[Leonardo]

B. Do what you please and have controversial jury.

Always

Also, don;t expect school to be anything like the real world... even at the graduate level.

Leo,
It seems that you are giving me the sma espeech. I know very well what the real world is like. I have to deal with it in order to keep my company alive. Besides, i have worked for 3 counties, a major construction company, and three Architectural firms. all combining eight years of work esperience; experience that has allowed me to design build a 6,000 square feet home overseas. But thanks anyhow mate.

While I was in arch school, I took option "B"... my grades where always either A+ or C.... never in between (either they loved me or they hated me) ohh... well, you can't please everybody

[jdp]

I'll try to be constructive here, so please apologize me if I missed some point, because I really understand your frustration and disappointment.
Nonetheless I'd like to start discuss some points with you guys, because I think they also relates to maxwell and the use we make of it...

Altough i find the way your jury express their decision way too naive and tough, I think I see their point and it make sense to me in some part.
Let me explain it better: I am working for one of the "international yet too diagramatic" architecture firms (so my view can be really biased), and this problems comes quite often. I started to struggle with this "language" issue since a long time ago now, especially when it comes to photorealism. Why architects prefer photoshop in the end?

I think it is something that need to be investigated a little more, especially when you have a solid background both as an architect and as a 3dartist.
What I don't really understand in the critique you had is the point about photorealism, which is completely misleading: photorealism is just a technique, it doesn't give quality attributes to an image for itself, neither good or bad.
Even more naive is the point about the materiality. I am absolutely on your side in this regard, even though materiality can be given in an extremely subtle way (a small note, Herzog and De Meuron are masters in this, even if you don't like them): what they asked is dangerous in architecture in my opinion because it leads to the sculptural abstract approach, transforming design, which is social, in showing off.

Btw, from my experience, a few points are to bear in mind when it comes to goals in representation.

1st is the Language, or the audience you want to communicate with, and so their expectations: a client would deal with the image in complete different manner than a jury member in a competition (or school) or an heritage authority; the average client want to see their dreams become reality, its imagery background is generally rather poor compared to your and he needs every day elements to evaluate the future you display. The jury member is more use to images, and he basically needs to see the design and the quality you bring to reality displayed clearly without any visual buzz or distraction. If you are gonna show the image to an heritage authority you need to be extremely accurate, showing material properties and volumetric relations.

2nd is the meaning, or the goal of your representation: what you want to represent is a really important part. What are the purpose and the focus of the image you are showing?
Just to bring an exemple from your pictures, is the rope for the boat really important (5th pic)? So it is the guy in the background (4th pic)?
The last picture is really good in terms of composition and quality display of space, was the ground pavement so important? It brings the attention way to much on it.
I think economy in images is an extremely important key point, even when you want to create a busy baroque image.

3rd is the narrative: how every image relates to the others, how they are going to be presented. Starting to think this way brings altogether the other 2 points and force the image to be appropriate. If you have tons of plans you need a few interiors shots to show views: sometimes you don't even want to see the inside, but rather display how your design "frames" the landscape.
If you have tons of details, and sections, you probably want a real closeup of them just to displays how (qualitatively) the light and the parts behave each other, regardless the entire building. And so on.

As designers we are always asked to envision the future, and a high level of awareness and vision is needed. That said, none of this point can lead to completely misjudge and trash your work, even if you just shown the few images we saw here (which is not as you said).

Sorry for the wordy post.

[fv]

Hi, this thread reminds me of the Apslund competition. The winners where very conceptual and hardly rendered their concepts. At first I hated that and thought the jury was full of shit and the winning proposals likewise. Now after some time I see things differently.

This forum is about images and rendering. Designers are hardly here. Thats why we see so many cars, bottles and other models of existing buildings and furnature and praisal for the fantastic photographic qualities of Maxwell. For actual design work you need incredible fast feedback while working. You need to reject hundreds of design ideas and keep adjusting to get a solid and powerful idea accross. I must admit that your teachers are right. How is it possible that someone with your abilities does not feel the same need to perfect a design and instead wants to perfect the image. Ask yourself that question. I was exactly like that always interested in techniques. I hope to loose this addiction some day because from then on I will start to design and impress people regardless of Maxwell or even computers. Allmost all great designers today don't use computers themselves. Why...they should be smart enough. I think because computers are not even at a fraction of the speed they need to be and the software is way to clumsy. Paper, pencils and clay or whatever molds instantly and at every whimsical thought. I just bought the video Sketches of Gehry. There is no better explanation to say what I mean. What Gehry does with paper in second for everyone to see and follow would take hours by experts on computer systems.
The teachers who critized your work have given you the opportunity to grow faster than you could have without them. The value is huge, if you turn your back on them and think you have done great designwork as well you will stay where you are for as long as it takes to come to their critism yourself. In my case almost 25 years. The teachers are exactly the same people you are but without any notion of Maxwell and all they see is a half job fully rendered and ask themself why.
Sorry for my words here but your cool and can take it ....lol. You can do much better.

[acquiesse]

does not feel the same need to perfect a design and instead wants to perfect the image.

They can be one and the same

Allmost all great designers today don't use computers themselves.

Well it depends on your definition of great, but Hadid, Gehry, Koolhaas, all use computers in their different ways... I love Cullinan's work, he is a fantastic craftsman, but even he has used computers to acheive his ideas...
http://www.edwardcullinanarchitects.com ... ts/wd.html

The teachers who critized your work have given you the opportunity to grow faster than you could have without them.

Very true, all criticism can be useful, often people who don't like you are best, they don't hold back!!

[jdp]

Allmost all great designers today don't use computers themselves.

Well it depends on your definition of great, but Hadid, Gehry, Koolhaas, all use computers in their different ways... I love Cullinan's work, he is a fantastic craftsman, but even he has used computers to acheive his ideas...
http://www.edwardcullinanarchitects.com ... ts/wd.html

well they don't use computer directly themselves, that's for sure: there's people doin it for them. Most of all they don't "think" computer, as we do. but this is more a generation difference, it'll come the days when everybody will.

[insomnia3d]

JDP don't be dorry, great post and a lot of great points.
Talking about computers on these firms, have you guys seeing the Gehry movie that Ploack did?
i saw it a few times and one of the times with teo proffesors, and you should have seen their faces when Gehry from his chair asked his assistant to mold and cut each piece, only to satisfy his esthetic pleasure. At this point, no concept or nothing, just the proportions and shapes that at that point he felt vonfortable with. Which brings me to the point... that sometimes schools get all winded up on this idea that concept is the most important thing. It is important, but at the end of the day, i beleive, that even after the concept process is done, a project becomes the image of the designer. What pleases him/her will be the final product, the trick is to either be lucky or be good at composing the piece, kind of like in rendering and photography.
One firm that holds the upmost respect from me is IM PEI. Not only the man is a Genius, but he has two firms. One sells out, as many proffesors have said in the past, and makes commertial 'regular' projects. Thanks to these projects he is able to finance the amazing museums and other projects he has done.

Relativity is all. Yet too many people think to be the maximum authority; the truth is that in life we all have a lot to learn, but learning is about finding out your own mistakes through constructive critizism from others, and not senseless Pre-Madona attitudes and crits as many times seen by all of us.

[fv]

it does not have something to do with a generation difference. If you are a graphic artist you probably will work with computers all the time as we see all over the world done by well known graphic artists.

Architecture is about building and construction and social and cultural aspects that define the shape of a building. Another point is to raise the money needed for great architecture you need to develop a network of wealthy people or people who have access to money. If most of your time is spend behind a screen you are not going to meet those people and if you do you will speak about your work .......rendering and modeling.

I bought the video's Sketches of Gehry and also the one on Pei. along with My Architect about Kahn. Great video's. Pei is fantastic. I also have the one on Johnson, great as well. The one I got on Jean Nouvel I did not like.

I don't agree that Gehry is just about form and not conceptual. Gehry did have acces to people with money and decided to become an artist instead of the succesful regular architect he already was. In the video you just see a fragment where he is discussing the shape of a building by cutting and molding paper. What happened before and after that we don't see. Gehry present an artistic concept he is able to mold over any well conceived program. I wish I was at his office using Modo and Maxwell.
[/i]

[insomnia3d]

I agree with you, except that Gehry builds what Ghery likes. If anyone questions his esthetics, he will send them their way.

[fv]

I would do too, at his age, with his clients.
Gehry is an artist, there are many within his office and circle of friends who's critisism is taken very seriously. He is rather critical about his own work himself as I saw looking at his video.

[Thomas An.]

Very careful work !
Quite photoreal and well done