Dear CLOG,

We here are all trained architects, so we see our rendering production simply as keeping architects off the street, so to say. We personally like to enter architectural competitions, not rendering competitions. We are not largely concerned with the aesthetic quality of a final image, but mostly the portrayed information and suggested potential within it. Rendering provides the support necessary to focus on more personal, architectural work. Maybe staying on both sides of the fence has kept us more aware of the risks dramatic effects might cause... we don’t mind throwing in a blue sky for the win.

Now, rendering appears to have become to architecture what pornography is to every teenage boy. Just like a centerfold model, this architectural pornography is shopped and enhanced to cater to the fantasies of the reader. And like pornography, it’s not to be put into every hand without a clear and careful explanation of what’s good, what’s bad, and what it means. Nobody would want to be held responsible for putting pornography into the hands of a child, the same goes for rendering and architecture students. We play the “good parents” to teach students what an image is, how to use it, and when. The opportunity to equip students with a stronger sensibility to “suggest possibilities, open minds, find references and connections” should happen more often.

Working on our personal projects we often highlight the most critical features of a project while dressing up, or even omitting, its faults. With the power we have over the “reality” of our images also comes a level of danger. While the ability to communicate both the tectonic and ephemeral qualities of a building is crucial, as architects we must be careful not to be fooled by the quality of our own finished images. A famous quote from Scarface is popular in our office: “don’t get high on your own supply.” In our experience, rendering becomes more meaningful as a research tool. We avoid creating commercials for buildings, not being consumed by style in the search for substance.

How can you be that bad and look that good? The details don’t need to be resolved just yet, what’s the point of looking realistic when you are far from being done? Rendering can be a very simple thing. Three-dimensionality isn’t the only answer, collage can be just as effective. Our workflow allows us to produce iteratively, so that physical conditions can be portrayed rapidly in order to leave time to perfect the metaphysical qualities. Renderings that leave little up to the imagination are in fact working against themselves, stifling their own potential. The product takes precedence over the process, and a focus on the final result that counters the in-progress nature of design. While a good rendering may be able to create the illusion of good architecture, a good renderer does in no way equal a good architect.

...just saying,

We appreciate your business, we know you have other options.