, I have to see Manifesto. Why wasn’t I made aware of this movie earlier. There are various rendering styles architects can use at their disposal. Choosing the appropriate rendering style can be the decision between a project becoming a reality or staying on a paper dream. There’s also the question of how far can a render be stretched away from architectural reality. Can what’s rendered be built, should the clients have that expectation? A render can quickly become a lie, deceiving the non-archie savvy to be fooled into believing what’s merely a graphic visual image, that’s not the architecture at all. In his essay “Digital Deception”, written for Design Observer, Belmont Freeman laments this obsession with the perfect, photo-shopped image, which has become – thanks to technology – far too easy to achieve: “our eyes are trained to believe that a photograph is a true representation of an existing condition. Thus in the digital age the graphic representation of architecture has moved beyond an exercise in persuasion; it has become an exercise in deception. Freeman recognizes the deceit that can occur in rendering. When will enough be enough? Or does rendering not even matter at all?
1) In the writing rendering air, it seems that Atwood explains the process of imaging in steps which are as follows. the subject/ idea, composition, form, texture, and atmosphere. as far as imaging goes, what other steps might be included in this process whether that be the philosophical conception of the idea/ subject or object-oriented representation?
2) Rendering is uniquely autonomous to reality because the image representations of the subject have never existed nor will they in that exact material and formal state. it is unique to other disciplines because of the degree of exactness that reality can be represented. how can this be problematized as an architectural medium? what exactly is the benefit of representing an impossible alternate reality?
3) Undoubtedly, the discipline of representing architecture is diverting into two factions. Those who are concerned with the practical, standard representation of structures and those who are concerned with an artistic representation of form. What kind of effects might this have in the real world or the field?
1. Rendering softwares nowadays have many presets that allow you to render nice images without spending time on various adjustments. It makes rendering to be a mode of pure production rather than an integrated aspect of design. What’s your opinion on this?
2. How would architects and artists utilize the available digital tools to push the design industry further?
3. In what way does the digital representation tool change the way we look at architectural design compared to traditional rendering method?
The representational tools in Arts and Architecture have evolved to be easily accessible and less time consuming which makes beautiful results available in a few clicks of mouse. However, sometimes the comprehensive understanding of materials, lighting, and space in traditional method of rendering has faded through rendering presets and templates. It’s important for people in these areas to discover and develop a discourse that not only utilizes such tools but transform these new methods into something productive. Rendering should not only be part of the “production mode” but also part of the workflow that integrates itself into the whole lifespan of a project.
1. Vierkant states that art is a social object, in what way is it an object rather than a platform?
2. Bishop mentions that Contemporary art simultaneously disavows and depends on the digital revolution, even—especially—when the art declines to speak overtly about the conditions of living in and through new media. Is the wave of contemporary design and art stifling or aiding the trend of digital art?
3. In Postdigital Materiality, several images are shown of digital renderings of real world items. Why is it that when physical art and paintings tend to become less interesting as they become more photorealistic?
Art isn’t necessarily only one or the other, although it can be defined as either and it does fall under the definition of a social object, it’s an object creating a human connection between two people. Contemporary art benefits both digital and physical art, due to social media and the rapidness of sharing knowledge. However, if people just look at pictures than it does take away from the experience of seeing the art in person. Digital art becomes more amazing and wonderous the more realistic it achieves, however, it can be the opposite for the physical, the more realistic paintings get, a question is asked, “if it looks like the photo, why not just take the photo instead?”
1. Why do we use technology to create unrealistic photos instead of incredible realistic ones?
2. In “Rendering Air,” William Gilpin discusses painting techniques for creating depth in his paintings. What painting techniques transfer from painting to digital rendering?
3. How does perception differ from reality?
1) Atwood posits that the discourse of architecture in post-digital aesthetics centers increasingly on image culture. Given the difference in dimensions between images and architecture, does architecture liberate image, or does it merely transforms image to other images? If image serves to preserve memories, how does architecture gives more meaning to such purpose?
2) Should architecture compel to viewership? If so, is there an inherent conscience of the public that works of architecture should seek to reciprocate, especially in the context of internet culture?
3) How does architecture respond to the temporal aspect of the internet? Does architecture seek to represent its ephemeral abundance? What is the place for its sense of permanence to be manifested?
Culture and aesthetics are becoming increasingly volatile in the post-digital era. The tendency to remix, estrange and invoke seems to be means to navigate new aesthetic spaces that are at odds with social reality. The space for imagination becomes increasingly dependent on image, difficult to break away from the very planarity that seeks to connect us from around the world, yet also isolate us from each other. It is therefore not unusual to ask a question regarding our bodies. Who are we in this world? Are we consumed culturally by the database we have created? Or are we still in the process of feeding in something new everyday? The time has come to rethink about the deadlock of flatness in culture, and reclaim the role of our bodies in the existence of the post-digital world.
1. Rendering softwares nowadays allow you to create something quickly but takes you a lot of time changing the parameter . It makes playing around with softwares to be more important than an integrated aspect of design. What do you think of this?
2. Did architects use the softwares to push the architecture forward ?
3. In what way does the digital rendering change the way we look at architectural design compared to the traditional architecture drawing ?
The topic is mainly about how the post digital influences upon architectural representations. From my perspective, it is really a crucial issue in our design progress. In most of time, we were spending a lot of time changing in digital tools rather to explore in physical modeling or hand drawing. And always, the tries on changing the parameter is a time-consuming way to get a reasonable outcome.
Digital tools brought us convenience which let us change stuff easily. We are able to change in different form, perspective and even material . They gave us the possibilities to understand volumes no matter how large it may be, and easier ways to visualize what we have in the mind. Different from the traditional method, it might causes that some space would be made unreasonable . During the physical modeling, everything was straightforward. People would be more sensible about what’s going on. While the digital tools creating those cool outcomes of space but taking the rationality from us. I admire what digital tools have brought us, but we shouldn’t abandon the rationality that traditional method has . Those digital tools give us unrestrained possibilities and we should make a good use of them based on the rational routines.
1. One significant impact of the post-digital age is that any information can be so easily fragmented to its digitized bare bone : Non-contextual, non-local, non-linear information, that could extremely benefit the way people think, but on the other hand it also builds up their method of expression in the similar form and manner. Nowadays lots of artworks has put most of its effort into one single moment, without any context; Many artists think of “creating a narrative” as “creating a scene” since to freeze a scene is rather easier than letting the story flow, plus it also benefit the spectator who only has a moment of time. Does the pursue of “dramatic moment” really benefits the expression of art?
2. If yes, in what way and under what standard?
3. Architecture is a discipline falls into this really easily, since the presentation to the client will only need several dramatic moments. Where would it go in the next 100 year?
In contradiction to my statement of the advantage of information technology that has an impact on architecture, the true benefit of it actually should be the exact opposite: the opportunity of simulating the experience beyond our 3-dimensional eye can perceive in a moment, namely, to extend those “moment”. We are partially liberated from the form of presentation which was designed to fit our eyes mostly, but with the 3d modeling & presentation software, we can use a 2-dimensional screen to present 3-dimensional substance with time finally becomes a controlled variable – that is 3.5-d as I call it. The core idea is not to let the architect simply make an animated video moving from one moment to another, but really think thru how those moments together can influence the overall experience, and therefore designing the building towards it.
Today’s presentation highlighted the shift from more traditional models of architectural representation to digital. Glipin’s descriptions of rendering in the traditional sense were touched upon not once but twice, as they show the best contrast between past and current rendering techniques. One part of the presentation that I largely enjoyed was the different types of digital rendering shown. The video of viscosity was very beautifully rendering (though the sound was odd), and the short video unsatisfactory was funny but also showed how different styles of rendering can produce just as lovely an aesthetic while not being wholly realistic. Moving into the digital age, or postdigitalism, there is this play on what is real and what is not. We no longer fight for this sense of keeping, but occasionally try to move past it, to create something outside of the realm of reality that still shows what the design intends. How we move forward and merge the apparent reality and the one that the architecture is trying to sell will certainly be interesting. The movement into the next reality also is pushed by the sense that everything within our current (or old) reality(ies) has already been done before. Art is no longer original (and I do fully intend to watch Manifesto at some point now that I have been made aware of its existence) as every idea has already been thought of, every painting already painted, every sculpture already sculpted. But with the advent of the digital there are new horizons and new concepts to be built upon and developed as we push further into this digital frontier.
This week’s presentation on post-digital representation and aesthetics raised questions of what is truly being represented. With the advancement of technology we are able to render in such a way that looks realistic but is not truthful as to what would happen in real life. The render examples of the vertical garden tower and the scene where light was coming from unrealistic positions are creating a Utopian representation untrue to the to-be built project. In our highly digitized society we are able to do what architects used to do in a fraction of a time. The swiftness in which we do this causes mistakes and misrepresentation. On the other hand we are able to run simulations to increase efficiency and have a better grasp spatially of the project in 3d views. I think dismissing digital art as something not as valid as hand drawing or painting because it is in many cases faster is not the right critique either. The process and formal moves associated with rendering and post-process is as much as an art form. The question is how can we blend this art form to be beautiful, maybe even Utopian in appearance, without misrepresenting ideas?
Imaging and rendering are essential for the architect when it comes to expressing complex concepts to their audience. It becomes significantly more difficult when trying to represent atmospheric condition and natural phenomena through just the use of hard lines, rendering is an essential tool for explaining thoughts. Just like any tool, it can be misused. Renderings can easily misportray a state of reality for a project, therefore, being an image of deceit. However, when utilized correctly, Renderings have the capacity to display a project in a way that no other medium can. Renderings imply provocations concerning materials, atmosphere, perspectival space, and experience that are unmatched by any other form of drawing. Not to mention that renderings are generally one of the broadest ways that the architect can creatively display the project in a manner that is unique, original, and awe-inspiring.
Without the use of technology, how can architects successfully express themselves in their projects? The act of rendering has become an essential part of architecture, it helps to visualize the project in reality and how people will utilize spaces. This week’s presentation discussed the importance of representation, how does a symbol/object retains its representation and does it convey the correct messages to a larger audience/client? Nowadays, people rely on technology for representations a bit too much. The problem is that sometimes they are unaware that even renders can have unrealistic traits. The problem is usually the result of error in rendering or it was on purpose for an unrealistic/futuristic prompt. In Andrew Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, there is a comparison between the rendering methods of the past and present. They talked about how misrepresentation can occur under the slightest detail in anything, sometimes the lighting is abnormally bright/harsh. When comparing representation abilities of renders to traditional art, there are more mistakes occurring in a traditional sketch or painting. Traditional art works better as simply drafts while renders can present the project in a new perspective.
There is a consistent back and forth between the ways in which architectural work is portrayed. The use of renders can either push forward a project or set it back. How far can a project move towards the abstract before it is taken beyond the realistic view? Perhaps we only question the qualities of a render because of the standards companies and programs set. They create images beyond the ordinary in order to produce visually enticing photographs. This includes layering, lighting, shading, texturing, materiality, and physical shape. Photoshop, rhino, illustrator and many other programs contribute to the creation of these renders. Many of these images are beyond what can be created by just pen and paper and are beyond any realism that exists in our world. These ideas and designs will continue to develop and be lead in a completely new direction.
Renders are an essential part of an architect’s project. They are able to convey ideas through images and colors that are arranged to create a sense of satisfaction and wonder to the viewer. While renderings are easily able to create images that are avante garde, they become increasingly difficult when trying to mimic the natural world. I believe that in the capturing natural atmospheres and environments, renders now capture the more spiritual and futuristic essence of life than actual reality. People have more creative freedom with the software today in comparison to when people needed to sketch their renders.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
When reading Rendering Air, the discussion of ‘air’ as a picturesque object reminded me of the English romantic painters; namely J.M.W. Turner, who painted many scenes exploring the effects of the elements on landscape. The Fighting Temeraire, Snow Storm, Rain Steam and Speed, and The Wreck Buoy come to mind as images where the atmosphere drastically impacts the mood of the painting. There was a time in art history when it was rare to see depictions of the weather, especially not in an especially impactful way. The development of the sublime widened the possibilities for what a painting could be. Renderings allow us to create photorealistic images that use lighting, effects, and elements that push them firmly out of the realm of reality. We can feel free to use these tools to express our designs in whatever way we please- a sort of digital sublime. What is the place of para-photorealistic renderings, images that stretch the limits of reality and suspend disbelief, in architectural discourse?
Architecture has a strange interaction with the concept of precedence. Architects love to build in styles, work in schools, and harken back to the classics. Architects will never admit to copying anything (not that it’s nearly as simple as just copying), but a plagiarism of sorts almost certainly happens. This brings up questions of authorship, ownership, and originality. These sort of questions are also being discussed in relation to the ‘post-internet’ age we now find ourselves in. In Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post Internet”, the author claims that “even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance (substance in the sense of both its materiality and its importance) of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of its copies”. Abrons and Fure claim that “post-internet art informs contemporary notions of creativity and authorship. If historically creativity implied imagining something new, today it is a matter of gathering existing content from the web”. There is no question that the internet has changed the culture of copying; but should architecture as a profession accept these ideas? What are the implications of Vierkant’s statement on any of the classic works we study? What are the implications of Abrons and Fure’s claim, which essentially endorses plagiarism?
The first architecture firm I worked in was headed by an old hippie who graduated from McGill in the 70’s. He worked in CAD, but any time he was working with the clients, he preferred to both work in and generate final drawings by hand. “The Image Object Post Internet” echoed many of the thoughts he had on digital representation vs. physical production; “if an object before us in a gallery is only one of an infinite multitude of possible forms that object could take, its value to the viewer becomes little more than a curiosity.” Now that architects have 3D printing and CAM technology, not only images but 3D forms can be digitally reproduced. Does the physical, original object/drawing/model still have a place of importance for architects?
LikeLike
1. In the reading “The Image Object Post-Internet”, the author says “culture and language are fundamentally changed by the ability for anyone to gain free access to the same image-creation tools used by mass-media workers, utilize the same or better structures to disseminate those images, and gain free access to the majority of canonical writings and concepts offered by institutions of higher learning”. With the concern of “everything is anything else”, how should we interpret the change in art as the population of internet? Will the reality of everything becomes everything come true? How should we see this involvement came along with internet, is that positive or negative for the development of culture and society?
2. In the “Rendering Air” we can know the huge difference (from meaning to method) between “rendering” before and after computer’s presences. Nowadays we are more often use digital rendering instead of hand-drawing renders, not only because it is has more visual effects built into those software but it is also saving more time. But are we losing some of the special features of hand-drawings while try to render digitally? How should we see those two as different representations rather than one is more advanced than the other?
3. In both “Rendering Air” and “Digital Divide”, they both see digital drawing as a new media and technic; and this perhaps brought more dramatic changes than the appearance of any other media, because digital drawings brings more possibilities to work between 2D and 3D. However, besides new compose methods, is it opens up new ways to think in terms of arts? Since the presence of computer and internet changes people’s way of living, does it also changes the way people think and represent?
LikeLike
In this week’s topic we are focusing on the post digital influences upon architectural representations, where I think is really a significant but often-ignored issue in our design routines. Being affected by the presence of digital tools, we are more into those computer-based modeling and rendering tools, but sometimes it is not meaning digital is having more advantages over hand-drawings.
Digital tools brought us convenience that letting us to imitate every style we want, just like in “The Image Object Post-Internet” that “everything is anything else”; we are able to create various perspectives, graphic styles, colors, and textures. And it at the same time opens up the possibilities to understand volumes, and easier ways to visualize what we have in the mind. Differ from the old times, it is also possible that the consideration of space may be made rashly. During the hand-drawing period, every aspect was considered carefully, and then drew and crafted; people had more senses of what’s the outcomes. But right now many spaces are created under certain commands—while giving the uniqueness to the space, it may lose some features as a space. I believe post-digital enables possibilities, and it may require more awareness of the designers to the space, otherwise digitization will just bring excitement rather than the precise control of space. Those digital tools should’ve brought more experiences and thinking, not slow down and reduce our thoughts.
LikeLike
1. In “Rendering Air: On Representation of Particles in the Sky,” Andrew Atwood compares the methods of rendering in the past with those of the present. If the technology we use to create images has changed so much, why hasn’t the process by which we create them also changed?
2. In “Digital Divide,” Clair Bishop writes about a lack of connection between contemporary art and technology. Why does this disconnection exist?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality,” Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure talk about the Postdigital era and how it affects different areas of architecture. How far can the postdigital age go, and can computation eventually entirely replace architects?
LikeLike
Do you think that there will be any art that will stem from something brand new and exotic or do you believe that all art will have some sort of prior existing source of inspiration?
When presenting an idea we produce both a digital and physical model, do you think that the physical model holds a certain aspect of the project that the digital model cannot?
With the evolution of technology and the more its applicable to architecture do you believe that, buildings will start to take an algorithmic function to better suit the technology that gets integrated with it?
LikeLike
In response to the presentation, it had brought up several questions to mind. A one of which being “What do actually lose actually when we go with a full digital representation of a project rather than a full physical one? Or a digital with physical one?” with that question pondering my mind I had thought about the effects that both would have on the representation. A digital model is great for showing things that would be hard to show in a physical model such as a what the environment would look like with furniture or how it would react to various stages of the day. But a physical model gives you a feel of how the spaces interact with one another better plus the actual depth of each room and can be seen in full. As well as the shadow casting that takes place on both the interior and exterior. In the end it wouldn’t be beneficial to go full digital and we would benefit from having both variations.
LikeLike
1. It’s interesting thinking about rendering air. It’s all around us, yet we can see it. Im waiting for the day when it will be sold to us… nevertheless, how have architects begun to design the air around their buildings? How should it be represented in the renderings?
2. Is it more important to design architecture for the infamous “money shot” aka Zaha Hadid, or to design good architecture. In reality, buildings directly affect the community and surroundings.
3. Can communication between users become the subject of an aesthetic? One of my classmates thinks they have a good balance between creating playlists and actually listening to them.
LikeLike
First things first, I have to see Manifesto. Why wasn’t I made aware of this movie earlier. There are various rendering styles architects can use at their disposal. Choosing the appropriate rendering style can be the decision between a project becoming a reality or staying on a paper dream. There’s also the question of how far can a render be stretched away from architectural reality. Can what’s rendered be built, should the clients have that expectation? A render can quickly become a lie, deceiving the non-archie savvy to be fooled into believing what’s merely a graphic visual image, that’s not the architecture at all. In his essay “Digital Deception”, written for Design Observer, Belmont Freeman laments this obsession with the perfect, photo-shopped image, which has become – thanks to technology – far too easy to achieve: “our eyes are trained to believe that a photograph is a true representation of an existing condition. Thus in the digital age the graphic representation of architecture has moved beyond an exercise in persuasion; it has become an exercise in deception. Freeman recognizes the deceit that can occur in rendering. When will enough be enough? Or does rendering not even matter at all?
LikeLike
1) In the writing rendering air, it seems that Atwood explains the process of imaging in steps which are as follows. the subject/ idea, composition, form, texture, and atmosphere. as far as imaging goes, what other steps might be included in this process whether that be the philosophical conception of the idea/ subject or object-oriented representation?
2) Rendering is uniquely autonomous to reality because the image representations of the subject have never existed nor will they in that exact material and formal state. it is unique to other disciplines because of the degree of exactness that reality can be represented. how can this be problematized as an architectural medium? what exactly is the benefit of representing an impossible alternate reality?
3) Undoubtedly, the discipline of representing architecture is diverting into two factions. Those who are concerned with the practical, standard representation of structures and those who are concerned with an artistic representation of form. What kind of effects might this have in the real world or the field?
LikeLike
1. Rendering softwares nowadays have many presets that allow you to render nice images without spending time on various adjustments. It makes rendering to be a mode of pure production rather than an integrated aspect of design. What’s your opinion on this?
2. How would architects and artists utilize the available digital tools to push the design industry further?
3. In what way does the digital representation tool change the way we look at architectural design compared to traditional rendering method?
LikeLike
The representational tools in Arts and Architecture have evolved to be easily accessible and less time consuming which makes beautiful results available in a few clicks of mouse. However, sometimes the comprehensive understanding of materials, lighting, and space in traditional method of rendering has faded through rendering presets and templates. It’s important for people in these areas to discover and develop a discourse that not only utilizes such tools but transform these new methods into something productive. Rendering should not only be part of the “production mode” but also part of the workflow that integrates itself into the whole lifespan of a project.
LikeLike
1. Vierkant states that art is a social object, in what way is it an object rather than a platform?
2. Bishop mentions that Contemporary art simultaneously disavows and depends on the digital revolution, even—especially—when the art declines to speak overtly about the conditions of living in and through new media. Is the wave of contemporary design and art stifling or aiding the trend of digital art?
3. In Postdigital Materiality, several images are shown of digital renderings of real world items. Why is it that when physical art and paintings tend to become less interesting as they become more photorealistic?
LikeLike
Art isn’t necessarily only one or the other, although it can be defined as either and it does fall under the definition of a social object, it’s an object creating a human connection between two people. Contemporary art benefits both digital and physical art, due to social media and the rapidness of sharing knowledge. However, if people just look at pictures than it does take away from the experience of seeing the art in person. Digital art becomes more amazing and wonderous the more realistic it achieves, however, it can be the opposite for the physical, the more realistic paintings get, a question is asked, “if it looks like the photo, why not just take the photo instead?”
LikeLike
1. Why do we use technology to create unrealistic photos instead of incredible realistic ones?
2. In “Rendering Air,” William Gilpin discusses painting techniques for creating depth in his paintings. What painting techniques transfer from painting to digital rendering?
3. How does perception differ from reality?
LikeLike
1) Atwood posits that the discourse of architecture in post-digital aesthetics centers increasingly on image culture. Given the difference in dimensions between images and architecture, does architecture liberate image, or does it merely transforms image to other images? If image serves to preserve memories, how does architecture gives more meaning to such purpose?
2) Should architecture compel to viewership? If so, is there an inherent conscience of the public that works of architecture should seek to reciprocate, especially in the context of internet culture?
3) How does architecture respond to the temporal aspect of the internet? Does architecture seek to represent its ephemeral abundance? What is the place for its sense of permanence to be manifested?
LikeLike
Culture and aesthetics are becoming increasingly volatile in the post-digital era. The tendency to remix, estrange and invoke seems to be means to navigate new aesthetic spaces that are at odds with social reality. The space for imagination becomes increasingly dependent on image, difficult to break away from the very planarity that seeks to connect us from around the world, yet also isolate us from each other. It is therefore not unusual to ask a question regarding our bodies. Who are we in this world? Are we consumed culturally by the database we have created? Or are we still in the process of feeding in something new everyday? The time has come to rethink about the deadlock of flatness in culture, and reclaim the role of our bodies in the existence of the post-digital world.
LikeLike
1. Rendering softwares nowadays allow you to create something quickly but takes you a lot of time changing the parameter . It makes playing around with softwares to be more important than an integrated aspect of design. What do you think of this?
2. Did architects use the softwares to push the architecture forward ?
3. In what way does the digital rendering change the way we look at architectural design compared to the traditional architecture drawing ?
LikeLike
The topic is mainly about how the post digital influences upon architectural representations. From my perspective, it is really a crucial issue in our design progress. In most of time, we were spending a lot of time changing in digital tools rather to explore in physical modeling or hand drawing. And always, the tries on changing the parameter is a time-consuming way to get a reasonable outcome.
Digital tools brought us convenience which let us change stuff easily. We are able to change in different form, perspective and even material . They gave us the possibilities to understand volumes no matter how large it may be, and easier ways to visualize what we have in the mind. Different from the traditional method, it might causes that some space would be made unreasonable . During the physical modeling, everything was straightforward. People would be more sensible about what’s going on. While the digital tools creating those cool outcomes of space but taking the rationality from us. I admire what digital tools have brought us, but we shouldn’t abandon the rationality that traditional method has . Those digital tools give us unrestrained possibilities and we should make a good use of them based on the rational routines.
LikeLike
1. One significant impact of the post-digital age is that any information can be so easily fragmented to its digitized bare bone : Non-contextual, non-local, non-linear information, that could extremely benefit the way people think, but on the other hand it also builds up their method of expression in the similar form and manner. Nowadays lots of artworks has put most of its effort into one single moment, without any context; Many artists think of “creating a narrative” as “creating a scene” since to freeze a scene is rather easier than letting the story flow, plus it also benefit the spectator who only has a moment of time. Does the pursue of “dramatic moment” really benefits the expression of art?
2. If yes, in what way and under what standard?
3. Architecture is a discipline falls into this really easily, since the presentation to the client will only need several dramatic moments. Where would it go in the next 100 year?
LikeLike
In contradiction to my statement of the advantage of information technology that has an impact on architecture, the true benefit of it actually should be the exact opposite: the opportunity of simulating the experience beyond our 3-dimensional eye can perceive in a moment, namely, to extend those “moment”. We are partially liberated from the form of presentation which was designed to fit our eyes mostly, but with the 3d modeling & presentation software, we can use a 2-dimensional screen to present 3-dimensional substance with time finally becomes a controlled variable – that is 3.5-d as I call it. The core idea is not to let the architect simply make an animated video moving from one moment to another, but really think thru how those moments together can influence the overall experience, and therefore designing the building towards it.
LikeLike
Today’s presentation highlighted the shift from more traditional models of architectural representation to digital. Glipin’s descriptions of rendering in the traditional sense were touched upon not once but twice, as they show the best contrast between past and current rendering techniques. One part of the presentation that I largely enjoyed was the different types of digital rendering shown. The video of viscosity was very beautifully rendering (though the sound was odd), and the short video unsatisfactory was funny but also showed how different styles of rendering can produce just as lovely an aesthetic while not being wholly realistic. Moving into the digital age, or postdigitalism, there is this play on what is real and what is not. We no longer fight for this sense of keeping, but occasionally try to move past it, to create something outside of the realm of reality that still shows what the design intends. How we move forward and merge the apparent reality and the one that the architecture is trying to sell will certainly be interesting. The movement into the next reality also is pushed by the sense that everything within our current (or old) reality(ies) has already been done before. Art is no longer original (and I do fully intend to watch Manifesto at some point now that I have been made aware of its existence) as every idea has already been thought of, every painting already painted, every sculpture already sculpted. But with the advent of the digital there are new horizons and new concepts to be built upon and developed as we push further into this digital frontier.
LikeLike
This week’s presentation on post-digital representation and aesthetics raised questions of what is truly being represented. With the advancement of technology we are able to render in such a way that looks realistic but is not truthful as to what would happen in real life. The render examples of the vertical garden tower and the scene where light was coming from unrealistic positions are creating a Utopian representation untrue to the to-be built project. In our highly digitized society we are able to do what architects used to do in a fraction of a time. The swiftness in which we do this causes mistakes and misrepresentation. On the other hand we are able to run simulations to increase efficiency and have a better grasp spatially of the project in 3d views. I think dismissing digital art as something not as valid as hand drawing or painting because it is in many cases faster is not the right critique either. The process and formal moves associated with rendering and post-process is as much as an art form. The question is how can we blend this art form to be beautiful, maybe even Utopian in appearance, without misrepresenting ideas?
LikeLike
Imaging and rendering are essential for the architect when it comes to expressing complex concepts to their audience. It becomes significantly more difficult when trying to represent atmospheric condition and natural phenomena through just the use of hard lines, rendering is an essential tool for explaining thoughts. Just like any tool, it can be misused. Renderings can easily misportray a state of reality for a project, therefore, being an image of deceit. However, when utilized correctly, Renderings have the capacity to display a project in a way that no other medium can. Renderings imply provocations concerning materials, atmosphere, perspectival space, and experience that are unmatched by any other form of drawing. Not to mention that renderings are generally one of the broadest ways that the architect can creatively display the project in a manner that is unique, original, and awe-inspiring.
LikeLike
Without the use of technology, how can architects successfully express themselves in their projects? The act of rendering has become an essential part of architecture, it helps to visualize the project in reality and how people will utilize spaces. This week’s presentation discussed the importance of representation, how does a symbol/object retains its representation and does it convey the correct messages to a larger audience/client? Nowadays, people rely on technology for representations a bit too much. The problem is that sometimes they are unaware that even renders can have unrealistic traits. The problem is usually the result of error in rendering or it was on purpose for an unrealistic/futuristic prompt. In Andrew Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, there is a comparison between the rendering methods of the past and present. They talked about how misrepresentation can occur under the slightest detail in anything, sometimes the lighting is abnormally bright/harsh. When comparing representation abilities of renders to traditional art, there are more mistakes occurring in a traditional sketch or painting. Traditional art works better as simply drafts while renders can present the project in a new perspective.
LikeLike
There is a consistent back and forth between the ways in which architectural work is portrayed. The use of renders can either push forward a project or set it back. How far can a project move towards the abstract before it is taken beyond the realistic view? Perhaps we only question the qualities of a render because of the standards companies and programs set. They create images beyond the ordinary in order to produce visually enticing photographs. This includes layering, lighting, shading, texturing, materiality, and physical shape. Photoshop, rhino, illustrator and many other programs contribute to the creation of these renders. Many of these images are beyond what can be created by just pen and paper and are beyond any realism that exists in our world. These ideas and designs will continue to develop and be lead in a completely new direction.
LikeLike
Renders are an essential part of an architect’s project. They are able to convey ideas through images and colors that are arranged to create a sense of satisfaction and wonder to the viewer. While renderings are easily able to create images that are avante garde, they become increasingly difficult when trying to mimic the natural world. I believe that in the capturing natural atmospheres and environments, renders now capture the more spiritual and futuristic essence of life than actual reality. People have more creative freedom with the software today in comparison to when people needed to sketch their renders.
LikeLike