Great rendering can make a crappy design look sexy...

Over the past few months I have kept in the back of my mind thoughts about the importance of rendering. Specifically, computer rendering via 3d programs and Photoshop. In a broader sense, colors, graphite, 2d CAD, on vellum, on bond...the list goes on. Again, more specifically, I am referring to final post production rendering for selling one's concept and idea as it relates to one's architectural design.

As I seek to obtain talents in this realm, spending countless hours watching tutorials and making learning mistakes, I wonder 'why'. Why represent? Who do we do this for? released an August 2012 issue dissecting this entire issue (rendering). They open the book speaking about Mies van der Rohe's 1921 Friedruchstrasse Skyscraper competition design. His perspectival representation would not match his plan design, were it to be constructed according to Clog.

Who was he trying to fool? Maybe like Archigrams's Tuned Suburb representations he understood that a representation or a rendering was just that. A rendering. He wasn't trying to give an accurate representation of how it should or would look, but perhaps he was trying to communicate the concept of his design.

Some companies like m3fx in London look to communicate accurate representations as they will realistically exist in their context. So what is the point of solar flares, pretty people, mood setting skies, manicured nature, and clean streets? Are designers truly and accurately representing their designs or just trying to make a sale.

Are renderings simply architectural pornography?

Empty shells lacking meaning and substance. Do they need to have meaning and substance? Maybe that just depends on the purpose and way it will be consumed.

I look forward to collecting representation skills. However, representation must have reason, substance, and purpose. Otherwise, it is just a pretty picture and we already have enough of those.

Insensitive design great rendering.

Insensitive design great rendering.