I have been working with an incredibly talented artist that has chosen the medium of computer aided model rendering to express his appreciation of great architecture. As my mentor Bart Prince says; the computer is just another tool in the artist's box. The computer does not give anyone special artistic abilities despite its ability to be used to do incredible things that were not possible before its existence. Razin is one of those artists that can do incredible things with a computer. If computers did not exist, I am convinced that he would be an artist in another medium. It is precisely because the computer, in the hands of someone as talented as Razin, can do renderings that are almost indistinguishable from real life photographs that the medium of computer aided rendering sometimes comes under scrutiny. Razin recently posted one of his amazing renderings today of the Robie House by Frank Lloyd Wright. His work drew as much appreciation as it always does but there was a comment by an individual that spurned a bit of a discussion. I was inspired to share my contribution to the conversation in today's blog:
Mr. Y (names omitted), I think you've said it best.
Mr. Z is mistakenly (imo) thinking that Razin's work should have to deal with the same restrictions that photography has to deal with in the name of context simply because the rendering these days is so realistic. I'm sorry Mr. Z, but perhaps you're not thinking this through all the way. Photography by its nature as a medium is restricted to capturing an image within context and by the artist physically being present at the time in which the photo was taken. I see no reason whatsoever that computer rendering art should be restricted to the limitations of producing photograph art. If renderings are to only be done within the context of where they are at the time of rendering then should we also insist that the computer renderer set up their computer station in front of the subject, as a painter would with an easel, in order to do their rendering in the context of the now as well as being present as a photographer must do? Further, what then is the renderer to do when the building is an unconstructed work; should they render it within the context of the paper on which it exists? What about buildings that have been destroyed; should the computer rendering artist be restricted to rendering a pile of rubble at the landfill? Obviously not you nor anyone else would insist such things, but you see the slippery slope we go down when art is restricted by arbitrary limitations. I think it is great that the Robie house has stood the test of time and context and that you capture that so well photographically. Time and context is the challenge that you as an artist have navigated so well. However, Razin Khan
as an artist has navigated the challenge of his medium like a maestro as well. It doesn't sound like your intention was to discredit Razin's work but it is received that way when you place unwarranted demands on how he should and should not render and then seemingly fault him or the work for not meeting the standard you've decided needs to be set.