Is That Real?

Bruce Darrell

"Is that real?" This often asked question is a strong indication of the advanced state of digital imaging. The quality and range of images that can be created with the use of current digital technologies is nothing short of amazing. When it becomes difficult to determine whether a cinematic sequence was created using live action, physical models, digital technology or any combination thereof, this indicates that we have arrived at a plateau in the use of computers within film. Architectural representation has yet to reach this same plateau. Our use of digital realism is significantly behind Hollywood, and it is still very much an uneasy issue for us. The obvious reason for this tardiness is our primary concentration on building architecture. There are some brave pioneers who are delving into virtual reality, but even with the most recent advancements, digital architecture cannot significantly replace the real. At the same time, architecture as a theoretical and artistic discipline does not end with representation in most cases. It is the completed physical construct that still remains the ultimate vehicle for our architectural stories. But we are making significant efforts to exploit digital realism for our own ends.

A photorealistic digital representation of an unbuilt building is a very valuable tool for architects. If people can be shown what a building is really going to look like, they can make a better informed decision to accept it or, perhaps more importantly, to reject it. Clients seem to prefer realistic digital representations over many other drawings and models, because they are finally being presented with a medium that they can understand. Both they and planners are beginning to require realistic digital images, estate agents love them and the general public seems to respond positively them. Indeed, most architects appreciate their value even if we do get a sense that our job is already done, that a bit of the thrill of finally finishing a building is sucked away too early. This is replaced by a fear of not living up to the expectations that are so clearly presented and the concern of not being able to make changes once a realistic image of a building is released. However, there is no denying the benefits of realistic digital images in helping designers to make or confirm decisions, to really test the design before all of that money is spent and before more natural environment is destroyed in the creation of built environment.

The use of realistic digital models is a significant part of the many changes within architectural practices brought about by the use of computers. The many benefits of these changes are lessened by significant problematic issues that continually arise. The greatest perceived problem is that of education, which is not proving to be an easy process. Finding skilled staff is difficult and creating the time and desire for existing people in a practice to be properly trained is often impossible, even if someone can be found to provide the appropriate training. This is particularly the case with the boom economy here in Ireland, where many practices were only beginning to come to terms with the introduction of computers when everyone became too busy. The general result of this uncomfortable situation is that the younger, less experienced people in a practice often have greater skill and knowledge.

Formalised training and personal exploration are the two primary methods of learning about digital technology, both of which can provide knowledge and skill that is useful but not necessarily appropriate to the tasks at hand. Training tends to focus on specific use of tools and isolated workflows in the context of a simplified, contrived project, and rarely delves into the overall workings or broader understanding of the software. Personal exploration is often an ideal method of learning for those people who are already comfortable with computers, but problematic for most people who find it difficult to understand certain aspects of the software.

Beyond these two primary methods, most of us learn about computers either through specific technical assistance to solve a current problem or through informal discussion and debate, both of which tend to mutate the focus of learning. Technical assistance is generally too focused on specific problems to offer any in-depth understanding of how the software and hardware can be used effectively. It often leaves us feeling stupid because of the simplicity of the solution or more confused by the complexity of the explanation, if not both. Informal discussions, in contrast, generally involve very superficial issues and tend to concentrate on the cult like status of technology. The continuing debate of Mac versus PC is a humorous example of this common focus on the tool instead of on the product, as is the obsessive regard for continually increasing specifications of hardware and software. All of this distracts us from the more important issues of appropriateness, workflow and process. Both of these methods of education tend to create an unproductive, elitist atmosphere, separating those who know from those who don't. The general trend of education, formal and informal, to focus on knowledge instead of on skill distorts the fact that what we can produce with this technology is of primary importance.

Choosing what software to use is another difficult issue. In general it is either the package with the most features and/or the one that is most commonly used that is chosen. Both reasons can be problematic. An extensive feature list is the main focus of the production and marketing of most professional based software, and having a software package that can do everything is hard to resist. However, it is a general rule that more features leads to greater complexity, which increases the difficulty in learning to do even the most basic things. Given that most users will only use a small portion of the available tools, especially when using complex software, a more simplified software can often be a more productive and cheaper choice.

Choosing popular software offers many advantages including compatibility with other architects and professions, as well as greater availability of skilled staff, but software that is appropriate in one field is not always appropriate in another. There are many small design based practices that are using CAD software that was developed for engineering professions or for the production of construction documents of huge projects. This software is not necessarily appropriate for a small office and it is generally difficult to integrate such a complex tool into different processes of design and production. As another example, there are currently at least 35 different software packages that can be used to produce realistic digital images. Given that beautiful and compelling images can be created with any them, the choice between them should be based on appropriateness and compatibility within a specific practice. The software should work within the practice instead of the practice having to fit within the confines of the software. The control that software can have on the processes and products of an architectural practice is complex but very relevant and rarely appreciated.

The problems outlined above would be less important were it not for the fact that they have contributed to a more significant issue of removing designers from the process of representation. A problematic situation currently exists where the principal designers and architects in many practices are not skilled enough in computer technology to produce digital drawings and images themselves or knowledgeable enough to take full control of the digital processes of design and production for their projects. The traditional techniques of representation and design are still available, but the all pervasive acceptance of computers together with the many benefits of the increasing availability of digital tools, has significantly reduced the number of people who will still put pen to paper. Given that architecture has always involved very tactile and immediate processes of design and representation, removing the designer's hand through the use of digital forms of representation can result in distancing them from the final architectural product.

It is my belief that this removal of the designer from the process of representation has had an effect on the range and quality of representations being produced. Digital versions of traditional plans, sections, elevations and details are usually only supplemented by limited types of digital modelling. There are indeed examples of significant explorations into unusual types of models and other forms of digital representations, but these are sporadic, which is surprising given the huge range of digital tools available. It is also interesting that much of what is produced is generic in nature, it is difficult to find examples of practices establishing recognisable styles or identities within digital representation. The differences that do exist in the nature and quality of many images seem more accidental or casual than intentionally designed. This lack of individuality within most representations can indicate that the authors are either not the designers, or that they are not comfortable with the tools they are using.

Beyond the traditional two dimensional drawings, digital representation seems to be limited to three dimensional modelling, with realism being the common goal. Every mainstream software modelling package either offers realism as the ultimate product or has a direct link to one that does. Most people involved in digital modelling express a desire for their work to be more realistic. But this goal is a hard one to attain, and increasingly so as our expectations change to match the increasing possibilities of the technology. What was considered realistic several years ago, doesn't seem quite so real now, and each successive step towards the goal of realism can be harder to achieve, requiring more time, skill, ingenuity and obsessiveness. So, why are most efforts directed towards realism? What happened to abstraction?

There are many examples of digital images that appear to be more abstract. The use of uniform color and simplified volumes to indicate massing, forms and programatic distribution seems to be the most common, as well as the isolation of buildings or parts of buildings as objects against a uniform background. Intentionally dark images with pockets of light and color are often used to present a dynamic image of an illuminated building at night but are also used to obscure areas that are not yet designed or to focus on particular elements. Images of different types are often overlaid or collaged, creating multiple readings. Unusual, impossible or distorted viewpoints and camera angles are commonly used to shift the focus or to create dynamic images. The use of transparent wire frame images can easily make any building appear complex. Attempts are also made to mimic the styles and effects of another medium or of a stylised type of image. While these examples may contain realistic aspects, they can all be seen as abstractions in the way that they intentionally reduce, obscure, distort or manipulate what is being presented.

There are other images that appear to deny realism in favour of abstraction, but I would question whether most of them are intentionally abstract. A large number of 'abstract' images seem to be end products of the limits of the author's time, skill, knowledge or efforts. There are also many interesting, dynamic and often beautiful examples that would appear to to include uncontrolled use of particular aspects such as over illumination, or to involve interesting use of unusual software features or indeed to be fortunate accidents. Most of these representations seem to have had realism as a desired goal but fell short for a variety of reasons. Obviously we all need to produce in order to learn and advance our capabilities, however we should take advantage of the limits of time and skill, and create more appropriate and particular abstract representations instead of limited realism.

I would suggest that abstraction is fundamentally a design driven, conscious, act of representation, involving processes of delaying, condensing, limiting, removing and distorting what is presented for a particular purpose. Many of the digital representations that are being produced seem to be lacking this design driven intent. Abstraction has very valid and necessary roles within architectural representation but I would argue that its use within the digital realm has been limited by difficulties in education, by the removal of the designer from the process of digital representation and by the pervasive desire for realism. But realism can take care of itself, it is being driven by many forces and will always be there as a desired option. The use of abstraction within digital representation, on the other hand, needs a more conscious and deliberate effort to define the particular possibilities and to explore the vast array of tools, features and options that are currently available.

I believe that a refocus of computer education within architecture is needed. Instead of a limited concentration on software functionality, there should be a greater focus on the variety of methods involved, the broad possibilities of what can be achieved, and the potential relationships to particular processes of production and design. Instead of a basic introduction into a wide range of specific tools and functionality there could be a greater focus on limited tools and techniques, allowing individuals who are not comfortable with the technology to develop greater control and understanding in order to use these tools more effectively. More importantly we need to become familiar with the possibilities of realism and to become comfortable with its use as a form of representation. It is perhaps only through casual familiarity with digital realism in architecture that we can reach the same plateau that has been arrived at in film, where realism is not so much an issue, but just another tool of representation. Perhaps then we will be able to learn how to use realism appropriately, and those of us who can create digital realism can learn to delay our use of everything we know in order to create more intentional abstractions. But at the end of the day, designers should be in control of representation. "Is that abstraction real?"

Bruce Darrell is an architect who is currently exploiting the popular obsession with digital realism.