202 thoughts on “Post-Digital Aesthetics & Representation”
1. In Rendering Air, Atwood discusses the process of creating renders on the computer to create images of your project, and how renders today are different from the renders of the past, done with layering hatches, and being hand drawn. Because there has become such a deeper technology on render creation, has the importance of renders in explaining ones work increased? Are renders more important than plans or sections in terms of explaining your parti?
2. In Digital Divide, the question, “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital” is posed. My question is why is there a push for everything to move into the technological world? Can we keep some things and some types of art the way they are, or is not evolving bad?
3. In Postdigital Materiality, there is a line that states ” that digital technology is increasingly shaping our perceivable world”. Can this be dangerous? These days Photoshop can be used to create fake images, and sometimes renders are meant to look like photographs. Will we get to a point where we can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fake? Are we already at that point?
During the discussion in class, multiple times we were shown images of a render vs. the actual project built in real life. The two are often completely different as the building in real life can’t live up to the standards of a render. This brings up many questions and thoughts. Are we as architects becoming liars and hurting the field of architecture by essentially lying through are renders to get a project sold or win a competition? And outside of architecture, renders are becoming more and more beautiful and realistic. This is seen especially through video games and new virtual realities. In a movie called ready player one, people essentially “live” in their realities because they believe it’s better than the real world. Are renders pushing people to want to live in a virtual world since we can’t live up to the expectations of the digital world?
1. In “Rendering Air”, Atwood discusses the process of creating renders on the computer to create images of your project, and how renders today are different from the renders of the past, done with layering hatches, and being hand drawn. Because there has become such a deeper technology on render creation, has the importance of renders in explaining ones work increased? Are renders more important than plans or sections in terms of explaining your parti?
2. In “Digital Divide”, the question, “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital” is posed. My question is why is there a push for everything to move into the technological world? Can we keep some things and some types of art the way they are, or is not evolving bad?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality”, there is a line that states ” that digital technology is increasingly shaping our perceivable world”. Can this be dangerous? These days Photoshop can be used to create fake images, and sometimes renders are meant to look like photographs. Will we get to a point where we can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fake? Are we already at that point?
1. In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood examines the history of rendering, highlighting the texture and layering techniques that draftsmen employed pre-computer. He explains the methods with which to abstract the figures and objects as they grow further away from the representational plane, using additional color washes for every step deeper into the z-plane. Such a technique compares, to ‘z-blur,’ which utilizes the render-camera’s z-buffer to distort the planes as they correspond to their distances the focal-center. Does convenience, fluidity and information-capacity of computer-output rendering provide that much advantage over hand-drafting techniques, or are there still areas where hand-renderings are preferred? do certain projects still warrant hand-renderings as a stylistic necessity?
2. Claire Bishop writes candidly of the art community’s surprising withdrawal from digital technologies as classic media like celluloid and vinyl become popular and “fashionable” once again, almost in response to the proliferation of digitized life. Interestingly, though, she discussed the internet’s having created an explosion of research-based art, as the access to information becomes more convenient, pervasive, and exhaustive than ever before. As a result, most modern physical art– however far removed from cyber-representation– maintains digital roots. Is digital-influence better left behind the scenes in light of tangible, physically appealing experiences, or have methods like virtual-reality and immersive projection have just yet to gain traction in the contemporary-art community?
3. Photogrammetry is an interesting post-digital technique, able to produce super accurate meshes with perfectly-mapped textures of any photographed object. The more angles one captures the object from, the more accurately the software can replicate the object to create hyper-realistic renderings. Inevitably, i’m sure we all have the same thought: can architects (and students) apply this technique to our own renderings as a means of adding realism or clarity?
1. Claire Bishop in ‘Digital Divide’ talks of the nostalgic nature the use of media in art, elaborating on how art in general has not reacted to the same degree as the rest of the world. She calls to examining contemporary media for communication and expression as an outlet for legitimate art. How is this phenomenon expressed in contemporary architecture?
2. In Rendering Air, Andrew Atwood talks about how the meaning of the phrase “to render” has changed with time and the continuous evolution of easily accessible technology. He talks about how the practice was historically done by hand and only just recently have digital renderings become an accepted practice. Is there a loss of creativity and individuality in digital media and does this hinder architecture to be an expressive form of art?
3. Adam Fure and Ellie Abrons in “Postdigital Materiality” examine how the pervasiveness of technology and digital media in the world has ultimately led to its subconscious in-validation by the general sphere as being an illegitimate form of media for art. They call for this condition to be re-examined and for digital media to be used not to attempt to render something indistinguishable from reality but to make a new reality altogether. How can this philosophy be applied to architecture to further push the bounds of architectures ability to create new, unexplored, spacial conditions.
This lecture examined how the digital capabilities of visual representation has evolved exponentially with time to the point that most professionals do not have a full handle on it. As was discussed, this phenomenon leads to different styles of art and expression that was previously unimaginable – thereby forcing it into the realm of “illegitimate” art. In architecture digital abilities have given architects the ability to render detail to the point of making something look like reality – this is both a positive and negative aspect. The positive is the obvious fact that architects now have the tools to put their creations into the (virtual) real world and to experience them before their creation. The negative side of this is the fact that architects do not necessarily create the most realistic representations of their projects for the sake of “instagram-ability”. As current technology progresses and sharing information becomes easier, it makes it harder to create something that truly stands out in the void of the internet; over-exaggeration and the fantastic are more prone to recognition than something that looks ordinary and real.
1. There is this constant desire to create something “new” and “progressive.” In our Post- Internet Society is it possible to truly do this or will there always be some kind of historic lineage that leads to the end product?
2. Mass media is a popular method to distribute anything and everything. Do you think this accelerated method of distribution has helped or hurt “art?”
3. In “Digital Divide” by Claire Bishop, she focuses on how art through digital methods have affected the overall craft and how different artist have used or disregarded the evolving technology. With this in mind what aspects from “classic art” would you use to further innovate the “digital art?”
1. In “Rendering Air”, Atwood believes that current render styles and techniques lack the ability to create interesting discourse. While abstract rendering may be frequently used in education, would the effects translate when it is used in practice?
2. Vierkant believes that the internet has damaged our ability to communicate, with the excessive use of “they” and “we”. Has the internet had any consequences on architectural discourse?
3. Is there an absolute utilization of the internet in architecture? Are there any aspects of the internet that are currently being underutilized within the discipline?
The debate about representation in architecture has seemingly come to a point in today’s architectural climate. Rendering technology has come far enough where many can produce near-photo-realistic images representing their buildings. The ethical question is how far should the architect be able to push these renders before they become set in a utopian world. Far too often architects are slandered for building unrealistic hype with phenomenal renders, yet the architects job is to show their project in the best light, and literally “sell” it to a client. I wouldn’t reduce the issue to the fault of one person or another, but rather the industry for creating unrealistic rendering standards. Since rendering software has improved, the singularity of renders has decreased. Perhaps the initiative should be to find more ways to creatively represent architecture, rather than making renders look more “realistic”. Regardless, the art of rendering seems to have arrived at a standstill, and that needs to change.
1.In ‘Post digital Materiality,’ Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure discuss the new aesthetic theory of the postdigital and how currently, individuals, particularly within architecture, seem to be focusing more on the easiness of technological design rather than the newness that could be found in hidden computation aspects. Do we favor ‘easy’ tools like make2d, render tools and cracked software because of laziness or because we are forced into it by unachievable societal expectations on the timeline of life achievements? Does trusting what is widely used and known by society at large, minimize our ability to reflect on important cultural questions that digital design does not address? Does this limit our progress as architects and as a society as a whole?
2. On the other hand, even with a world that revolves around technology, art and architecture are constantly looking to precedents as critical references, often creating new work as a response to history. The question of whether classical art is just stemming from art questions originality and authorship, while technological art is often just collecting or preserving objects in digital form, both of which respond to history, without much engagement in the technological present. Is art exhausted? Will architecture become irrelevant if it does not begin to assess the modern day effects of technology and social practices?
3. In ‘Rendering Air,’ Atwood describes the differences between the traditional vs technical image and how the term rendering as changed over time from making a 2D object look 3D to making a 3D model into a 2D image. Currently architects mostly do the latter, that is creating a 2D traditional image from a technology driven 3D model without truly understanding how that technology works and the technical processes within it. If architects were to fully understand these processes what could be achieved? Are image production techniques something that should be taught in design school and if so how would this affect the rest of architectural discourse?
Computation and technology bring a fast paced workflow while still allowing for technical precision. Even with techniques like descriptive geometry where tools are used to increase the precision of hand drawings, the time required to create the same drawing would be much faster in a computer. Perhaps modern day favors technology because of the pressures of the societal time frame, or the trust in the popular. Even with the computer’s ability to compute complex objects or conditions, there is still something missing in design today. With this in mind it is important to think about Walter Benjamin and his theory that the computer may be able to reproduce an image, but what does this reproduction miss? Benjamin describes it as the ‘aura’ or cultural index, something that needs to hold a much greater importance in the modern day world, with all of its socio-political problems.
1. Photogrammetry is a very interesting post digital technique that is very useful, but with the complicated nature might be hard to learn to do well. Without the ease of use, is it worth trying to use on a large scale?
2. The use and definition of the word render has majorly changed over the decades, how have various definitions still relate to each other?
3. Does a digital render create a degree of removal from the project, where a physical one is more involved in the project?
1. In “Digital Divide”, Claire Bishop explains that “one significant side effect of the information age is that research is easier than ever before”. Does describing the ease of research in today’s day and age as a side effect imply positive or negative effects? How has our generation’s access to a wide breadth of knowledge and past ideas/theories allowed us to expand our current schools of thought?
2. Artie Vierkant begins his essay “The Image Object Post-Internet” by characterizing today’s art in the post-internet age. Vierkant mentions that art no longer deals with the “nature of the art object but the nature of its receptions and social presence”. How has social media become a platform for more provocative art? Does an increase in audience through social media allow for artists to create a larger statement within their art? Has it changed the way we, as observers, see their art objects?
3. Ellie Abrons criticizes the post-digital and post-internet world of art by stating that “authorship becomes the practice of curating and packaging the gathered content” and this has resulted in a “shift from exceptional to ordinary notions of creativity”. Throughout this course, the discussion of whether it is possible to make something original has been brought up. In the digital age that we currently live in, can artists and designers produce a truly original work of art, or has the internet rendered that impossible by increasing the ease of access to past work that Bishop described in her article? In addition, do artists and designers rely too heavily on the default settings of the computer programs we utilize?
In the digital world that we live in, the need for people to create bigger and better projects comes at a price – expectations. With the variety of software programs and skills that architects learn in design school, the ability to create realistic representations of a project can be as easy as adding a couple of lights and blending a few layers in the computer. However, with the need to create the most “instagrammable” representation of a concept, comes the problem of setting unrealistic expectations. Architects and designers set up renders to showcase an element or aspect of a design, sometimes portraying unrealistic elements, thus setting the clients’ expectations at a level where disappointment may come easily. In order to drive a concept home, the architect may exaggerate elements in order to get the point of the design across. The digital world allows any idea to become a reality on the computer, but the new expectation is that the design can easily translate to the real world.
1: In “Rendering Air”, by Andrew Atwood, he says that “architecture is rapidly approaching an image discourse / becoming more and more focused on photographs and renderings and whatever may lie in between”. If this is true, what then could happen to the future of architecture as a whole? If we become obsessed with the 2D dimensionality, will our designs start to show that and begin to lack 3 dimensionality? Little to no design to the depth of a building?
2: In “The Image Object Post-Internet”, by Artie Vierkant, they claim 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”. This is an interesting concept when applied to Architecture. The fact that original architectural inspirations may not be viewed as fundamentally superior or more important than those based off of it can actually prove troubling. There’s a stigma for any architect to separate themselves and do something entirely new. How would this be altered when even if someone does create a new style, it will just be grouped in with all of the other copies that are going to be made from it? It diminishes the motivation to go above and beyond.
3: In “Postdigital Materiality”, by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, they say 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”. I’d agree and disagree with this statement. While, it is true for some artists to go and take ideas from what they find online as inspiration for their works, there will always be that division of people dedicated to creating entirely new styles of art architecture based on nothing but what was formulated from their own minds. Is this such a bad thing?
1. In many senses, the Atwood “Rendering Air” piece speaks on the relation between 2-D and 3-D. ex. Mapping 2-D points onto a 3-D form, or extracting millions of 2-D pixels from a 3-D model, the render takes place between these two dimensions. His study of rendering begins with an analysis of the British picturesque, which implies a more painterly process of rendering, with layers, textures, proportion, and depth. Today this would be in Photoshop. I’m wondering if we as students actually think about our projects differently if our process is more painterly. If producing the image is more analog, step-by-step, applying layers, depth, atmosphere manually, rather than producing one final image, in one layer, from V-Ray?
2. Vierkant writes about the notion that attention has always been currency, but it is now decentralized so much, that I feel it may have lost value. There is no longer the notion of the original image, or painting, or physical copy, but the possibility of millions of altered copies. There are hundreds of architecture Instagram pages, which all seem to share similar posts, shouting out similar pages. I tend to see the same images of the same projects recycled over and over. Do you think this trend serves to strengthen the value of the work itself, or to hurt it? Does the increased number of eyes on the project help the project, or does it help the account that shares the project? PS. peep the link to my portfolio below 🙂
3. Bishop writes about the troubling relationship our society has with intimacy and with distance. Social media links us together, keeping up with each other’s birthdays, rants, travel photos, but without any true connection. It is friendship without the commitment that used to be involved. Infinitely scrolling has desensitized us to each other’s lives, as we see a wide range of content every day, from news of mass shootings to memes about eggs. Anything that comes across our gaze as we scroll gets attention for a fraction of a second, regardless of how thoughtful or meaningful or valuable it is. The apps that truly meant to keep our lives together have actually really separated us apart. Even if you or I are on the same app, we see different content and ads based on algorithms derived from what we click on and who we follow. I could rant about this for a while, but nobody wants to hear that… so, is there anything you think we should change, in order to add value to these apps that consume so much of our time? Could this relate to adding value to the new media posted there like Bishop writes about?
This notion of rendering via the computer seems to align itself more with a mere representation of whats there, than does a painting, which brings to the table a whole nother level of questions regarding the artistry of the work. Rendering via photometry includes rendering a literal 3D form of whats already there, and a V-Ray render produces a flat version of the same, with lighting and material. In this age, photoshop stands at this hinge between flat image and painting, providing the user with infinite artistic capabilities, should we choose to use them. The digital art Annie referenced is a great example of this.
1 In “Image object Post-internet”, Artie discussed about Internet’s impact on the artwork and the huge difference between contemporary art and human. He stated past art work have its concept and a certain level of thinking but contemporary art work do not have any of those due to the advance computer technology. How can we design a new art work with interesting concept from the past design?
2 In “Digital divide on contemporary and new media”, Claire gives a new definition of the term ‘digital-divide’ based on her understanding. She explained the relationship between the contemporary art and the digital appliances. Claire considers the process of creating art work with digital technology is related to each other. How can we make a connection between architecture and people and design it as a subject of aesthetic?
3 In “Rendering Air”, Andrew makes a discussion with the painting technique and rendering process. Compared with the painting, rendering focus more on the space, form, shades and texture. At some extent, rendering is similar with the painting. But the digital image with rendering in computer offers more opportunities to the visible change of the image. Both techniques have its flaws and advances, how can we apply part of the technique in painting to the process of rendering?
From this class presentation, I learned about the history of photometry and the development process of rendering and art work creation. Rendering an image requires similar technique of painting. People need to consider how to distribute the spatial area of the images, shading, lighting, different types of textures, and the influence of the each material to the surrounding. The presentation also introduces the different art forms of the post-digital area. The reading states that nothing is original now because contemporary art work are ‘mimicking’ the past creation. But the projects in the presentation disprove part of it. Due to the advanced technology, many art form has developed into the digital form which allow artists to explore various ‘surprising’ areas. I think post-digital area did take some part of the past objects but they are utilizing to create a new project. As time goes by, the art form and art work will have infinite possibilities and ‘newer’ concept.
1) Bishop explains that the public’s infatuation with “new media art” eventually had a strong impact on the ways that we experience relationships and communication, including the push-pull factors of “intimacy and distance”. Do you feel that it’s important to always consider the architectural implications of that concept? What happens if we do not have that in our thought process?
2) “Representation through image”, as explained by Artie Vierkant in the text, has become a central focus in the way that we value artistic concepts and visual design as a whole. It begs the question of which one we as a generation value more: the actual object/product/piece, or the final image or documentation that is meant to represent it?
3) Has the definition of “communal space” changed for us as architects to fall under the hierarchy of the screen? What does that idea say about the progression of architecture in the coming decades?
I found the discussion from yesterday’s lecture to be very helpful when it comes to my personal views on representation and digital imagery. We, as future architects, must understand the social impact and developments of digital design/ visual arts in the realm of communication and human interaction as a whole in order for us to become more in tune with society’s progression. With a higher affinity towards these kinds of experiences and spaces in our buildings, they will become much more prominent when it comes to how we design. Soon, we’ll be asking ourselves how to more efficiently incorporate virtual reality and other related aesthetics into a seamless living experience. Seeing the presentation’s many examples of what seems to be outlandish and science-fiction-oriented in the present only makes me wonder how we will change in relation to it all. There seems to be an overall positive reception to it all when it comes to our generation.
1. In “Digital Divide”, Claire Bishop seemed to mainly be concerned with the future existence of physical visual artwork in the age of digital media. Building off of Atwood’s analysis of the render, contemporary work is caught between digital tools and analog product, however Atwood was more favorable because digital rendering allows more self-critique and conceptual building of a project than traditional/analog techniques. Bishop is concerned that those techniques might be lost. If we are material beings, how can we loose physical visible art/techniques? Can digital replace tangible and essential materiality?
2. Claire Bishop wrote, “The digital … is code, inherently alien to human perception”. She also wrote that if you converted a .jpg into .txt, you would just get a file of letters and numbers that are less meaningful than the original .jpg. Is it necessary for us to understand or appreciate the .txt version of the .jpg? An analogy that comes to mind is our nervous system. Is it necessary for my survival to know the detail of how it works?
3. About the postdigital from “Postdigital materiality”, “it’s a bid to explore the idiosyncrasies and aesthetics of digital mediums while considering larger cultural questions that have been under-addressed in digital design discourse to date”. This implies a learned mastery of a digital technique. If someone is trying to address an “under-addressed” discourse postdigital while learning the software, does this have any adverse effects on their worldview? Is there concern that the discourse will be dropped if the learner is unsuccessful with their first attempt?
During the presentations and the panel afterwards, there seems to be a consensus that rendering in the digital age comes with positive aspects and negative ones. There are striking similarities between Gilpin’s picturesque rendering techniques and current day digital rendering techniques. However, advancements in digital rendering has made rendering a scene practically effortless. A positive aspect of this is that designers now have the ability to explore new concepts that were closed off from before. This is an important advancement that has the ability to refresh the representational part of architectural practice. The flip-side of this is that the ability the create realistic looking renders as led to many architects fabricating the way their project will look in order to sell it to a client. These renders are highly utopian and if used for any reason other than abstraction, they more than not damage the finalized construct.
1.) Abrons and Fure write about the post digital age architecture is entering and the implication of computations in all forms of design and construction. What I find interesting is constant use of algorithms and parametrics in every aspect of design and construction possible. Engineers and Architects are in a post digital phase of attempting to use computations to solve most design and construction problems. This leads me to propose the question, where does this practice of computational techniques in design end? Will we see a future of buildings begin to act like an algorithm to react to its environment?
2.) In Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, the focus is on the outdated practice of rendering without the use of digital interfaces. He mentions the techniques used by William Gilpin to create renderings and the purpose of these methods. My question is why aren’t we as young architects educated more in these techniques used to create pre-digital renderings? From Atwood’s summary of Gilpin’s text it appears to me that in today’s modern age we forget that renderings are suppose to come alive and display a scenery that looks like a reality. Learning old techniques used in the pre-digital age may help remind us of that.
3.) In “The Digital Divide”, Bishop writes about the arrival of new media interfaces like the DVD and how it forced VHS tapes to become obsolete. But yet the use of celluloid media is still desired by some artists due to an attraction to display their craft. This leads me to ponder at the question, does modern forms of technology and interfaces put a restriction on displaying ones craft and skill?
1. In the article “Rendering Air,” Andrew Atwood describes the evolution of rendering
and how modern programs have redefined the meaning of ‘rendering.’ It used to be a moment
where people would carefully shade in specific areas to carefully create a delicate image
that shows the perspective of the author. How is VR and other modern rendering programs
leaving behind this thoughtful and artistic format of composition?
2. In the article written by Artie Vierkant called “The Image Object Post-Internet,”
Vierkant highlights the fact that prior to the internet people took photos and published
them. They were appreciated as is, but not photography takes a whole new form. A form
that can almost be considered a new language. How can this way of existing shape the way
we consider art and architecture?
3. With the continual development of technology, it increasingly becomes intertwined with
art. Taking a simple geometry and creating an entire spectrum of shapes in a repeated
format produced by Grasshopper and the post processing this linework gives digital art
a whole new definition. Will there be new ways of interpreting our 3 dimensional projects
instead of the traditional renderings in the future? How will this redefine our way of
understanding spaces in our projects?
1. The way new computer programs are going to be re-arranging the definition of rendering is through virtual reality and hypo-realistic renders. The issue that we discussed in class was how ‘fake’ these rendering can be. Maybe the virtual reality renders are a little better than just a photo render, but in general, these photo-shopped renders are not real and the final product will not look the same.
2. From the presentations in class, it was discussed this new way of creating art of meshing together various photos. What was discussed is that we are close to a moment that art and fashion are positively affected in the sense that every design will be considered. Every design and style will be considered, because of the ease that producing is easily erased by CTRL + Z.
3. My perspective on the articles was a more positive view since I considered what the future could hold for rendering in architecture. These tools could define a major transition for architecture so much that could kick start a whole new era of rendering and developing drawings for clients. Yet, this is not the case for what modern programs are being utilized. The modern renders that the architects of today are producing are unrealistic. They have lighting shining through spaces that may not have lights in that specific area, so the lighting in the overall render is not correct.
1. in the article “Rendering Air”, the author Andrew Atwood explains how rendering has evolved in the past of the years with the contribution of technology. The techniques needed to render today helps to give a more realistic and clear understanding of the object that is being rendered. Not only the object itself but also its environment and position in space. In some parts in Atwood article, he constantly repeats “The computer has to do…” meaning that the machine would accomplish to do the techniques required to evolved an imagine which are layering, displacement, washing, keeping and rendering. Would not this undermind our ability to develop an image by using our skills without depending on computers and technology?
2. Why computers have to create such a vivid image of an object and change drastically its natural texture, context, and place on space? why could not this be rougher and less perfect?
3. Do you think that by letting technology be the primary contributor to the evolution of art and graphic design, it would be more valuable a work made by a computer than a work made by an artist’s hands?
So it is clear that technology is helping us in many ways, especially in designing. But is that really help or it would rather be that is taking away the ability in people to create sketches by hand and being able to render it however the individual think the material of the object or its environment looks like. Is it really important to show such beauty and perfection through a huge amount of pixels that a computer program would use in order to create the context of those objects?, or it is actually important the ability of perceiving and representing this materiality that is imperfect and rough into our drawings and even the imperfection of these lines makes it look more interesting and artistic. Nothing in this world is perfect. so why focus on something that is just showing us a fake world where imperfections are not allowed when we are fully surrounded by them. These imperfection are perfect ornaments in our buildings why take them away? maybe renders should show the real character of an object instead of making it look like is coming from a perfect world.
1) In Andrew Atwood’s essay of “Rendering Air”, he compares painting to digital renderings. He talks about the process it takes to paint a picture, how the artist thinks through the layers, the textures, and space between objects in the scene. However, computers can render all these parts for us. Is technology destroying our ability to be artistic and abstract when it does the process for us?
2) Artie Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post-Internet”, talks about how the internet helped spread and showcase many artistic artworks. As a result, many people use mass media to see and observe artwork instead of being there in person. The mass media has become the people’s communal space. Like Rendering Air, is the internet drawing people away from seeing artwork in person? How is it more enticing to look at an art piece through a computer screen than through your own eyes?
3) Claire Bishop’s article on “Digital Divide on Contemporary Art” questions where digital art has gone. Now these days, people know how to use digital technology, so any art they produce digitally is digital art. Yet, it’s not focused or formed around the idea of “digital”. Is it that we are so modern now, so used to having mobile cameras, digital technology in our hands constantly, that we have forgotten the idea of it? Are we taking this digital filled life for granted?
The “internet” is the new norm. Many generations know and understand how to use the internet. Things like Google and Bing can find any information you want very easily. Thus, because of the internet’s influence, the original source of any information is hard to find. Whenever I had to do a research paper, the teacher will always say “book sources only” because books have the original source of the information. It’s not this website said this from this new reporter in this video. It’s a hard, solid source written by someone who did their research. Whatever painting or picture out on the internet now could be replicas of an artwork someone did years ago.
1. Since “the line between digital and physical is nearly unperceivable” and the “rare and novel” becomes “ubiquitous and familiar” as stated in Postdigital materiality, does that create challenges of what architects can create since it faces the issue of actually being physical real?
2. Atwood compares Gilpin’s process to an architect’s process and recognizes that “computer rendering offers numerous opportunities to make visible the steps of an image’s production.” Does this “aspect of the technical image” create pressure on architects to produce something to perfection?
3. Although, Bishop states that the information age allows “research to be easier than ever before,” how do we get people/ students, mentioned in Peter Eisenman and Sarah Whiting discussion in the Autonomy & The Search for an Absolute Architecture reading, to be interesting in the engaging with the research?
Post-Digital Aesthetics has created the perception that the impossible is achievable. The ability to use layers allows people to create unimaginable. The expectations that one receives in photos and renders deceive the real experience. Although, renders are shown to clients for their better understand of the space of the architect’s proposal, some people are unable to understand that the renders are not an exact representation of the project, but an ideal appearance. The idea of architects living up to the given renders is understandable; however, as renders improve, project products are consistent. This concept creates a higher expectation that architects have to fulfill. When renders were more ambiguous, people had little to no expectations. Rather than focusing on the aesthetic, they were understanding the general massing. By digitizing the world, people lack the capability of fully understanding the creator’s purpose since they are too distracted.
1. “Even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of its copies.” If an authentic image, idea, objects, or what have you doesn’t hold any greater value than a copy of itself then what makes it unique? The original item was developed with specific means while using specific methods to construct the item which a copy does not have. So is Artie Vierkant making the assumption just because the copy is being represented in a different manner while also using different methods that it holds the same value as the original?
2. “According to some, architecture is rapidly approaching an image discourse, becoming more and more focused on photographs and renderings and whatever lies in between.” Does today’s architecture and architecture schools focus too much on renders? Sure the render will sell the project to the client but if you don’t know how to correctly organize and design the project that’s all it is a conceptual idea/image.
3. “The Digital has revolutionized space (from physical space to cyberspace), form (from boxes to blobs), fabrication (from masons to robots), building (from blueprints to BIM), and style (from Postmodernism to Parametric… It compels architecture to move beyond captivation with the novelty of the digital in order to explore sensibilities that emerge from an understanding of computation as a background condition of our reality, and the digital as something that doesn’t simply represent the real but is itself another reality.” What should this digital world be called, Digital Graveyard, Digital Monuments, an Alternate Reality? In today’s world, where does most architecture mostly live, does it live in the real world or does it live in the digital one?
Rendering takes on different meanings depending on the tools available to architects; india ink and watercolor create a different notion of atmosphere than raytracing. What assumptions and tools of contemporary computer rendering influence our design?
Bishop’s conclusion is that digital art will either make art accessible for all or obsolete. What other ways has digitization changed what we understand as art? Is the introduction of digital art beneficial to the art world even if it unrecognized, and if so in what way?
Vierkant describes how digital transmission of art eventually reduces it to its aesthetic rather than ideological basis. How has this influenced architectural design and philosophy? Is this movement towards the exclusively visual inherently good or bad?
1– We live in a post digital world, where digital technology is now what shapes our world and our perception of the world around us. It is hard to escape this, especially with the “world undergoing visual and structural changes” as stated in “Post Digital Materiality”. It is hard to distinguish between what is digital and what is non digital because the digital realm of the world has its clutch on almost every aspect of life. Yet Digital world has revolutionized design– it opens up endless possibilities and has propelled architecture beyond the basic ( the “real”, physical space, boxes) to the unrealized ( the “new real”, cyberspace, blobs). The early design process in the post digital world was loud, messy, awe inspiring and open to possibility, where as now it is seen as the easy thing to do. Therefore the question becomes; do we need some new technological revolution to make architecture exciting again? To make it a challenge? Or do we perhaps need a collapse of the digital to bring along a new way of design or even resort back to old ways of design with the insight learned from this digital world we are currently in?
2-In “The Image Object Post- Internet”, Vierkant about the concept of originality. They state that since the dawn of the internet there is no such thing as original that “for objects after the internet there can be no ‘original’ copy” and that ” nothing is in a fixed state, everything is anything else”. Yet people made copies and stole ideas long before the internet. Andy Warhol made a name for himself by just altering copies of adverts, people, objects etc. and countless other artists have done the same. So does that mean that there has never truly been an original? Or are they instead trying to make the point that since the creation of the internet it is now much easier to cop and alter something , and less easy to find the actual source of the copies? How does this translate to architecture? ID the architecture of the post internet world all becoming the same?
3– How has the term rendering changed? Today rendering is the production of images from computer graphics and software. Originally rendering was a technique of layering tone/ color to build up to a final image where “rendering” was the final layer to create depth and transform a 2-D drawing into something with depth of space. It was a picturesque approach to creation combining beauty and the sublime. Rendering used to be a process that was constantly building up of one thing to create a whole. Yet today there is much that also goes into rendering; creating an image still takes processing, layering, cutting, removal, addition, blurring, color, opacity ect. Yet the difference is that with digital rendering one can see the steps to the process as well as the final design. Is rendering today really that much different that technical rending? The endgame is the same just the techniques and medias are different. Should architecture revert back to hand rendering?
We live in a world that is connected to the internet in almost every way. The digital has escaped and it part of the physical. We do not go more than a few hours or a few steps without interacting with part of the digital world. In the post- internet reality, we are all part of something big and vast that continues to grow and become ever so interconnected with every aspect of life itself. This may have changed the world for the worse or for the better. It is a common argument that since the dawn of cyberspace, the is nothing truly original. Every idea, image, word, sound has just been copied, stolen, augmented or reused. That there is no easy way to trace back to an “original”, where as before the internet the author of something had the original in its most true state. How has this then translated to architecture? We have been told time and time again that the best artists were thieves; the idea of stealing ideas has been around much longer than the internet and will be here long after. We are always going to be influenced by the things we see, weather we are aware of it or not. Architecture becomes redundant just like anything else. Yet the post-internet era has also opened up numerous doors for the world of architecture. Graphics, computer programs, parametric design, being able to render in minutes and to create drawings in hours rather than days. The process of architecture has become faster and will continue to do so. We can create spaces that will only exist in cyberspace or use these tools to create shapes, forms and spaces that could have never been realized before computers. That being said using technology to aid in the creation and production of architecture has grown from new, messy, exciting to simply being the easy way to do things. The internet and the use of computer software has made architecture lazy; when it once enabled it to be amazing and powerful beyond belief. What needs to happen to get us back to the exciting? A collapse of the current system or another post era of sorts?
1| Does the disconnect between those developing contemporary rendering techniques and those implementing them serve as a danger to the future representation of work? If the artist is unaware of the complexity of her tools does the artwork become meaningless?
2| Due to the ground-up processing procedures of computer assisted graphics, is it meaningful to think about generating a conglomeration rather than a single image when producing modern renderings? Should the image be thought of as an entity completely disparate from those developed by painterly techniques of the past?
3| Claire Bishop poses the question: “How many reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by the digitization of our existence?”; to expand upon this, how does the digitization of nearly all aspects of our interactive environment effect our perception of reality?
1) Technique and Technology attribute to the general “finish” of Architectural Representation. In Rendering Air Andrew Atwood discusses the transition of rendering from a technique to give depth to a 2 dimensional hand drawing to current day where we can utilize new technology to walk through buildings before they’re even built. This alters the general “finish” of architecture and in a way makes architecture more accessible to the masses. How do you think this new level of accessibility and understanding through rendering is making architecture more popular culture?
2) There is a natural feeling to resist change in architecture in fear of losing the rich history, culture, and theory that has driven the field for so long. The current technological age threatens to do away with a lot of conventions of the architects of yesterday. Should we be afraid of this change because we will lose something important to the identity of Architecture? Or do we focus on where we can take technology in terms of architecture no one has dreamed of ever before?
3) More so than rendering or VR, Photoshop has taken over in popular culture as a way of creating our own ideal reality. The limits of Photoshop seem to be your own skill, and with that skill you can create or recreate nearly anything in the world. With the way technology is headed the world I feel could one day all be photo shopped. Through Augmented reality and VR a world that is ideal beyond merely what is there can be built and we as humans can craft our own identities and lives. The architectural implications of this are countless, but what do you think of this idea of rendering in the real world? Changing our perception of people and places through smudging, erasing, blurring, and layering.
1) In “Rendering Air,” Atwood mentioned that some architects are saying architecture is “approaching an image discourse.” What does this entail for the future of architecture and the shifting methods of graphic representation? How has the digital impacted the art of model making?
2) In “Digital Divide,” Bishop opines that social practice is tied to analog representation. In what respect has architecture strayed from social practice in the shift to digital? In what ways has it become more crucial?
3) How does architecture hold onto or discard analog methodology for digital representation? Is the analog more as a nonessential addition or vital component of architecture?
I think that ultimately we are somewhat victims of the digital age. Analog approaches have lost their contextual value and become more placeholders then anything else. The shifting role of technology in representation is something that we are ultimately powerless to fight against. These tools have altered the fundamental nature of architecture so radically that there really is no possibility to return to the analog.
1. In “The Image Object Post Internet” by Artie Vierkant, the author puts forward “post-internet”. Post-internet, most often associated into two historical artistic modes: new media art and conceptualism is a genre of art in virtue of internet technology support. Backers of new media art criticize supporters of conceptualism presumes “a lack of attention to the physical substrate” while the latter question the former focus too narrow on “the working of novel technologies, rather than a sincere exploration of cultural shifts.” As internet propaganda become so prevalent, how can architects broadcast their architecture via post-internet? And how can architecture utilize the idea of post-internet?
2. In the article of “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood, it says that “render” is only regarded as a technology to make perspective drawings based on 3D modeling right now. However, render used to interpreted as adding tone, material, and texture in the drawing to create an atmosphere and a feeling in the 18th century for artists. Render is so important for the artists in that era that the unique background drawings of air are the logo of certain artists. How can render about air influence the architectural drawings? And how can the real air influence real architecture?
3. Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure wrote in “Postdigital Materiality” that the technology of modeling makes architectural students easier to create a full scenario of 3D space and 3D effect of the model in the United States. We know that in Europe and Asia, students rely more on drawings and their own perspective imagination. How can both students who model all the time without basic learning of aesthetic and students who learn drawing in the first two years and know little about new technology adapt to the tendency of Post-digital aesthetics?
Post-Digital Aesthetics creates crazy and fabulous sculpture- like architecture that seems impossible to be built. Technology provides us unthinkable fancy drawings that people in the past cannot imagine. Exposed structure, curvy walls looks like conflict gravity, opacity materials supporting the structure, etc… Compared to the past that clients will only able to see 2d drawings or a few perspective drawings about their buildings, people who asking architects to design a building right now can easily acknowledge the realistic version about what will the building looks like.
It seems that the rendering technology we used has nothing related to the history of photometry and the development process of rendering and artwork creation. However, the technique of rendering an image is similar to the technique of painting. People still need to imagine how to allocate the spatial area of the image, shadow, light, textures, and materials on the surrounding environment.
While reading “Postdigital Materiality” I remembered an interesting phenomenon that happened a couple of weeks ago. I was working on a painting with a couple of students; when I took a photograph of the painting and noticed how it looked remarkably more appealing on screen than on paper. I continued to test this notion by cropping the view in both mediums and rotation. Every test looked more appealing on a digital screen. Do you think there is a different in how we perceive two dimensional objects on screen vs physically and if so why?
In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood states: “In production of a rendering [in modern times] a three dimensional object must be turned into a two dimensional image on the raster screen, this is what we see and it is the only thing we ever see” Technology has advanced enough to the point where we can render objects not just in two dimensions, but also 3 dimensions. Architects usually abuse this though by only using the render to show one instance, or the “money shot”, in their project. Would an increase in rendering in 3 dimensions call for architects to focus on more aspects of a building other than a single moment, and if you think this is the case do you think that it will be implemented soon if it hasn’t already?
Artie Vierkant in “The Image Object Post-Internet” states: “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.” While I think this is true due to the non-physical nature of the internet, why do we hold more value for an “original” in physical media, even if it has a replica?
During class I saw the professor pull up a tab on vaporwave, but unfortunately did not have time to speak about it, but it did spark my interest on talking about its relationship to the post-digital.
Recently I have fell in love with the aesthetics of vaporwave. It seems to challenge the idea of a render having to conform to resemble reality, in fact it seems to abuse the tools we currently have at our disposal by creating low-poly renders. That are tossed together in a seemingly haphazard way to create a very unrealistic whole image. Yet in doing this the creator has successfully rendered the vaporwave aesthetic. Vaporwave also is quite interesting in its music as well. Often times it is a collage of stolen sounds. The sounds generally come from commercials/ advertising, yet these stolen sounds are not seen as bad to the listener; it is nostalgic and yet it can even create a brand new feeling at the same time. It is like when you go to a tropical place such as Florida back when you where a kid. You are in the hotel out on the balcony and you hear the tv in the background playing ads in whatever time period you grew up in. The difference is that you are now paying attention to these sounds you once ignored, you find there are new sounds as well. You are then reminded that you are not a child anymore; you are your present form that has time traveled back to a time you’ve longed to see again.
If it is a copy so what. It is the content that matters most to us; the fact that we looked at it, it doesn’t matter if it’s good sometimes. Just that we wanted to see it, then saw it. That’s it. That is what it means to be in the post-digital.
1.Could displacement be a new ‘picturesque’ aesthetic? Why would that sort of disconnect be desired?
2.How great of an effect does postdigital materiality have on architecture? As mentioned in the article by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, it is important today to” train the eye to see its effects,” but what are these effects? It seems as though a pish to use technologies to create architecture now has just as much to do with ease that it does design, so how exactly would we be able to notice if it’s not something like in the realm of parametric design?
3.In “The Image Object Post-Internet” Artie Vierkant dicusses the use of “they” and “’we” in discussion of production and things of that nature is an inclination of loss of cultural values in production. Isn’t this more of a discussion of who is being referred to rather than why they are referred to in this way? Who are “they”?
1: Technology has brought the development of architecture increasingly into a 2D plane, while physical modelling has taken a somewhat back seat. What identities in architecture have been lost by this transition? Which aspects remain, possibly even amplified?
2: No matter how advanced technology may become, it is ultimately useless without an operator. In other words, even if you have the finest tools in the trade, if the user does not have the skill, talent, or knowledge to use them they will be wasted. As an architectural society, how can we identify the differences between a work in which the architect relies on technology, and one where technology relies on the architect?
3: Vierkant’s description of a post-internet world highlights to globalization and increased plurality of societal norms paints a scene both of constant motion and of floating stasis. As everything is considered a work in process and is seen as having the potential to continue to evolve, culture is trapped moving forward. How much has this influenced architecture, a profession that must result in stationary works of metal and masonry?
1. On Rendering Air, Andrew Atwood emphasizes how the rendering always refers to the production and composition of images using techniques borrowed from the field of the computer graphics. In other words, the rendering is becoming more used to the representation of project, which requires a composition of production to reflects your point of view, must be include in a presentation layout because give us an opportunity to represent a conceptual idea clearly. Do you think a rendering act as important as a plan or section to represent a conceptual idea in presentation?
2. In Digital Divide, Bishop analyses the contemporary art-world’s reluctance to conceptually engage with the changes which have been wrought by the proliferation of digital technology. She wonders why so few contemporary artists confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital, and reflect deeply on how we experience, the digitization of our existence? Why do you think Bishop argues that the digitalization is dividing the contemporary art-work?
3. IN “Postdigital Materiality”, Adam Fure and Ellie Abrons Discuss how the new aesthetic theory of the Postdigital and how the easiness command it rather newness or more aesthetic, in particular in architecture seem the digital or computational era lead it. Does this will limit us to think outside of the box or to explore unexplored things?
How Felix said a rendering is a composition the processing of an outline image using color and shading to make it appear solid and 3-Dimensional. By over layering different tone to create it a reality, but in most case a lot people fail to get it in real life. Fox example some projects don’t look even close to the rendering. Now the renderings are becoming a really important representation to refer some conceptual ideas. In other words, the rendering is becoming more used to the representation of project, which requires a composition of production to reflects your point of view, must be include in a presentation layout because give us an opportunity to represent a conceptual idea clearly. Must people will understand a well-done render than a section or elevation drawing because the renders and section represent some points of ambiguities that confuse people during a presentation.
1. In past weeks we have discussed the desire to produce new and progressive work. Do you think this is a positive or a negative thing? Can we have something new without the influence of any historical connections?
2. In “Rendering Air” Atwood discusses the idea of “traditional images”, what could we learn from the comparison of traditional images to technical ones?
3. In the past every piece of art was more or less one of a kind. The increased use of technology now means that pieces of art can easily be mass produced. Has the digital age taken away the value of art or has it just created a new “style”?
Rendering has become a very large and important part of architecture and proposals to clients. Rendering in this new digital age has become very advanced. This was a topic of discussion in class, why has it become so advanced, and is it a good thing? “Rendering Air” touches on the basics of rendering and how in the past it was as simple as adding color to an ink drawing. What happens if we start to revert back to the traditional ways of rendering. Renderings now have become so detailed that we can easily create things that are just physically impossible but render it so it’s realistic. We all know that until about our third or fourth year of school our studio projects aren’t the most realistic things. However, we are still told to create realistic renderings of our projects. Is this what should be happening? These photorealistic renderings have started to create false hope in projects. Some built projects end up not looking anything close to what was rendered, or the rendering presented something that would be impossible to actually be structural. So is it really effective to be teaching or producing these kind of renderings?
1) It seems quite interesting that their is a specific value placed on practical, conceptual, and physically crafted forms of visual representation. In this Post-Digital era, how has computational aesthetics and forms of designs manifested from practical, conceptual, and physicality crafted forms of visual representation?
2) As a counter of the previous question, In this Post-Digital era, how have computational aesthetics and forms of designs failed to gain influence from practical, conceptual, and physicality crafted forms of visual representation? Is this a problem? Is it important that new forms of design dwell as separate entities?
3) I seems as though photography, as an art and a practice, is essentially a pre and post product of the Post-Digital age. It is one of the few mechanisms that seem to transcend the bounds of time. Where would photography be classified? How could other art forms learn from photography? How could they mimic photography’s adaptation as an art and a practice?
In this Post-Digital Era, there seem to be a multitude of factors contributing to both design and architectural realms. There are a multitude of factors being analyzed including rendering and photo-realism. The way in which architecture is perceived, enacted, and created now seems to derive from a strong emphasis on three dimensional modeling practices and digital realms. This was essentially supported by the student panel discussion and informational presentation given during class. The age in which we currently reside in is oriented around digital objectification in various forms. What I wonder is what comes next, I wonder what the next step is for practicing architecture in a post-digital society. The “post” in this week’s title emphasizes the end of period following the age of digital aesthetics, which is now.
1. In Rendering Air, Atwood mentioned that the techniques architects used in recent years are sampled representations of processes of traditional image making. What are the sampled representations of the processes?
2. According to The Image Object Post, not only does the particular materiality of Post-Internet objects and images matter but also the way they present means a lot. Does it mean how Post-Internet Objects present will differ their meanings?
3. In Digital Divide On Contemporary Art and New Media, Claire mentioned Thomas Hirschhorn’s video of a finger idly scrolling through gruesome images of blown-apart bodies on a touch screen. Does this video indicate new media weaken people’s feeling of reality as long as the reality is present in a screen?
This week’s presentation discusses the rendering techniques in the modern world and how it influences the way we create architecture. With rendering, two-dimensional abstraction gets the chance to become an image with distance and depth between objects. At the same time, we have a better way to express our idea behind our design, and thus giving life to these imagines. From then to now, much has changed with the advent of the digital form. The application of photogrammetry arouses my interest as well. It’s really exciting to see that photogrammetry, as a technique, can track body movements to the smallest of details, as well as evaluating a construction project on a step bias to check it runs smoothly. The usage in two distinctive fields indicates vast potentials of one technique.
1. Digital Divide has become an outdated article with media like Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse being created on the grounds of fully embracing its own digital nature. In the face of exponentially faster modes of creation and discussion now occurring in real time, how does one stop themselves from becoming outdated in a couple years time?
2. The Post-Internet era has been subject to becoming overwhelmed with the amount of art that is produced as well as the ability to share these images. How will new artists stand out, and how will we cull the work to see what is relevant and what isn’t?
3. Shaders in industries like film and video games who have art degrees are now being replaced by people who have backgrounds in computer software. We can see this transition in Atwood’s essay as well. Outside of curating works as suggested by this week’s authors, will there be a place for technique in the future of art?
Today, the first real photograph of a black hole has been released. Through the internet, already there are countless numbers of copy images that have been made and distributed. Even Google has made its version through the Google Doodle that they have on display today. The instant transference of images allows humanity to experience things as a collective being in almost real time. The postdigital aesthetic with its repetition of shared human images reflects the condition of a being constantly reflecting on its memories. The photograph of the black hole is also interesting in the fact that it might be disappointing to some. This is especially true if one has seen the spectacularly rendered black hole in the 2014 film Interstellar. Our ability to replicate reality through technology is getting increasingly more accurate. Not only that, these false renders are demonstrating a reality that can supersede reality and create false expectations. Should we constrain the ability of the render to safeguard against that or allow them to continue to push the boundaries of experience just for art’s sake?
1.) In Andrew Atwood’s, “Rendering Air”, he talks about renderings as well as hand drawings. Do renderings allow for the hand drawing to become obsolete? The same discussion could be made about photography as well as painting. In my opinion, both are considered an art form at this point in time. Time has shown that photography is unable to fully encapsulate the intricacies of painting or hand drawing…however its manifested itself into a whole new art form. Perhaps rendering will be looked at as the same. How then, can we appreciate and differentiate between the two different art forms?
2.) Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure in “Postdigital Materiality” talk about the 3d modeling technology that young students now utilize daily. It seems that we are now capable of creating genius much faster…but is this entirely true?
3.) Artie Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post-Internet”, explains that the internet has played a massive role in spreading artwork and creativity to thousands. Similarly to the debate as to whether the physical book or the digital book is preferable, the same could be made about looking at art through a digital screen. Which is better? And if it is subjective, then what criteria can we come to collectively to discuss and appreciate the artwork from the artists original intent?
1. In Andrew Atwood’s Rendering Air, he talks about the shift from hand rendering sets of drawings to digital rendering as technology evolves. He states that architecture is approaching an image discourse, where we have become more focused on digital renderings, steering towards more conceptual and abstract forms of representation. Do you think we’ve lost something on the way from hand rendering to digital rendering? What effect has our user preference of digital rendering have on design?
2. Claire Bishop’s Digital Divide talks about the relationship people and the arts have with digital art. She states that digital art is the shaping condition, structural paradox even, that determines artistic decisions to work with certain formats and media. How has digital computation changed the way we see the world and the way we view art?
3. Abron and Fure’s Postdigital Materiality discusses the digital revolution and the change in cultural perception as digital technology as a novelty to something more ubiquitous. The Digital has transformed architecture, from physical space to cyberspace, form, fabrication, building, and style. Our lives have certainly been made easier with tools like “Make2D”, but have we become too reliant on technology as an aid in the design process?
This week’s lecture discussed the topic of post-digital aesthetics and representation, where the technological evolution has brought a shift from hand rendering to digital rendering. With this digital evolution, our lives have been made easier. With simple clicks of a button, we can produce an array of edited works, giving us endless possibilities. Some renderings have been made to look so photo-realistic. This gives us the ability to produce an idealistic representation of the project, and at much larger scales and faster outputs. Commands like “make2D” and such have transformed the way we work, allowing us to quickly create what would’ve been hours of meticulous slow work. Digital art has shaped architectural discourse towards more abstract forms of representation as well as our perception of the world and of art.
1. Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure in “Post-Digital Materiality” discuss how laziness has begun to emerge from the easiness of technological design. While softwares like Rhino and Revit are constantly being updated to have the most efficient tools, is it our human nature to take advantage of this and not utilize it to its full extent but rather just produce drawings faster and faster? Have technological advances encouraged more laziness then drive and tenacity?
2. Claire Bishop in “Digital Divide” talks about the use of media and her growing concern for our relationship with society. Social media brings people “together” but its a shallow connection being valued. Ironically it seems as though forms of media are creating more distance between humans. What kind of “new media” can be created to combat against this, or is it even possible to create new media that does not contribute to this distance?
3. In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood discusses the evolution of rendering from hand-drawing to digital renderings using different softwares. In what ways have digital renders lacked the effort of some of the hand-drawings that architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright so famously produced? And in what ways have digital renders been able to outdo the limited effects of hand drawings and renders?
Post-digital aesthetics present an interesting dilemma in today’s architectural world. As technology has exponentially grown throughout the past few years, the art of rendering has gone from representational abstract drawings to photo-realism that seems as though it is a photograph of the actual project. Not only are renders becoming more and more realistic, but they also seem to be creating perceptions of reality that may not be totally accurate. Firms such as MVRDV have mastered the art of displaying their projects with enough accuracy but also providing a romanticized style to represent the project as a whole. However, are we pushing these renders too far beyond reality? Are we as architects actually deceiving our clients to portray a reality that we can’t actually replicate? The industry is at a standstill; our technology has reached the point of being able to create renders that look basically like photographs (the presentation actually showed some really good examples of this). So, where do we go from here? Do we strive to create unrealistic stylized renders that are far from reality and are honest in their distortions of reality? Or is there an entirely new method of rendering that we have yet to discover?
Post-digital aesthetics present an interesting dilemma in today’s architectural world. As technology has exponentially grown throughout the past few years, the art of rendering has gone from representational abstract drawings to photo-realism that seems as though it is a photograph of the actual project. Not only are renders becoming more and more realistic, but they also seem to be creating perceptions of reality that may not be totally accurate. Firms such as MVRDV have mastered the art of displaying their projects with enough accuracy but also providing a romanticized style to represent the project as a whole. However, are we pushing these renders too far beyond reality? Are we as architects actually deceiving our clients to believe a reality that we can’t actually replicate? The industry is at a standstill; our technology has reached the point of being able to create renders that look basically like drawings (the presentation actually showed some really good examples of this). So, where do we go from here? Do we strive to create unrealistic stylized renders that are far from reality and are honest in their distortions of reality? Or is there an entirely new method of rendering that we have yet to discover?
1. In “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood, Atwood discusses how the use of rendering creates distance between the geometric description and its computer graphic representation. He emphasizes this by saying “the greater the reliance on texture mapping and surface effects, the more removed the image becomes from any source.” Is it better to render using a camera or through the addition of tone and color? Is it better for a render to be far removed from the basic 2-dimensional geometric representation of an object or for the render to create harmony between the 2-dimensional representation and the depth and 3-dimensionality of the object?
2. In “Digital Divide” by Claire Bishop, Bishop discusses how the digital revolution has the ability to change the reality of visual art through by dematerializing it, removing authorship, and making it unmarketable. What will this mean for the future of architecture?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality” by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, the authors discuss the idea that the digital revolution moves in a linear fashion from amateurism to expertise. Since technology will likely always be improving, won’t the expertise end of the spectrum always be changing?
The digital revolution has made an excess of information readily available. This overflow of information has created hybrids of radically different things. This has encouraged the development and broadening of visual arts to include the use of different disciplines and media. This advancement in the field of visual arts has influenced architecture through the reliance of computer aided design. Architecture schools today, especially RPI, focus heavily on the teaching of these computer programs. We are very rarely asked to hand draw our drawings. It is clear how influential the digital revolution has been on architecture by thinking about the jargon of architecture. For example, rendering in the traditional sense is the addition of color or tone that gives 2-D drawings dimension and depth. However, rendering as we know it today requires the use of computer programs to assign materials to and represent the design of a 3-D model. The language of architecture and the work done within the field of architecture has very clear ties to the digital revolution.
1. The fingerprints of the World Wide Web are all over us, and our work, as architects and social consumers. In the vein of Artie Vierkant and “The Image Object Post-Internet,” how might the age of Instagram influence our designs and impact their overall reach as functioning works of architecture?
2. How might we, as intellectuals in the contemporary age of technology’s snug coexistence to nostalgia as connection, innovate new digital technologies in architecture as opposed to continually cycling an obsession of the analog that is only digitally rendered?
3. In regards to digital representation, what is gained or lost in its classification as such? What might happen if we consider it as a breathing, sweating part of the recursive design process, coexisting with or directly related to the theoretical new digital at every stage?
The age of Instagram influences not only the inspiration-design aspects of design, whether consciously or subconsciously, but especially the post-conception stages. Many contemporary buildings are built for very specific views, often times gliding over architectural aesthetic into a direct response to the casual social media photographer. These photos are inevitably filtered into the digital sphere and endlessly, continually altered and often beyond recognition. Meme culture had perpetuated this arguably architectural phenomenon well past the dawn of the digital age and into the hands of preteens. If these constructs exist unavoidably, there is room to utilize them in the name of a future-thinking architecture. That is, using the almost-vernacular construct of feedback loops and endless editing to influence and/or inform a new way of constructing, theorizing, and experiencing architecture in design and beyond.
The age of Instagram influences not only the inspiration-design aspects of design, whether consciously or subconsciously, but especially the post-conception stages. Many contemporary buildings are built for very specific views, often times gliding over architectural aesthetic into a direct response to the casual social media photographer. These photos are inevitably filtered into the digital sphere and endlessly, continually altered and often beyond recognition. Meme culture had perpetuated this arguably architectural phenomenon well past the dawn of the digital age and into the hands of preteens. If these constructs exist unavoidably, there is room to utilize them in the name of a future-thinking architecture. That is, using the almost-vernacular construct of feedback loops and endless editing to influence and/or inform a new way of constructing, theorizing, and experiencing architecture.
Andrew Atwood discusses at length the origin of rendering, the traditional techniques, and the art of drafting renders. Presently, everything Atwood covers could easily be considered obsolete – a historic text with no application in today’s world of architecture. RPI SoA, for example, has no interest in teaching students about this and in fact, has the complete opposite niche – rendering is all technical and no one is taught about anything else. With this lack of foundational knowledge, are the best of our drawings incomplete and inadequate? Is it important we learn both technical and hand drafting skills to become better architects?
In Digital Divide, Bishop affirms the truism that technology has subsumed every part of our lives and everything in our lives but to what degree in the contemporary art world? Does it enhance or contribute contemporary art or does absorb it with only a non-physical, digitally synthesized composition? Would all art, like the rest of the world today, becoming exclusively digital be a bad thing or simply evolution?
In The Image Object Post-Internet by Artie Vierkant, we learn that post-internet is an era with no fixed timeline/ date of origin because not only is it impossible to appoint but also this model exceeds beyond societal rules of time. This fluidity of space and time with the context of post-internet describing “nature of the art object but the nature of its receptions and social presence” raises the question – with such forces eventually envelop architecture as well? If so what will that look like, what can we anticipate and how would we employ the adaptation?
1. In “Digital divide” Bishop argues that as the digital era has grown, how has the art world through digital platforms been impacted? Should artists that choose digital art as a media to transmit their art be more responsive to how they convey their artwork? Has this digital era creative a positive or a negative connotation for all that is within the creative realm?
2. “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood is aimed at the current architecture idea of rendering. Renders are digital environments that borrow techniques from other fields of study in order to create beautiful images. This was not always the case, but as technology improves the term rendering has evolved. Has the advancements in technology and the rendering world been a beneficial addition to the architecture world? What are the benefits of the increase in technological advancements for architecture, and how will these advancements affect the future?
3. “The Image Object Post Internet” by Vierkant, the internet becomes a larger question towards the world of Post-Digital Aesthetics. She argues that objects on the internet be it art, etc. could never be traced down. Thus there isn’t an original copy. How does this affect the creative world, one where people are supposed to get credit for their creations?
“Post-Digital Aesthetic & Representation” is a topic that strongly revolves around the idea of what technology has done for the creative world in the past years. The digital world has become a big part of the environment that surrounds, and an absolute dependency on technology has been created. The digital world surrounds us everywhere we are, and everywhere we go, from your phone to the car you travel in daily. Technological advances have impacted certain career paths, and some have even been rendered useless. Architecture as an example has seen a change with the introduction of renders. Renders are a powerful tool that architects have to show work in ways that couldn’t be shown otherwise. It is astounding to see the evolution the term rendering has experienced from the beginning. Renders began being deficient quality yet still able to convey the right information. Renders now could arguably be as realistic as real images. As time passes and discoveries are made, we shall see where the world evolves into. The internet has opened a new realm of possibilities where new possibilities have yet to figure out.
1.) In Rendering Air, Atwood describes a rendering as the translation of a project from the second dimension to the third, and that current representation methods lack the ability to translate renderings to the fourth. He also discusses how the actual definition of a rendering has changed from an application of tones to an existing drawing to an actual image. When we see another transformation of what defines a rendering, how will that change allow for representation of the fourth dimension?
2.) In Digital Divide, Bishop discusses how artists are drawn to the nostalgia of old forms of media. Artists often return to former art forms due to their “tried and true” and familiar methods. What, intrinsically, is the reason for this “artistic laziness” and how is this happening in visual representations of architecture?
3.) Artie Vierkant in The Image Object Post –Internet talks about how the internet changes original art into copies, which therefore becomes its own art work. He says this changes the nature of art from the object to the perception of that object. How does this perception change what we know and understand as the original and how is that representation true/false?
1. In Andrew Atwood’s Rendering Air, he discusses the lack of acknowledgement of the common image making techniques prevalent in architecture and the possibilities of further conceptualization of our work through those techniques. How can we become more conscious of the steps in the rendering process and challenge the processes of imaging we were taught?
2. In Claire Bishop’s Digital Divide of Contemporary and New Media, she comments on how our consumption of the digital has effected our ability to perceive , and we now view large amounts of information in the same rapid-fire scanning as we do the internet. How can we change the presentation and medium of our work to demand more attention from the average viewer?
3. In Abrons and Fure’s Post digital Materiality, Photogrammetry is used to separate material from geometry, how can we use this technology to incorporate the separated elements into our work?
1. In what ways could we extend the process of rendering beyond photo-realism and distance the final result from its computer representation?
2. Vierkant states that the fragmented world of “the screen” is becoming our communal space. What makes the decision to opt out of the navigation of these fragments and remove oneself from this world so radical, and so unattainable for most?
3. Abrons and Fure feel that the post digital creates an opportunity to “critically engage our tools and techniques and to stimulate them within the larger cultural contexts” (194). What does this mean about the current evolution of the architectural field and how is its state different from when the age of digitization first began?
1. In the Andrew Atwood, Rendering Air, reading, he talks about rendering on the computer and how it is a separate world. It is no longer the world of hands and eyes, but one of digital pixels. The computer makes working easier and faster. Why do some professors insist that we draw things out by hand instead of on the computer? Wouldn’t doing things digitally just be easier and more efficient?
2. Later in the article he talks about how the improving technology also improves the quality of the renders. As technology becomes better, renders become more and more picturesque. At what point will renders and pictures be indistinguishable? Will VR be so advanced that the viewer can’t tell the difference between what they see and the real world?
3. In the Digital Divide, by Claire Bishop, it mentions that digital art never really took off. “Many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?” Why has digital art not become the norm and why haven’t there been that many artists switching to digital art?
The rise and improvement of technology allows for renders to be more picturesque. However this also comes with a downfall as renders are the perfect projected image of a space. Many times reality cannot look the same as the renders. For example the vertical building by Boeri Studio was rendered with beautiful greenery along the entire building. In reality the greenery was very hard to maintain and was no where close to what the renders looked like. Even if our technology and tools improves greatly, we are still limited by reality. When making renders or projected images we need to keep in mind what is science fiction and what is fantasy.
1. Mentioned in the Postdigital Materiality article, they try to scan all the details from the reality and reveal those tiny materiality in the digital forms. However, handling the real result pause the imagination and creativity of artists, would this method still be highly-recommended?
2. While many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?
3. The Internet asks us to reconsider the very paradigm of an aesthetic object: Can communication between visitors become another subject of an aesthetic project?
Post-digital era provides artists to have elements & resources that they could never use before, which elevates the quality, variety of the art piece, and also strengths the relationship between the art the reality. Sometimes, “keeping is achieved not by the absence of detail, but by the displacement and obfuscation of detail through processes of addition and erasure achieved through washing and tinting.”
1. In “Postdigital Materiality”, the use of technology is taking over people’s daily lives. Is it possible that people are growing to be materialistic about 3d printing/model making?
2. In Artie Vierkant “The Image Object Post-Internet”, the internet has the ability to publish articles/blogs that summarizes creativity and books in one page of information. Sometime people prefer to not read an entire book about their passion and rather take the easy path to obtaining knowledge. How can people be brought to realize the value of printed media or handwritten documents? Does technology convey the information in the same way or is there knowledge loss?
3. In Andrew Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, 3d modeling and rendering is gaining attention over traditional art. People are interested in the art form that will exist in the future, an art form that can adapt to changing times. How can rendering and traditional art both exist in the same time? Is there a way that traditional art can be incorporated into rendering? Can the two art forms merge to become a new form of art?
Atwood’s “Rendering Air” emphasizes the similar attributes of digitally rendering versus painting on canvas. To Atwood, the art of painting is itself beautiful because of the relationship between layering, spacing and texturing. Because computers are capable of accounting for all of this at once, does our use of computers show the deterioration of the artistic process?
“Digital Divide” focuses on Bishop’s claim that digital art is the what shapes the artist’s decision when working within certain media. In what ways has digital art created a reputation for itself and managed the way we view art?
“Post-Digital Materiality” discusses some of the disadvantages to using newer technology. In regard to digital computation, does this mean that the only advantage to something like digital rendering would simply be a faster product?
We live in a technologically vast age, an age that cultivates architecture like never before. The field of architecture is constantly propelled forward by the evolution of the computer, flinging students toward an increasingly large gap between those who can understand new technology and those who cannot keep up. Architects decades ago used mediums of pencil and lead in order to create their drafts, while the modern computer is capable of creating a render as beautiful as any professional painter could create. This is simply one example of the way in which art itself has changed as a direct result of the standardization of digital art. Has the artistic process changed? Can we alter our definition of what it means to create a beautiful scene? We no longer need to understand the certain strokes it takes to create a portrait of a house; instead, modern architects face the challenge of multiple programs and renders in order to generate the image they desire.
1. From reading “Rendering Air” the author writes that today’s renders lack the ability to captivate and be informative. In the future, will the present renders become more abstract in attempt to broaden students’ knowledge about different renderings while learning?
2. The word “render” was used many times in this week’s readings. Over the years since rendering images began, how has the definition changed and how do the older definitions still relate to today’s definition?
3. From reading “Digital Divide,” I noticed that there has been a large shift from hands on work to digital work. How has this drastic shift affected the architectural world, and will we ever return to the original organic ways of working with architectural projects?
1. In Claire Bishop’s article “Digital Divide on Contemporary Art and New Media”, the author mentioned that the appearance and content of contemporary art have been curiously unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor and leisure inaugurated by the digital revolution. What are the central points of convergence and divergence between new media art and mainstream contemporary art?
2. Does the integration of the digital world into contemporary art allow us to explore new dimensions of art that we don’t understand, or does it simplify the production process and make the creation of works of art less unique than in the past?
3. What are the insights into art history and emerging classics? Can this reconciliation collect art and cultural forms?
This week’s presentation discussed about architecture enters the age of post-digital drawing. The computer has turned our existence upside down. It has revolutionized communications, to the extent that it is now our preferred medium of everyday communication. In almost every architecture design practice, we use computers. Digital tools have pushed another kind of architectural drawing in a completely different direction. They position us within a predetermined idea of space, an array of pre-programmed presets rather than an ambiguous possibility that can be constructed.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In Rendering Air, Atwood discusses the process of creating renders on the computer to create images of your project, and how renders today are different from the renders of the past, done with layering hatches, and being hand drawn. Because there has become such a deeper technology on render creation, has the importance of renders in explaining ones work increased? Are renders more important than plans or sections in terms of explaining your parti?
2. In Digital Divide, the question, “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital” is posed. My question is why is there a push for everything to move into the technological world? Can we keep some things and some types of art the way they are, or is not evolving bad?
3. In Postdigital Materiality, there is a line that states ” that digital technology is increasingly shaping our perceivable world”. Can this be dangerous? These days Photoshop can be used to create fake images, and sometimes renders are meant to look like photographs. Will we get to a point where we can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fake? Are we already at that point?
LikeLike
During the discussion in class, multiple times we were shown images of a render vs. the actual project built in real life. The two are often completely different as the building in real life can’t live up to the standards of a render. This brings up many questions and thoughts. Are we as architects becoming liars and hurting the field of architecture by essentially lying through are renders to get a project sold or win a competition? And outside of architecture, renders are becoming more and more beautiful and realistic. This is seen especially through video games and new virtual realities. In a movie called ready player one, people essentially “live” in their realities because they believe it’s better than the real world. Are renders pushing people to want to live in a virtual world since we can’t live up to the expectations of the digital world?
LikeLike
1. In “Rendering Air”, Atwood discusses the process of creating renders on the computer to create images of your project, and how renders today are different from the renders of the past, done with layering hatches, and being hand drawn. Because there has become such a deeper technology on render creation, has the importance of renders in explaining ones work increased? Are renders more important than plans or sections in terms of explaining your parti?
2. In “Digital Divide”, the question, “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital” is posed. My question is why is there a push for everything to move into the technological world? Can we keep some things and some types of art the way they are, or is not evolving bad?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality”, there is a line that states ” that digital technology is increasingly shaping our perceivable world”. Can this be dangerous? These days Photoshop can be used to create fake images, and sometimes renders are meant to look like photographs. Will we get to a point where we can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fake? Are we already at that point?
LikeLike
1. In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood examines the history of rendering, highlighting the texture and layering techniques that draftsmen employed pre-computer. He explains the methods with which to abstract the figures and objects as they grow further away from the representational plane, using additional color washes for every step deeper into the z-plane. Such a technique compares, to ‘z-blur,’ which utilizes the render-camera’s z-buffer to distort the planes as they correspond to their distances the focal-center. Does convenience, fluidity and information-capacity of computer-output rendering provide that much advantage over hand-drafting techniques, or are there still areas where hand-renderings are preferred? do certain projects still warrant hand-renderings as a stylistic necessity?
2. Claire Bishop writes candidly of the art community’s surprising withdrawal from digital technologies as classic media like celluloid and vinyl become popular and “fashionable” once again, almost in response to the proliferation of digitized life. Interestingly, though, she discussed the internet’s having created an explosion of research-based art, as the access to information becomes more convenient, pervasive, and exhaustive than ever before. As a result, most modern physical art– however far removed from cyber-representation– maintains digital roots. Is digital-influence better left behind the scenes in light of tangible, physically appealing experiences, or have methods like virtual-reality and immersive projection have just yet to gain traction in the contemporary-art community?
3. Photogrammetry is an interesting post-digital technique, able to produce super accurate meshes with perfectly-mapped textures of any photographed object. The more angles one captures the object from, the more accurately the software can replicate the object to create hyper-realistic renderings. Inevitably, i’m sure we all have the same thought: can architects (and students) apply this technique to our own renderings as a means of adding realism or clarity?
LikeLike
1. Claire Bishop in ‘Digital Divide’ talks of the nostalgic nature the use of media in art, elaborating on how art in general has not reacted to the same degree as the rest of the world. She calls to examining contemporary media for communication and expression as an outlet for legitimate art. How is this phenomenon expressed in contemporary architecture?
2. In Rendering Air, Andrew Atwood talks about how the meaning of the phrase “to render” has changed with time and the continuous evolution of easily accessible technology. He talks about how the practice was historically done by hand and only just recently have digital renderings become an accepted practice. Is there a loss of creativity and individuality in digital media and does this hinder architecture to be an expressive form of art?
3. Adam Fure and Ellie Abrons in “Postdigital Materiality” examine how the pervasiveness of technology and digital media in the world has ultimately led to its subconscious in-validation by the general sphere as being an illegitimate form of media for art. They call for this condition to be re-examined and for digital media to be used not to attempt to render something indistinguishable from reality but to make a new reality altogether. How can this philosophy be applied to architecture to further push the bounds of architectures ability to create new, unexplored, spacial conditions.
LikeLike
This lecture examined how the digital capabilities of visual representation has evolved exponentially with time to the point that most professionals do not have a full handle on it. As was discussed, this phenomenon leads to different styles of art and expression that was previously unimaginable – thereby forcing it into the realm of “illegitimate” art. In architecture digital abilities have given architects the ability to render detail to the point of making something look like reality – this is both a positive and negative aspect. The positive is the obvious fact that architects now have the tools to put their creations into the (virtual) real world and to experience them before their creation. The negative side of this is the fact that architects do not necessarily create the most realistic representations of their projects for the sake of “instagram-ability”. As current technology progresses and sharing information becomes easier, it makes it harder to create something that truly stands out in the void of the internet; over-exaggeration and the fantastic are more prone to recognition than something that looks ordinary and real.
LikeLike
1. There is this constant desire to create something “new” and “progressive.” In our Post- Internet Society is it possible to truly do this or will there always be some kind of historic lineage that leads to the end product?
2. Mass media is a popular method to distribute anything and everything. Do you think this accelerated method of distribution has helped or hurt “art?”
3. In “Digital Divide” by Claire Bishop, she focuses on how art through digital methods have affected the overall craft and how different artist have used or disregarded the evolving technology. With this in mind what aspects from “classic art” would you use to further innovate the “digital art?”
LikeLike
1. In “Rendering Air”, Atwood believes that current render styles and techniques lack the ability to create interesting discourse. While abstract rendering may be frequently used in education, would the effects translate when it is used in practice?
2. Vierkant believes that the internet has damaged our ability to communicate, with the excessive use of “they” and “we”. Has the internet had any consequences on architectural discourse?
3. Is there an absolute utilization of the internet in architecture? Are there any aspects of the internet that are currently being underutilized within the discipline?
LikeLike
The debate about representation in architecture has seemingly come to a point in today’s architectural climate. Rendering technology has come far enough where many can produce near-photo-realistic images representing their buildings. The ethical question is how far should the architect be able to push these renders before they become set in a utopian world. Far too often architects are slandered for building unrealistic hype with phenomenal renders, yet the architects job is to show their project in the best light, and literally “sell” it to a client. I wouldn’t reduce the issue to the fault of one person or another, but rather the industry for creating unrealistic rendering standards. Since rendering software has improved, the singularity of renders has decreased. Perhaps the initiative should be to find more ways to creatively represent architecture, rather than making renders look more “realistic”. Regardless, the art of rendering seems to have arrived at a standstill, and that needs to change.
LikeLike
1.In ‘Post digital Materiality,’ Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure discuss the new aesthetic theory of the postdigital and how currently, individuals, particularly within architecture, seem to be focusing more on the easiness of technological design rather than the newness that could be found in hidden computation aspects. Do we favor ‘easy’ tools like make2d, render tools and cracked software because of laziness or because we are forced into it by unachievable societal expectations on the timeline of life achievements? Does trusting what is widely used and known by society at large, minimize our ability to reflect on important cultural questions that digital design does not address? Does this limit our progress as architects and as a society as a whole?
2. On the other hand, even with a world that revolves around technology, art and architecture are constantly looking to precedents as critical references, often creating new work as a response to history. The question of whether classical art is just stemming from art questions originality and authorship, while technological art is often just collecting or preserving objects in digital form, both of which respond to history, without much engagement in the technological present. Is art exhausted? Will architecture become irrelevant if it does not begin to assess the modern day effects of technology and social practices?
3. In ‘Rendering Air,’ Atwood describes the differences between the traditional vs technical image and how the term rendering as changed over time from making a 2D object look 3D to making a 3D model into a 2D image. Currently architects mostly do the latter, that is creating a 2D traditional image from a technology driven 3D model without truly understanding how that technology works and the technical processes within it. If architects were to fully understand these processes what could be achieved? Are image production techniques something that should be taught in design school and if so how would this affect the rest of architectural discourse?
LikeLike
Computation and technology bring a fast paced workflow while still allowing for technical precision. Even with techniques like descriptive geometry where tools are used to increase the precision of hand drawings, the time required to create the same drawing would be much faster in a computer. Perhaps modern day favors technology because of the pressures of the societal time frame, or the trust in the popular. Even with the computer’s ability to compute complex objects or conditions, there is still something missing in design today. With this in mind it is important to think about Walter Benjamin and his theory that the computer may be able to reproduce an image, but what does this reproduction miss? Benjamin describes it as the ‘aura’ or cultural index, something that needs to hold a much greater importance in the modern day world, with all of its socio-political problems.
LikeLike
1. Photogrammetry is a very interesting post digital technique that is very useful, but with the complicated nature might be hard to learn to do well. Without the ease of use, is it worth trying to use on a large scale?
2. The use and definition of the word render has majorly changed over the decades, how have various definitions still relate to each other?
3. Does a digital render create a degree of removal from the project, where a physical one is more involved in the project?
LikeLike
1. In “Digital Divide”, Claire Bishop explains that “one significant side effect of the information age is that research is easier than ever before”. Does describing the ease of research in today’s day and age as a side effect imply positive or negative effects? How has our generation’s access to a wide breadth of knowledge and past ideas/theories allowed us to expand our current schools of thought?
2. Artie Vierkant begins his essay “The Image Object Post-Internet” by characterizing today’s art in the post-internet age. Vierkant mentions that art no longer deals with the “nature of the art object but the nature of its receptions and social presence”. How has social media become a platform for more provocative art? Does an increase in audience through social media allow for artists to create a larger statement within their art? Has it changed the way we, as observers, see their art objects?
3. Ellie Abrons criticizes the post-digital and post-internet world of art by stating that “authorship becomes the practice of curating and packaging the gathered content” and this has resulted in a “shift from exceptional to ordinary notions of creativity”. Throughout this course, the discussion of whether it is possible to make something original has been brought up. In the digital age that we currently live in, can artists and designers produce a truly original work of art, or has the internet rendered that impossible by increasing the ease of access to past work that Bishop described in her article? In addition, do artists and designers rely too heavily on the default settings of the computer programs we utilize?
LikeLike
In the digital world that we live in, the need for people to create bigger and better projects comes at a price – expectations. With the variety of software programs and skills that architects learn in design school, the ability to create realistic representations of a project can be as easy as adding a couple of lights and blending a few layers in the computer. However, with the need to create the most “instagrammable” representation of a concept, comes the problem of setting unrealistic expectations. Architects and designers set up renders to showcase an element or aspect of a design, sometimes portraying unrealistic elements, thus setting the clients’ expectations at a level where disappointment may come easily. In order to drive a concept home, the architect may exaggerate elements in order to get the point of the design across. The digital world allows any idea to become a reality on the computer, but the new expectation is that the design can easily translate to the real world.
LikeLike
1: In “Rendering Air”, by Andrew Atwood, he says that “architecture is rapidly approaching an image discourse / becoming more and more focused on photographs and renderings and whatever may lie in between”. If this is true, what then could happen to the future of architecture as a whole? If we become obsessed with the 2D dimensionality, will our designs start to show that and begin to lack 3 dimensionality? Little to no design to the depth of a building?
2: In “The Image Object Post-Internet”, by Artie Vierkant, they claim 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”. This is an interesting concept when applied to Architecture. The fact that original architectural inspirations may not be viewed as fundamentally superior or more important than those based off of it can actually prove troubling. There’s a stigma for any architect to separate themselves and do something entirely new. How would this be altered when even if someone does create a new style, it will just be grouped in with all of the other copies that are going to be made from it? It diminishes the motivation to go above and beyond.
3: In “Postdigital Materiality”, by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, they say 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”. I’d agree and disagree with this statement. While, it is true for some artists to go and take ideas from what they find online as inspiration for their works, there will always be that division of people dedicated to creating entirely new styles of art architecture based on nothing but what was formulated from their own minds. Is this such a bad thing?
LikeLike
1. In many senses, the Atwood “Rendering Air” piece speaks on the relation between 2-D and 3-D. ex. Mapping 2-D points onto a 3-D form, or extracting millions of 2-D pixels from a 3-D model, the render takes place between these two dimensions. His study of rendering begins with an analysis of the British picturesque, which implies a more painterly process of rendering, with layers, textures, proportion, and depth. Today this would be in Photoshop. I’m wondering if we as students actually think about our projects differently if our process is more painterly. If producing the image is more analog, step-by-step, applying layers, depth, atmosphere manually, rather than producing one final image, in one layer, from V-Ray?
2. Vierkant writes about the notion that attention has always been currency, but it is now decentralized so much, that I feel it may have lost value. There is no longer the notion of the original image, or painting, or physical copy, but the possibility of millions of altered copies. There are hundreds of architecture Instagram pages, which all seem to share similar posts, shouting out similar pages. I tend to see the same images of the same projects recycled over and over. Do you think this trend serves to strengthen the value of the work itself, or to hurt it? Does the increased number of eyes on the project help the project, or does it help the account that shares the project? PS. peep the link to my portfolio below 🙂
3. Bishop writes about the troubling relationship our society has with intimacy and with distance. Social media links us together, keeping up with each other’s birthdays, rants, travel photos, but without any true connection. It is friendship without the commitment that used to be involved. Infinitely scrolling has desensitized us to each other’s lives, as we see a wide range of content every day, from news of mass shootings to memes about eggs. Anything that comes across our gaze as we scroll gets attention for a fraction of a second, regardless of how thoughtful or meaningful or valuable it is. The apps that truly meant to keep our lives together have actually really separated us apart. Even if you or I are on the same app, we see different content and ads based on algorithms derived from what we click on and who we follow. I could rant about this for a while, but nobody wants to hear that… so, is there anything you think we should change, in order to add value to these apps that consume so much of our time? Could this relate to adding value to the new media posted there like Bishop writes about?
LikeLike
This notion of rendering via the computer seems to align itself more with a mere representation of whats there, than does a painting, which brings to the table a whole nother level of questions regarding the artistry of the work. Rendering via photometry includes rendering a literal 3D form of whats already there, and a V-Ray render produces a flat version of the same, with lighting and material. In this age, photoshop stands at this hinge between flat image and painting, providing the user with infinite artistic capabilities, should we choose to use them. The digital art Annie referenced is a great example of this.
LikeLike
1 In “Image object Post-internet”, Artie discussed about Internet’s impact on the artwork and the huge difference between contemporary art and human. He stated past art work have its concept and a certain level of thinking but contemporary art work do not have any of those due to the advance computer technology. How can we design a new art work with interesting concept from the past design?
2 In “Digital divide on contemporary and new media”, Claire gives a new definition of the term ‘digital-divide’ based on her understanding. She explained the relationship between the contemporary art and the digital appliances. Claire considers the process of creating art work with digital technology is related to each other. How can we make a connection between architecture and people and design it as a subject of aesthetic?
3 In “Rendering Air”, Andrew makes a discussion with the painting technique and rendering process. Compared with the painting, rendering focus more on the space, form, shades and texture. At some extent, rendering is similar with the painting. But the digital image with rendering in computer offers more opportunities to the visible change of the image. Both techniques have its flaws and advances, how can we apply part of the technique in painting to the process of rendering?
LikeLike
From this class presentation, I learned about the history of photometry and the development process of rendering and art work creation. Rendering an image requires similar technique of painting. People need to consider how to distribute the spatial area of the images, shading, lighting, different types of textures, and the influence of the each material to the surrounding. The presentation also introduces the different art forms of the post-digital area. The reading states that nothing is original now because contemporary art work are ‘mimicking’ the past creation. But the projects in the presentation disprove part of it. Due to the advanced technology, many art form has developed into the digital form which allow artists to explore various ‘surprising’ areas. I think post-digital area did take some part of the past objects but they are utilizing to create a new project. As time goes by, the art form and art work will have infinite possibilities and ‘newer’ concept.
LikeLike
1) Bishop explains that the public’s infatuation with “new media art” eventually had a strong impact on the ways that we experience relationships and communication, including the push-pull factors of “intimacy and distance”. Do you feel that it’s important to always consider the architectural implications of that concept? What happens if we do not have that in our thought process?
2) “Representation through image”, as explained by Artie Vierkant in the text, has become a central focus in the way that we value artistic concepts and visual design as a whole. It begs the question of which one we as a generation value more: the actual object/product/piece, or the final image or documentation that is meant to represent it?
3) Has the definition of “communal space” changed for us as architects to fall under the hierarchy of the screen? What does that idea say about the progression of architecture in the coming decades?
LikeLike
I found the discussion from yesterday’s lecture to be very helpful when it comes to my personal views on representation and digital imagery. We, as future architects, must understand the social impact and developments of digital design/ visual arts in the realm of communication and human interaction as a whole in order for us to become more in tune with society’s progression. With a higher affinity towards these kinds of experiences and spaces in our buildings, they will become much more prominent when it comes to how we design. Soon, we’ll be asking ourselves how to more efficiently incorporate virtual reality and other related aesthetics into a seamless living experience. Seeing the presentation’s many examples of what seems to be outlandish and science-fiction-oriented in the present only makes me wonder how we will change in relation to it all. There seems to be an overall positive reception to it all when it comes to our generation.
LikeLike
1. In “Digital Divide”, Claire Bishop seemed to mainly be concerned with the future existence of physical visual artwork in the age of digital media. Building off of Atwood’s analysis of the render, contemporary work is caught between digital tools and analog product, however Atwood was more favorable because digital rendering allows more self-critique and conceptual building of a project than traditional/analog techniques. Bishop is concerned that those techniques might be lost. If we are material beings, how can we loose physical visible art/techniques? Can digital replace tangible and essential materiality?
2. Claire Bishop wrote, “The digital … is code, inherently alien to human perception”. She also wrote that if you converted a .jpg into .txt, you would just get a file of letters and numbers that are less meaningful than the original .jpg. Is it necessary for us to understand or appreciate the .txt version of the .jpg? An analogy that comes to mind is our nervous system. Is it necessary for my survival to know the detail of how it works?
3. About the postdigital from “Postdigital materiality”, “it’s a bid to explore the idiosyncrasies and aesthetics of digital mediums while considering larger cultural questions that have been under-addressed in digital design discourse to date”. This implies a learned mastery of a digital technique. If someone is trying to address an “under-addressed” discourse postdigital while learning the software, does this have any adverse effects on their worldview? Is there concern that the discourse will be dropped if the learner is unsuccessful with their first attempt?
LikeLike
During the presentations and the panel afterwards, there seems to be a consensus that rendering in the digital age comes with positive aspects and negative ones. There are striking similarities between Gilpin’s picturesque rendering techniques and current day digital rendering techniques. However, advancements in digital rendering has made rendering a scene practically effortless. A positive aspect of this is that designers now have the ability to explore new concepts that were closed off from before. This is an important advancement that has the ability to refresh the representational part of architectural practice. The flip-side of this is that the ability the create realistic looking renders as led to many architects fabricating the way their project will look in order to sell it to a client. These renders are highly utopian and if used for any reason other than abstraction, they more than not damage the finalized construct.
LikeLike
1.) Abrons and Fure write about the post digital age architecture is entering and the implication of computations in all forms of design and construction. What I find interesting is constant use of algorithms and parametrics in every aspect of design and construction possible. Engineers and Architects are in a post digital phase of attempting to use computations to solve most design and construction problems. This leads me to propose the question, where does this practice of computational techniques in design end? Will we see a future of buildings begin to act like an algorithm to react to its environment?
2.) In Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, the focus is on the outdated practice of rendering without the use of digital interfaces. He mentions the techniques used by William Gilpin to create renderings and the purpose of these methods. My question is why aren’t we as young architects educated more in these techniques used to create pre-digital renderings? From Atwood’s summary of Gilpin’s text it appears to me that in today’s modern age we forget that renderings are suppose to come alive and display a scenery that looks like a reality. Learning old techniques used in the pre-digital age may help remind us of that.
3.) In “The Digital Divide”, Bishop writes about the arrival of new media interfaces like the DVD and how it forced VHS tapes to become obsolete. But yet the use of celluloid media is still desired by some artists due to an attraction to display their craft. This leads me to ponder at the question, does modern forms of technology and interfaces put a restriction on displaying ones craft and skill?
LikeLike
1. In the article “Rendering Air,” Andrew Atwood describes the evolution of rendering
and how modern programs have redefined the meaning of ‘rendering.’ It used to be a moment
where people would carefully shade in specific areas to carefully create a delicate image
that shows the perspective of the author. How is VR and other modern rendering programs
leaving behind this thoughtful and artistic format of composition?
2. In the article written by Artie Vierkant called “The Image Object Post-Internet,”
Vierkant highlights the fact that prior to the internet people took photos and published
them. They were appreciated as is, but not photography takes a whole new form. A form
that can almost be considered a new language. How can this way of existing shape the way
we consider art and architecture?
3. With the continual development of technology, it increasingly becomes intertwined with
art. Taking a simple geometry and creating an entire spectrum of shapes in a repeated
format produced by Grasshopper and the post processing this linework gives digital art
a whole new definition. Will there be new ways of interpreting our 3 dimensional projects
instead of the traditional renderings in the future? How will this redefine our way of
understanding spaces in our projects?
LikeLike
1. The way new computer programs are going to be re-arranging the definition of rendering is through virtual reality and hypo-realistic renders. The issue that we discussed in class was how ‘fake’ these rendering can be. Maybe the virtual reality renders are a little better than just a photo render, but in general, these photo-shopped renders are not real and the final product will not look the same.
2. From the presentations in class, it was discussed this new way of creating art of meshing together various photos. What was discussed is that we are close to a moment that art and fashion are positively affected in the sense that every design will be considered. Every design and style will be considered, because of the ease that producing is easily erased by CTRL + Z.
3. My perspective on the articles was a more positive view since I considered what the future could hold for rendering in architecture. These tools could define a major transition for architecture so much that could kick start a whole new era of rendering and developing drawings for clients. Yet, this is not the case for what modern programs are being utilized. The modern renders that the architects of today are producing are unrealistic. They have lighting shining through spaces that may not have lights in that specific area, so the lighting in the overall render is not correct.
LikeLike
1. in the article “Rendering Air”, the author Andrew Atwood explains how rendering has evolved in the past of the years with the contribution of technology. The techniques needed to render today helps to give a more realistic and clear understanding of the object that is being rendered. Not only the object itself but also its environment and position in space. In some parts in Atwood article, he constantly repeats “The computer has to do…” meaning that the machine would accomplish to do the techniques required to evolved an imagine which are layering, displacement, washing, keeping and rendering. Would not this undermind our ability to develop an image by using our skills without depending on computers and technology?
2. Why computers have to create such a vivid image of an object and change drastically its natural texture, context, and place on space? why could not this be rougher and less perfect?
3. Do you think that by letting technology be the primary contributor to the evolution of art and graphic design, it would be more valuable a work made by a computer than a work made by an artist’s hands?
LikeLike
So it is clear that technology is helping us in many ways, especially in designing. But is that really help or it would rather be that is taking away the ability in people to create sketches by hand and being able to render it however the individual think the material of the object or its environment looks like. Is it really important to show such beauty and perfection through a huge amount of pixels that a computer program would use in order to create the context of those objects?, or it is actually important the ability of perceiving and representing this materiality that is imperfect and rough into our drawings and even the imperfection of these lines makes it look more interesting and artistic. Nothing in this world is perfect. so why focus on something that is just showing us a fake world where imperfections are not allowed when we are fully surrounded by them. These imperfection are perfect ornaments in our buildings why take them away? maybe renders should show the real character of an object instead of making it look like is coming from a perfect world.
LikeLike
1) In Andrew Atwood’s essay of “Rendering Air”, he compares painting to digital renderings. He talks about the process it takes to paint a picture, how the artist thinks through the layers, the textures, and space between objects in the scene. However, computers can render all these parts for us. Is technology destroying our ability to be artistic and abstract when it does the process for us?
2) Artie Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post-Internet”, talks about how the internet helped spread and showcase many artistic artworks. As a result, many people use mass media to see and observe artwork instead of being there in person. The mass media has become the people’s communal space. Like Rendering Air, is the internet drawing people away from seeing artwork in person? How is it more enticing to look at an art piece through a computer screen than through your own eyes?
3) Claire Bishop’s article on “Digital Divide on Contemporary Art” questions where digital art has gone. Now these days, people know how to use digital technology, so any art they produce digitally is digital art. Yet, it’s not focused or formed around the idea of “digital”. Is it that we are so modern now, so used to having mobile cameras, digital technology in our hands constantly, that we have forgotten the idea of it? Are we taking this digital filled life for granted?
LikeLike
The “internet” is the new norm. Many generations know and understand how to use the internet. Things like Google and Bing can find any information you want very easily. Thus, because of the internet’s influence, the original source of any information is hard to find. Whenever I had to do a research paper, the teacher will always say “book sources only” because books have the original source of the information. It’s not this website said this from this new reporter in this video. It’s a hard, solid source written by someone who did their research. Whatever painting or picture out on the internet now could be replicas of an artwork someone did years ago.
LikeLike
1. Since “the line between digital and physical is nearly unperceivable” and the “rare and novel” becomes “ubiquitous and familiar” as stated in Postdigital materiality, does that create challenges of what architects can create since it faces the issue of actually being physical real?
2. Atwood compares Gilpin’s process to an architect’s process and recognizes that “computer rendering offers numerous opportunities to make visible the steps of an image’s production.” Does this “aspect of the technical image” create pressure on architects to produce something to perfection?
3. Although, Bishop states that the information age allows “research to be easier than ever before,” how do we get people/ students, mentioned in Peter Eisenman and Sarah Whiting discussion in the Autonomy & The Search for an Absolute Architecture reading, to be interesting in the engaging with the research?
LikeLike
Post-Digital Aesthetics has created the perception that the impossible is achievable. The ability to use layers allows people to create unimaginable. The expectations that one receives in photos and renders deceive the real experience. Although, renders are shown to clients for their better understand of the space of the architect’s proposal, some people are unable to understand that the renders are not an exact representation of the project, but an ideal appearance. The idea of architects living up to the given renders is understandable; however, as renders improve, project products are consistent. This concept creates a higher expectation that architects have to fulfill. When renders were more ambiguous, people had little to no expectations. Rather than focusing on the aesthetic, they were understanding the general massing. By digitizing the world, people lack the capability of fully understanding the creator’s purpose since they are too distracted.
LikeLike
1. “Even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of its copies.” If an authentic image, idea, objects, or what have you doesn’t hold any greater value than a copy of itself then what makes it unique? The original item was developed with specific means while using specific methods to construct the item which a copy does not have. So is Artie Vierkant making the assumption just because the copy is being represented in a different manner while also using different methods that it holds the same value as the original?
2. “According to some, architecture is rapidly approaching an image discourse, becoming more and more focused on photographs and renderings and whatever lies in between.” Does today’s architecture and architecture schools focus too much on renders? Sure the render will sell the project to the client but if you don’t know how to correctly organize and design the project that’s all it is a conceptual idea/image.
3. “The Digital has revolutionized space (from physical space to cyberspace), form (from boxes to blobs), fabrication (from masons to robots), building (from blueprints to BIM), and style (from Postmodernism to Parametric… It compels architecture to move beyond captivation with the novelty of the digital in order to explore sensibilities that emerge from an understanding of computation as a background condition of our reality, and the digital as something that doesn’t simply represent the real but is itself another reality.” What should this digital world be called, Digital Graveyard, Digital Monuments, an Alternate Reality? In today’s world, where does most architecture mostly live, does it live in the real world or does it live in the digital one?
LikeLike
Rendering takes on different meanings depending on the tools available to architects; india ink and watercolor create a different notion of atmosphere than raytracing. What assumptions and tools of contemporary computer rendering influence our design?
Bishop’s conclusion is that digital art will either make art accessible for all or obsolete. What other ways has digitization changed what we understand as art? Is the introduction of digital art beneficial to the art world even if it unrecognized, and if so in what way?
Vierkant describes how digital transmission of art eventually reduces it to its aesthetic rather than ideological basis. How has this influenced architectural design and philosophy? Is this movement towards the exclusively visual inherently good or bad?
LikeLike
1– We live in a post digital world, where digital technology is now what shapes our world and our perception of the world around us. It is hard to escape this, especially with the “world undergoing visual and structural changes” as stated in “Post Digital Materiality”. It is hard to distinguish between what is digital and what is non digital because the digital realm of the world has its clutch on almost every aspect of life. Yet Digital world has revolutionized design– it opens up endless possibilities and has propelled architecture beyond the basic ( the “real”, physical space, boxes) to the unrealized ( the “new real”, cyberspace, blobs). The early design process in the post digital world was loud, messy, awe inspiring and open to possibility, where as now it is seen as the easy thing to do. Therefore the question becomes; do we need some new technological revolution to make architecture exciting again? To make it a challenge? Or do we perhaps need a collapse of the digital to bring along a new way of design or even resort back to old ways of design with the insight learned from this digital world we are currently in?
2-In “The Image Object Post- Internet”, Vierkant about the concept of originality. They state that since the dawn of the internet there is no such thing as original that “for objects after the internet there can be no ‘original’ copy” and that ” nothing is in a fixed state, everything is anything else”. Yet people made copies and stole ideas long before the internet. Andy Warhol made a name for himself by just altering copies of adverts, people, objects etc. and countless other artists have done the same. So does that mean that there has never truly been an original? Or are they instead trying to make the point that since the creation of the internet it is now much easier to cop and alter something , and less easy to find the actual source of the copies? How does this translate to architecture? ID the architecture of the post internet world all becoming the same?
3– How has the term rendering changed? Today rendering is the production of images from computer graphics and software. Originally rendering was a technique of layering tone/ color to build up to a final image where “rendering” was the final layer to create depth and transform a 2-D drawing into something with depth of space. It was a picturesque approach to creation combining beauty and the sublime. Rendering used to be a process that was constantly building up of one thing to create a whole. Yet today there is much that also goes into rendering; creating an image still takes processing, layering, cutting, removal, addition, blurring, color, opacity ect. Yet the difference is that with digital rendering one can see the steps to the process as well as the final design. Is rendering today really that much different that technical rending? The endgame is the same just the techniques and medias are different. Should architecture revert back to hand rendering?
LikeLike
We live in a world that is connected to the internet in almost every way. The digital has escaped and it part of the physical. We do not go more than a few hours or a few steps without interacting with part of the digital world. In the post- internet reality, we are all part of something big and vast that continues to grow and become ever so interconnected with every aspect of life itself. This may have changed the world for the worse or for the better. It is a common argument that since the dawn of cyberspace, the is nothing truly original. Every idea, image, word, sound has just been copied, stolen, augmented or reused. That there is no easy way to trace back to an “original”, where as before the internet the author of something had the original in its most true state. How has this then translated to architecture? We have been told time and time again that the best artists were thieves; the idea of stealing ideas has been around much longer than the internet and will be here long after. We are always going to be influenced by the things we see, weather we are aware of it or not. Architecture becomes redundant just like anything else. Yet the post-internet era has also opened up numerous doors for the world of architecture. Graphics, computer programs, parametric design, being able to render in minutes and to create drawings in hours rather than days. The process of architecture has become faster and will continue to do so. We can create spaces that will only exist in cyberspace or use these tools to create shapes, forms and spaces that could have never been realized before computers. That being said using technology to aid in the creation and production of architecture has grown from new, messy, exciting to simply being the easy way to do things. The internet and the use of computer software has made architecture lazy; when it once enabled it to be amazing and powerful beyond belief. What needs to happen to get us back to the exciting? A collapse of the current system or another post era of sorts?
LikeLike
1| Does the disconnect between those developing contemporary rendering techniques and those implementing them serve as a danger to the future representation of work? If the artist is unaware of the complexity of her tools does the artwork become meaningless?
2| Due to the ground-up processing procedures of computer assisted graphics, is it meaningful to think about generating a conglomeration rather than a single image when producing modern renderings? Should the image be thought of as an entity completely disparate from those developed by painterly techniques of the past?
3| Claire Bishop poses the question: “How many reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by the digitization of our existence?”; to expand upon this, how does the digitization of nearly all aspects of our interactive environment effect our perception of reality?
LikeLike
1) Technique and Technology attribute to the general “finish” of Architectural Representation. In Rendering Air Andrew Atwood discusses the transition of rendering from a technique to give depth to a 2 dimensional hand drawing to current day where we can utilize new technology to walk through buildings before they’re even built. This alters the general “finish” of architecture and in a way makes architecture more accessible to the masses. How do you think this new level of accessibility and understanding through rendering is making architecture more popular culture?
2) There is a natural feeling to resist change in architecture in fear of losing the rich history, culture, and theory that has driven the field for so long. The current technological age threatens to do away with a lot of conventions of the architects of yesterday. Should we be afraid of this change because we will lose something important to the identity of Architecture? Or do we focus on where we can take technology in terms of architecture no one has dreamed of ever before?
3) More so than rendering or VR, Photoshop has taken over in popular culture as a way of creating our own ideal reality. The limits of Photoshop seem to be your own skill, and with that skill you can create or recreate nearly anything in the world. With the way technology is headed the world I feel could one day all be photo shopped. Through Augmented reality and VR a world that is ideal beyond merely what is there can be built and we as humans can craft our own identities and lives. The architectural implications of this are countless, but what do you think of this idea of rendering in the real world? Changing our perception of people and places through smudging, erasing, blurring, and layering.
LikeLike
1) In “Rendering Air,” Atwood mentioned that some architects are saying architecture is “approaching an image discourse.” What does this entail for the future of architecture and the shifting methods of graphic representation? How has the digital impacted the art of model making?
2) In “Digital Divide,” Bishop opines that social practice is tied to analog representation. In what respect has architecture strayed from social practice in the shift to digital? In what ways has it become more crucial?
3) How does architecture hold onto or discard analog methodology for digital representation? Is the analog more as a nonessential addition or vital component of architecture?
LikeLike
I think that ultimately we are somewhat victims of the digital age. Analog approaches have lost their contextual value and become more placeholders then anything else. The shifting role of technology in representation is something that we are ultimately powerless to fight against. These tools have altered the fundamental nature of architecture so radically that there really is no possibility to return to the analog.
LikeLike
1. In “The Image Object Post Internet” by Artie Vierkant, the author puts forward “post-internet”. Post-internet, most often associated into two historical artistic modes: new media art and conceptualism is a genre of art in virtue of internet technology support. Backers of new media art criticize supporters of conceptualism presumes “a lack of attention to the physical substrate” while the latter question the former focus too narrow on “the working of novel technologies, rather than a sincere exploration of cultural shifts.” As internet propaganda become so prevalent, how can architects broadcast their architecture via post-internet? And how can architecture utilize the idea of post-internet?
2. In the article of “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood, it says that “render” is only regarded as a technology to make perspective drawings based on 3D modeling right now. However, render used to interpreted as adding tone, material, and texture in the drawing to create an atmosphere and a feeling in the 18th century for artists. Render is so important for the artists in that era that the unique background drawings of air are the logo of certain artists. How can render about air influence the architectural drawings? And how can the real air influence real architecture?
3. Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure wrote in “Postdigital Materiality” that the technology of modeling makes architectural students easier to create a full scenario of 3D space and 3D effect of the model in the United States. We know that in Europe and Asia, students rely more on drawings and their own perspective imagination. How can both students who model all the time without basic learning of aesthetic and students who learn drawing in the first two years and know little about new technology adapt to the tendency of Post-digital aesthetics?
LikeLike
Post-Digital Aesthetics creates crazy and fabulous sculpture- like architecture that seems impossible to be built. Technology provides us unthinkable fancy drawings that people in the past cannot imagine. Exposed structure, curvy walls looks like conflict gravity, opacity materials supporting the structure, etc… Compared to the past that clients will only able to see 2d drawings or a few perspective drawings about their buildings, people who asking architects to design a building right now can easily acknowledge the realistic version about what will the building looks like.
It seems that the rendering technology we used has nothing related to the history of photometry and the development process of rendering and artwork creation. However, the technique of rendering an image is similar to the technique of painting. People still need to imagine how to allocate the spatial area of the image, shadow, light, textures, and materials on the surrounding environment.
LikeLike
While reading “Postdigital Materiality” I remembered an interesting phenomenon that happened a couple of weeks ago. I was working on a painting with a couple of students; when I took a photograph of the painting and noticed how it looked remarkably more appealing on screen than on paper. I continued to test this notion by cropping the view in both mediums and rotation. Every test looked more appealing on a digital screen. Do you think there is a different in how we perceive two dimensional objects on screen vs physically and if so why?
In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood states: “In production of a rendering [in modern times] a three dimensional object must be turned into a two dimensional image on the raster screen, this is what we see and it is the only thing we ever see” Technology has advanced enough to the point where we can render objects not just in two dimensions, but also 3 dimensions. Architects usually abuse this though by only using the render to show one instance, or the “money shot”, in their project. Would an increase in rendering in 3 dimensions call for architects to focus on more aspects of a building other than a single moment, and if you think this is the case do you think that it will be implemented soon if it hasn’t already?
Artie Vierkant in “The Image Object Post-Internet” states: “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.” While I think this is true due to the non-physical nature of the internet, why do we hold more value for an “original” in physical media, even if it has a replica?
LikeLike
During class I saw the professor pull up a tab on vaporwave, but unfortunately did not have time to speak about it, but it did spark my interest on talking about its relationship to the post-digital.
Recently I have fell in love with the aesthetics of vaporwave. It seems to challenge the idea of a render having to conform to resemble reality, in fact it seems to abuse the tools we currently have at our disposal by creating low-poly renders. That are tossed together in a seemingly haphazard way to create a very unrealistic whole image. Yet in doing this the creator has successfully rendered the vaporwave aesthetic. Vaporwave also is quite interesting in its music as well. Often times it is a collage of stolen sounds. The sounds generally come from commercials/ advertising, yet these stolen sounds are not seen as bad to the listener; it is nostalgic and yet it can even create a brand new feeling at the same time. It is like when you go to a tropical place such as Florida back when you where a kid. You are in the hotel out on the balcony and you hear the tv in the background playing ads in whatever time period you grew up in. The difference is that you are now paying attention to these sounds you once ignored, you find there are new sounds as well. You are then reminded that you are not a child anymore; you are your present form that has time traveled back to a time you’ve longed to see again.
If it is a copy so what. It is the content that matters most to us; the fact that we looked at it, it doesn’t matter if it’s good sometimes. Just that we wanted to see it, then saw it. That’s it. That is what it means to be in the post-digital.
LikeLike
1.Could displacement be a new ‘picturesque’ aesthetic? Why would that sort of disconnect be desired?
2.How great of an effect does postdigital materiality have on architecture? As mentioned in the article by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, it is important today to” train the eye to see its effects,” but what are these effects? It seems as though a pish to use technologies to create architecture now has just as much to do with ease that it does design, so how exactly would we be able to notice if it’s not something like in the realm of parametric design?
3.In “The Image Object Post-Internet” Artie Vierkant dicusses the use of “they” and “’we” in discussion of production and things of that nature is an inclination of loss of cultural values in production. Isn’t this more of a discussion of who is being referred to rather than why they are referred to in this way? Who are “they”?
LikeLike
1: Technology has brought the development of architecture increasingly into a 2D plane, while physical modelling has taken a somewhat back seat. What identities in architecture have been lost by this transition? Which aspects remain, possibly even amplified?
2: No matter how advanced technology may become, it is ultimately useless without an operator. In other words, even if you have the finest tools in the trade, if the user does not have the skill, talent, or knowledge to use them they will be wasted. As an architectural society, how can we identify the differences between a work in which the architect relies on technology, and one where technology relies on the architect?
3: Vierkant’s description of a post-internet world highlights to globalization and increased plurality of societal norms paints a scene both of constant motion and of floating stasis. As everything is considered a work in process and is seen as having the potential to continue to evolve, culture is trapped moving forward. How much has this influenced architecture, a profession that must result in stationary works of metal and masonry?
LikeLike
1. On Rendering Air, Andrew Atwood emphasizes how the rendering always refers to the production and composition of images using techniques borrowed from the field of the computer graphics. In other words, the rendering is becoming more used to the representation of project, which requires a composition of production to reflects your point of view, must be include in a presentation layout because give us an opportunity to represent a conceptual idea clearly. Do you think a rendering act as important as a plan or section to represent a conceptual idea in presentation?
2. In Digital Divide, Bishop analyses the contemporary art-world’s reluctance to conceptually engage with the changes which have been wrought by the proliferation of digital technology. She wonders why so few contemporary artists confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital, and reflect deeply on how we experience, the digitization of our existence? Why do you think Bishop argues that the digitalization is dividing the contemporary art-work?
3. IN “Postdigital Materiality”, Adam Fure and Ellie Abrons Discuss how the new aesthetic theory of the Postdigital and how the easiness command it rather newness or more aesthetic, in particular in architecture seem the digital or computational era lead it. Does this will limit us to think outside of the box or to explore unexplored things?
LikeLike
How Felix said a rendering is a composition the processing of an outline image using color and shading to make it appear solid and 3-Dimensional. By over layering different tone to create it a reality, but in most case a lot people fail to get it in real life. Fox example some projects don’t look even close to the rendering. Now the renderings are becoming a really important representation to refer some conceptual ideas. In other words, the rendering is becoming more used to the representation of project, which requires a composition of production to reflects your point of view, must be include in a presentation layout because give us an opportunity to represent a conceptual idea clearly. Must people will understand a well-done render than a section or elevation drawing because the renders and section represent some points of ambiguities that confuse people during a presentation.
LikeLike
1. In past weeks we have discussed the desire to produce new and progressive work. Do you think this is a positive or a negative thing? Can we have something new without the influence of any historical connections?
2. In “Rendering Air” Atwood discusses the idea of “traditional images”, what could we learn from the comparison of traditional images to technical ones?
3. In the past every piece of art was more or less one of a kind. The increased use of technology now means that pieces of art can easily be mass produced. Has the digital age taken away the value of art or has it just created a new “style”?
LikeLike
Rendering has become a very large and important part of architecture and proposals to clients. Rendering in this new digital age has become very advanced. This was a topic of discussion in class, why has it become so advanced, and is it a good thing? “Rendering Air” touches on the basics of rendering and how in the past it was as simple as adding color to an ink drawing. What happens if we start to revert back to the traditional ways of rendering. Renderings now have become so detailed that we can easily create things that are just physically impossible but render it so it’s realistic. We all know that until about our third or fourth year of school our studio projects aren’t the most realistic things. However, we are still told to create realistic renderings of our projects. Is this what should be happening? These photorealistic renderings have started to create false hope in projects. Some built projects end up not looking anything close to what was rendered, or the rendering presented something that would be impossible to actually be structural. So is it really effective to be teaching or producing these kind of renderings?
LikeLike
1) It seems quite interesting that their is a specific value placed on practical, conceptual, and physically crafted forms of visual representation. In this Post-Digital era, how has computational aesthetics and forms of designs manifested from practical, conceptual, and physicality crafted forms of visual representation?
2) As a counter of the previous question, In this Post-Digital era, how have computational aesthetics and forms of designs failed to gain influence from practical, conceptual, and physicality crafted forms of visual representation? Is this a problem? Is it important that new forms of design dwell as separate entities?
3) I seems as though photography, as an art and a practice, is essentially a pre and post product of the Post-Digital age. It is one of the few mechanisms that seem to transcend the bounds of time. Where would photography be classified? How could other art forms learn from photography? How could they mimic photography’s adaptation as an art and a practice?
LikeLike
In this Post-Digital Era, there seem to be a multitude of factors contributing to both design and architectural realms. There are a multitude of factors being analyzed including rendering and photo-realism. The way in which architecture is perceived, enacted, and created now seems to derive from a strong emphasis on three dimensional modeling practices and digital realms. This was essentially supported by the student panel discussion and informational presentation given during class. The age in which we currently reside in is oriented around digital objectification in various forms. What I wonder is what comes next, I wonder what the next step is for practicing architecture in a post-digital society. The “post” in this week’s title emphasizes the end of period following the age of digital aesthetics, which is now.
LikeLike
1. In Rendering Air, Atwood mentioned that the techniques architects used in recent years are sampled representations of processes of traditional image making. What are the sampled representations of the processes?
2. According to The Image Object Post, not only does the particular materiality of Post-Internet objects and images matter but also the way they present means a lot. Does it mean how Post-Internet Objects present will differ their meanings?
3. In Digital Divide On Contemporary Art and New Media, Claire mentioned Thomas Hirschhorn’s video of a finger idly scrolling through gruesome images of blown-apart bodies on a touch screen. Does this video indicate new media weaken people’s feeling of reality as long as the reality is present in a screen?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation discusses the rendering techniques in the modern world and how it influences the way we create architecture. With rendering, two-dimensional abstraction gets the chance to become an image with distance and depth between objects. At the same time, we have a better way to express our idea behind our design, and thus giving life to these imagines. From then to now, much has changed with the advent of the digital form. The application of photogrammetry arouses my interest as well. It’s really exciting to see that photogrammetry, as a technique, can track body movements to the smallest of details, as well as evaluating a construction project on a step bias to check it runs smoothly. The usage in two distinctive fields indicates vast potentials of one technique.
LikeLike
1. Digital Divide has become an outdated article with media like Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse being created on the grounds of fully embracing its own digital nature. In the face of exponentially faster modes of creation and discussion now occurring in real time, how does one stop themselves from becoming outdated in a couple years time?
2. The Post-Internet era has been subject to becoming overwhelmed with the amount of art that is produced as well as the ability to share these images. How will new artists stand out, and how will we cull the work to see what is relevant and what isn’t?
3. Shaders in industries like film and video games who have art degrees are now being replaced by people who have backgrounds in computer software. We can see this transition in Atwood’s essay as well. Outside of curating works as suggested by this week’s authors, will there be a place for technique in the future of art?
LikeLike
Today, the first real photograph of a black hole has been released. Through the internet, already there are countless numbers of copy images that have been made and distributed. Even Google has made its version through the Google Doodle that they have on display today. The instant transference of images allows humanity to experience things as a collective being in almost real time. The postdigital aesthetic with its repetition of shared human images reflects the condition of a being constantly reflecting on its memories. The photograph of the black hole is also interesting in the fact that it might be disappointing to some. This is especially true if one has seen the spectacularly rendered black hole in the 2014 film Interstellar. Our ability to replicate reality through technology is getting increasingly more accurate. Not only that, these false renders are demonstrating a reality that can supersede reality and create false expectations. Should we constrain the ability of the render to safeguard against that or allow them to continue to push the boundaries of experience just for art’s sake?
LikeLike
1.) In Andrew Atwood’s, “Rendering Air”, he talks about renderings as well as hand drawings. Do renderings allow for the hand drawing to become obsolete? The same discussion could be made about photography as well as painting. In my opinion, both are considered an art form at this point in time. Time has shown that photography is unable to fully encapsulate the intricacies of painting or hand drawing…however its manifested itself into a whole new art form. Perhaps rendering will be looked at as the same. How then, can we appreciate and differentiate between the two different art forms?
2.) Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure in “Postdigital Materiality” talk about the 3d modeling technology that young students now utilize daily. It seems that we are now capable of creating genius much faster…but is this entirely true?
3.) Artie Vierkant’s “The Image Object Post-Internet”, explains that the internet has played a massive role in spreading artwork and creativity to thousands. Similarly to the debate as to whether the physical book or the digital book is preferable, the same could be made about looking at art through a digital screen. Which is better? And if it is subjective, then what criteria can we come to collectively to discuss and appreciate the artwork from the artists original intent?
LikeLike
1. In Andrew Atwood’s Rendering Air, he talks about the shift from hand rendering sets of drawings to digital rendering as technology evolves. He states that architecture is approaching an image discourse, where we have become more focused on digital renderings, steering towards more conceptual and abstract forms of representation. Do you think we’ve lost something on the way from hand rendering to digital rendering? What effect has our user preference of digital rendering have on design?
2. Claire Bishop’s Digital Divide talks about the relationship people and the arts have with digital art. She states that digital art is the shaping condition, structural paradox even, that determines artistic decisions to work with certain formats and media. How has digital computation changed the way we see the world and the way we view art?
3. Abron and Fure’s Postdigital Materiality discusses the digital revolution and the change in cultural perception as digital technology as a novelty to something more ubiquitous. The Digital has transformed architecture, from physical space to cyberspace, form, fabrication, building, and style. Our lives have certainly been made easier with tools like “Make2D”, but have we become too reliant on technology as an aid in the design process?
LikeLike
This week’s lecture discussed the topic of post-digital aesthetics and representation, where the technological evolution has brought a shift from hand rendering to digital rendering. With this digital evolution, our lives have been made easier. With simple clicks of a button, we can produce an array of edited works, giving us endless possibilities. Some renderings have been made to look so photo-realistic. This gives us the ability to produce an idealistic representation of the project, and at much larger scales and faster outputs. Commands like “make2D” and such have transformed the way we work, allowing us to quickly create what would’ve been hours of meticulous slow work. Digital art has shaped architectural discourse towards more abstract forms of representation as well as our perception of the world and of art.
LikeLike
1. Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure in “Post-Digital Materiality” discuss how laziness has begun to emerge from the easiness of technological design. While softwares like Rhino and Revit are constantly being updated to have the most efficient tools, is it our human nature to take advantage of this and not utilize it to its full extent but rather just produce drawings faster and faster? Have technological advances encouraged more laziness then drive and tenacity?
2. Claire Bishop in “Digital Divide” talks about the use of media and her growing concern for our relationship with society. Social media brings people “together” but its a shallow connection being valued. Ironically it seems as though forms of media are creating more distance between humans. What kind of “new media” can be created to combat against this, or is it even possible to create new media that does not contribute to this distance?
3. In “Rendering Air” Andrew Atwood discusses the evolution of rendering from hand-drawing to digital renderings using different softwares. In what ways have digital renders lacked the effort of some of the hand-drawings that architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright so famously produced? And in what ways have digital renders been able to outdo the limited effects of hand drawings and renders?
LikeLike
Post-digital aesthetics present an interesting dilemma in today’s architectural world. As technology has exponentially grown throughout the past few years, the art of rendering has gone from representational abstract drawings to photo-realism that seems as though it is a photograph of the actual project. Not only are renders becoming more and more realistic, but they also seem to be creating perceptions of reality that may not be totally accurate. Firms such as MVRDV have mastered the art of displaying their projects with enough accuracy but also providing a romanticized style to represent the project as a whole. However, are we pushing these renders too far beyond reality? Are we as architects actually deceiving our clients to portray a reality that we can’t actually replicate? The industry is at a standstill; our technology has reached the point of being able to create renders that look basically like photographs (the presentation actually showed some really good examples of this). So, where do we go from here? Do we strive to create unrealistic stylized renders that are far from reality and are honest in their distortions of reality? Or is there an entirely new method of rendering that we have yet to discover?
LikeLike
Post-digital aesthetics present an interesting dilemma in today’s architectural world. As technology has exponentially grown throughout the past few years, the art of rendering has gone from representational abstract drawings to photo-realism that seems as though it is a photograph of the actual project. Not only are renders becoming more and more realistic, but they also seem to be creating perceptions of reality that may not be totally accurate. Firms such as MVRDV have mastered the art of displaying their projects with enough accuracy but also providing a romanticized style to represent the project as a whole. However, are we pushing these renders too far beyond reality? Are we as architects actually deceiving our clients to believe a reality that we can’t actually replicate? The industry is at a standstill; our technology has reached the point of being able to create renders that look basically like drawings (the presentation actually showed some really good examples of this). So, where do we go from here? Do we strive to create unrealistic stylized renders that are far from reality and are honest in their distortions of reality? Or is there an entirely new method of rendering that we have yet to discover?
LikeLike
1. In “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood, Atwood discusses how the use of rendering creates distance between the geometric description and its computer graphic representation. He emphasizes this by saying “the greater the reliance on texture mapping and surface effects, the more removed the image becomes from any source.” Is it better to render using a camera or through the addition of tone and color? Is it better for a render to be far removed from the basic 2-dimensional geometric representation of an object or for the render to create harmony between the 2-dimensional representation and the depth and 3-dimensionality of the object?
2. In “Digital Divide” by Claire Bishop, Bishop discusses how the digital revolution has the ability to change the reality of visual art through by dematerializing it, removing authorship, and making it unmarketable. What will this mean for the future of architecture?
3. In “Postdigital Materiality” by Ellie Abrons and Adam Fure, the authors discuss the idea that the digital revolution moves in a linear fashion from amateurism to expertise. Since technology will likely always be improving, won’t the expertise end of the spectrum always be changing?
LikeLike
The digital revolution has made an excess of information readily available. This overflow of information has created hybrids of radically different things. This has encouraged the development and broadening of visual arts to include the use of different disciplines and media. This advancement in the field of visual arts has influenced architecture through the reliance of computer aided design. Architecture schools today, especially RPI, focus heavily on the teaching of these computer programs. We are very rarely asked to hand draw our drawings. It is clear how influential the digital revolution has been on architecture by thinking about the jargon of architecture. For example, rendering in the traditional sense is the addition of color or tone that gives 2-D drawings dimension and depth. However, rendering as we know it today requires the use of computer programs to assign materials to and represent the design of a 3-D model. The language of architecture and the work done within the field of architecture has very clear ties to the digital revolution.
LikeLike
1. The fingerprints of the World Wide Web are all over us, and our work, as architects and social consumers. In the vein of Artie Vierkant and “The Image Object Post-Internet,” how might the age of Instagram influence our designs and impact their overall reach as functioning works of architecture?
2. How might we, as intellectuals in the contemporary age of technology’s snug coexistence to nostalgia as connection, innovate new digital technologies in architecture as opposed to continually cycling an obsession of the analog that is only digitally rendered?
3. In regards to digital representation, what is gained or lost in its classification as such? What might happen if we consider it as a breathing, sweating part of the recursive design process, coexisting with or directly related to the theoretical new digital at every stage?
LikeLike
The age of Instagram influences not only the inspiration-design aspects of design, whether consciously or subconsciously, but especially the post-conception stages. Many contemporary buildings are built for very specific views, often times gliding over architectural aesthetic into a direct response to the casual social media photographer. These photos are inevitably filtered into the digital sphere and endlessly, continually altered and often beyond recognition. Meme culture had perpetuated this arguably architectural phenomenon well past the dawn of the digital age and into the hands of preteens. If these constructs exist unavoidably, there is room to utilize them in the name of a future-thinking architecture. That is, using the almost-vernacular construct of feedback loops and endless editing to influence and/or inform a new way of constructing, theorizing, and experiencing architecture in design and beyond.
LikeLike
The age of Instagram influences not only the inspiration-design aspects of design, whether consciously or subconsciously, but especially the post-conception stages. Many contemporary buildings are built for very specific views, often times gliding over architectural aesthetic into a direct response to the casual social media photographer. These photos are inevitably filtered into the digital sphere and endlessly, continually altered and often beyond recognition. Meme culture had perpetuated this arguably architectural phenomenon well past the dawn of the digital age and into the hands of preteens. If these constructs exist unavoidably, there is room to utilize them in the name of a future-thinking architecture. That is, using the almost-vernacular construct of feedback loops and endless editing to influence and/or inform a new way of constructing, theorizing, and experiencing architecture.
LikeLike
Andrew Atwood discusses at length the origin of rendering, the traditional techniques, and the art of drafting renders. Presently, everything Atwood covers could easily be considered obsolete – a historic text with no application in today’s world of architecture. RPI SoA, for example, has no interest in teaching students about this and in fact, has the complete opposite niche – rendering is all technical and no one is taught about anything else. With this lack of foundational knowledge, are the best of our drawings incomplete and inadequate? Is it important we learn both technical and hand drafting skills to become better architects?
In Digital Divide, Bishop affirms the truism that technology has subsumed every part of our lives and everything in our lives but to what degree in the contemporary art world? Does it enhance or contribute contemporary art or does absorb it with only a non-physical, digitally synthesized composition? Would all art, like the rest of the world today, becoming exclusively digital be a bad thing or simply evolution?
In The Image Object Post-Internet by Artie Vierkant, we learn that post-internet is an era with no fixed timeline/ date of origin because not only is it impossible to appoint but also this model exceeds beyond societal rules of time. This fluidity of space and time with the context of post-internet describing “nature of the art object but the nature of its receptions and social presence” raises the question – with such forces eventually envelop architecture as well? If so what will that look like, what can we anticipate and how would we employ the adaptation?
LikeLike
1. In “Digital divide” Bishop argues that as the digital era has grown, how has the art world through digital platforms been impacted? Should artists that choose digital art as a media to transmit their art be more responsive to how they convey their artwork? Has this digital era creative a positive or a negative connotation for all that is within the creative realm?
2. “Rendering Air” by Andrew Atwood is aimed at the current architecture idea of rendering. Renders are digital environments that borrow techniques from other fields of study in order to create beautiful images. This was not always the case, but as technology improves the term rendering has evolved. Has the advancements in technology and the rendering world been a beneficial addition to the architecture world? What are the benefits of the increase in technological advancements for architecture, and how will these advancements affect the future?
3. “The Image Object Post Internet” by Vierkant, the internet becomes a larger question towards the world of Post-Digital Aesthetics. She argues that objects on the internet be it art, etc. could never be traced down. Thus there isn’t an original copy. How does this affect the creative world, one where people are supposed to get credit for their creations?
LikeLike
“Post-Digital Aesthetic & Representation” is a topic that strongly revolves around the idea of what technology has done for the creative world in the past years. The digital world has become a big part of the environment that surrounds, and an absolute dependency on technology has been created. The digital world surrounds us everywhere we are, and everywhere we go, from your phone to the car you travel in daily. Technological advances have impacted certain career paths, and some have even been rendered useless. Architecture as an example has seen a change with the introduction of renders. Renders are a powerful tool that architects have to show work in ways that couldn’t be shown otherwise. It is astounding to see the evolution the term rendering has experienced from the beginning. Renders began being deficient quality yet still able to convey the right information. Renders now could arguably be as realistic as real images. As time passes and discoveries are made, we shall see where the world evolves into. The internet has opened a new realm of possibilities where new possibilities have yet to figure out.
LikeLike
1.) In Rendering Air, Atwood describes a rendering as the translation of a project from the second dimension to the third, and that current representation methods lack the ability to translate renderings to the fourth. He also discusses how the actual definition of a rendering has changed from an application of tones to an existing drawing to an actual image. When we see another transformation of what defines a rendering, how will that change allow for representation of the fourth dimension?
2.) In Digital Divide, Bishop discusses how artists are drawn to the nostalgia of old forms of media. Artists often return to former art forms due to their “tried and true” and familiar methods. What, intrinsically, is the reason for this “artistic laziness” and how is this happening in visual representations of architecture?
3.) Artie Vierkant in The Image Object Post –Internet talks about how the internet changes original art into copies, which therefore becomes its own art work. He says this changes the nature of art from the object to the perception of that object. How does this perception change what we know and understand as the original and how is that representation true/false?
LikeLike
1. In Andrew Atwood’s Rendering Air, he discusses the lack of acknowledgement of the common image making techniques prevalent in architecture and the possibilities of further conceptualization of our work through those techniques. How can we become more conscious of the steps in the rendering process and challenge the processes of imaging we were taught?
2. In Claire Bishop’s Digital Divide of Contemporary and New Media, she comments on how our consumption of the digital has effected our ability to perceive , and we now view large amounts of information in the same rapid-fire scanning as we do the internet. How can we change the presentation and medium of our work to demand more attention from the average viewer?
3. In Abrons and Fure’s Post digital Materiality, Photogrammetry is used to separate material from geometry, how can we use this technology to incorporate the separated elements into our work?
LikeLike
1. In what ways could we extend the process of rendering beyond photo-realism and distance the final result from its computer representation?
2. Vierkant states that the fragmented world of “the screen” is becoming our communal space. What makes the decision to opt out of the navigation of these fragments and remove oneself from this world so radical, and so unattainable for most?
3. Abrons and Fure feel that the post digital creates an opportunity to “critically engage our tools and techniques and to stimulate them within the larger cultural contexts” (194). What does this mean about the current evolution of the architectural field and how is its state different from when the age of digitization first began?
LikeLike
1. In the Andrew Atwood, Rendering Air, reading, he talks about rendering on the computer and how it is a separate world. It is no longer the world of hands and eyes, but one of digital pixels. The computer makes working easier and faster. Why do some professors insist that we draw things out by hand instead of on the computer? Wouldn’t doing things digitally just be easier and more efficient?
2. Later in the article he talks about how the improving technology also improves the quality of the renders. As technology becomes better, renders become more and more picturesque. At what point will renders and pictures be indistinguishable? Will VR be so advanced that the viewer can’t tell the difference between what they see and the real world?
3. In the Digital Divide, by Claire Bishop, it mentions that digital art never really took off. “Many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?” Why has digital art not become the norm and why haven’t there been that many artists switching to digital art?
LikeLike
The rise and improvement of technology allows for renders to be more picturesque. However this also comes with a downfall as renders are the perfect projected image of a space. Many times reality cannot look the same as the renders. For example the vertical building by Boeri Studio was rendered with beautiful greenery along the entire building. In reality the greenery was very hard to maintain and was no where close to what the renders looked like. Even if our technology and tools improves greatly, we are still limited by reality. When making renders or projected images we need to keep in mind what is science fiction and what is fantasy.
LikeLike
1. Mentioned in the Postdigital Materiality article, they try to scan all the details from the reality and reveal those tiny materiality in the digital forms. However, handling the real result pause the imagination and creativity of artists, would this method still be highly-recommended?
2. While many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?
3. The Internet asks us to reconsider the very paradigm of an aesthetic object: Can communication between visitors become another subject of an aesthetic project?
LikeLike
Post-digital era provides artists to have elements & resources that they could never use before, which elevates the quality, variety of the art piece, and also strengths the relationship between the art the reality. Sometimes, “keeping is achieved not by the absence of detail, but by the displacement and obfuscation of detail through processes of addition and erasure achieved through washing and tinting.”
LikeLike
1. In “Postdigital Materiality”, the use of technology is taking over people’s daily lives. Is it possible that people are growing to be materialistic about 3d printing/model making?
2. In Artie Vierkant “The Image Object Post-Internet”, the internet has the ability to publish articles/blogs that summarizes creativity and books in one page of information. Sometime people prefer to not read an entire book about their passion and rather take the easy path to obtaining knowledge. How can people be brought to realize the value of printed media or handwritten documents? Does technology convey the information in the same way or is there knowledge loss?
3. In Andrew Atwood’s “Rendering Air”, 3d modeling and rendering is gaining attention over traditional art. People are interested in the art form that will exist in the future, an art form that can adapt to changing times. How can rendering and traditional art both exist in the same time? Is there a way that traditional art can be incorporated into rendering? Can the two art forms merge to become a new form of art?
LikeLike
Atwood’s “Rendering Air” emphasizes the similar attributes of digitally rendering versus painting on canvas. To Atwood, the art of painting is itself beautiful because of the relationship between layering, spacing and texturing. Because computers are capable of accounting for all of this at once, does our use of computers show the deterioration of the artistic process?
“Digital Divide” focuses on Bishop’s claim that digital art is the what shapes the artist’s decision when working within certain media. In what ways has digital art created a reputation for itself and managed the way we view art?
“Post-Digital Materiality” discusses some of the disadvantages to using newer technology. In regard to digital computation, does this mean that the only advantage to something like digital rendering would simply be a faster product?
LikeLike
We live in a technologically vast age, an age that cultivates architecture like never before. The field of architecture is constantly propelled forward by the evolution of the computer, flinging students toward an increasingly large gap between those who can understand new technology and those who cannot keep up. Architects decades ago used mediums of pencil and lead in order to create their drafts, while the modern computer is capable of creating a render as beautiful as any professional painter could create. This is simply one example of the way in which art itself has changed as a direct result of the standardization of digital art. Has the artistic process changed? Can we alter our definition of what it means to create a beautiful scene? We no longer need to understand the certain strokes it takes to create a portrait of a house; instead, modern architects face the challenge of multiple programs and renders in order to generate the image they desire.
LikeLike
1. From reading “Rendering Air” the author writes that today’s renders lack the ability to captivate and be informative. In the future, will the present renders become more abstract in attempt to broaden students’ knowledge about different renderings while learning?
2. The word “render” was used many times in this week’s readings. Over the years since rendering images began, how has the definition changed and how do the older definitions still relate to today’s definition?
3. From reading “Digital Divide,” I noticed that there has been a large shift from hands on work to digital work. How has this drastic shift affected the architectural world, and will we ever return to the original organic ways of working with architectural projects?
LikeLike
1. In Claire Bishop’s article “Digital Divide on Contemporary Art and New Media”, the author mentioned that the appearance and content of contemporary art have been curiously unresponsive to the total upheaval in our labor and leisure inaugurated by the digital revolution. What are the central points of convergence and divergence between new media art and mainstream contemporary art?
2. Does the integration of the digital world into contemporary art allow us to explore new dimensions of art that we don’t understand, or does it simplify the production process and make the creation of works of art less unique than in the past?
3. What are the insights into art history and emerging classics? Can this reconciliation collect art and cultural forms?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation discussed about architecture enters the age of post-digital drawing. The computer has turned our existence upside down. It has revolutionized communications, to the extent that it is now our preferred medium of everyday communication. In almost every architecture design practice, we use computers. Digital tools have pushed another kind of architectural drawing in a completely different direction. They position us within a predetermined idea of space, an array of pre-programmed presets rather than an ambiguous possibility that can be constructed.
LikeLike