To win a project in architecture, one must first produces great presentational drawings in order to convince client and public how nice and fascinating will the outcome be.
But the question is: Are those 3d rendered drawings truly speaks out what will the projects look like after completed? Or it is a disinformation to the client to mislead them to pay for the project?
Here I share some of my thinking on the 3d render technique in architectural presentational drawings:
Erdos museum should be one of the most excited deconstructive architecture these days designed by MAD architect and currently under construction,
Compare the 3d rendering and photograph taken in constructional progress:
Look detail into the facade, the rendered drawing shows its very fine, smooth mirror effect. It looks like it is a piece of golden mirror that can bend into the shape.
But what is the outcome? We can clearly seen that it is done by many separated metal plates cladding which will never get its smoothness and never mirror image the surrounding,
In the New York public art installation, the Water Falls by Olafur Eliasson. Te rendered image shows how strong and powerful the water flow into the river.
But what we got here is the water supply not enough and even exposed the metal structures:
But what we got here is the water supply not enough and even exposed the metal structures:
For Herzog and De Meuron's amazing facade for the Elbe Philharmonic Hall. In earlier images, the architect claimed that the translucent articulated facade appears to be a seamless and almost weightless blanket.
However the constructional photo show that the multi-million dollar facade is not giving the same effect. It looks solid and heavy. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment