Artistic Illustrations Of Homes By Frank Lloyd Wright
David
Article: Artistic Illustrations of FLW Houses
Article: Artistic Illustrations of FLW Houses
Last edited by DavidC on Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 10577
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
Dan, your house is included! Are you going to snap it up?
Sorry, Peter, Oskaloosa wasn't on the map.
Sorry, Peter, Oskaloosa wasn't on the map.
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
Sure seems like actual photographs were simply dropped into an "illustrator" program.
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
I'd have to inspect the examples to verify that impression; it may be so. But the claim that the illustrations "restore" buildings that have received changes isn't borne out: the Sutton house still has its erroneous entrance door, and the verandah with its cantilevered roof, at Boynton, hasn't been cleared of its enclosing sash. Sweeton shows one of Dan's neato rusting-steel condenser blinds; nice as they are, they aren't original to the house. And why would the warm brick at the Bogk house be rendered in concrete gray ?
S
S
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
Because the photo the "illustrator" used was a black & white?And why would the warm brick at the Bogk house be rendered in concrete gray ?
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
Correction, it appears the "illustrator" used the Bogk photo from the wikipedia page:
The true "give away" is when the "illustrator" removes the car from the photograph to the "illustration", the "artist" simply runs the living room windows all the way to the ground..... This is, ehh, not accurate.
The true "give away" is when the "illustrator" removes the car from the photograph to the "illustration", the "artist" simply runs the living room windows all the way to the ground..... This is, ehh, not accurate.
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
I'd say you found the right source photo for that one. Good start.
The illustrations have a certain vibe; the colors can be nice. Stonework in the foreground of the Teater Studio is attractive---literally . . .
S
The illustrations have a certain vibe; the colors can be nice. Stonework in the foreground of the Teater Studio is attractive---literally . . .
S
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
These have been out for a year or so. I find them wonderful interpretations...very simplified and graphic. They don't look simply dropped into a program. Now there is another illustrator who is doing what look like ink drawings of the houses that really do look like an automated processing of photographs.
-
juankbedoya
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
wooow.... beautiful art... thanks for sharing...!!!
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
I agree with Jay that these renderings are photo based. I just sent the source photo to SDR for posting. According to my iPhone, I took the photo at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2017.
As SDR notes, my CorTen equipment screens are in the rendering, as is the Code required fireplace chimney extension, the back of the electric meter and service conduit on the low carport wall, and a dark spot on the masonry pier near the carport which corresponds to a shadow in a terra cotta bird feeder hanging from the sloped eave in the source photo.
The renderings appear to be based on recent photos posted to the internet via articles or real estate listings for the respective properties.
As SDR notes, my CorTen equipment screens are in the rendering, as is the Code required fireplace chimney extension, the back of the electric meter and service conduit on the low carport wall, and a dark spot on the masonry pier near the carport which corresponds to a shadow in a terra cotta bird feeder hanging from the sloped eave in the source photo.
The renderings appear to be based on recent photos posted to the internet via articles or real estate listings for the respective properties.
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
Looks like Mr Sajid even got your plant containers, far left . . . !
S
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
It appears Mr. Sajid was contracted to do basic graphics for an article on HomeAdvisor.com. I can't imagine he was paid large sums of money for the job. However, one could wonder if the graphics were commissioned so that the website could avoid having to go receive permission for real photographs? If that's the case, it's a fair question for the website and the illustrator if they are stealing and repurposing other people's photographs for commercial purposes.
As an example, one might remember the Shepard Fairey incident:
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/
Granted, the famous "Hope" image is of much broader reach than these renderings. However, here we find Dan's photograph in its newly illustrated form being sold online:
https://www.1000museums.com/shop/art/fr ... ustration/
(It claims the Foundation owns the copyright? Hmmm...)
It's also worth noting that Mr. Sajid made no claims about these "artistic illustrations" himself. The article David linked from home-designing.com uses standard verbiage to fluff up their piece, with lines like:
"...interpreted into colourful artistic depictions, expertly illustrated by..."
and
"...these powerful representations restore each original concept in precise tonal graphic form..."
But my guess is that Mr. Sajid was just doing a quick job for a quick buck....
As an example, one might remember the Shepard Fairey incident:
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/
Granted, the famous "Hope" image is of much broader reach than these renderings. However, here we find Dan's photograph in its newly illustrated form being sold online:
https://www.1000museums.com/shop/art/fr ... ustration/
(It claims the Foundation owns the copyright? Hmmm...)
It's also worth noting that Mr. Sajid made no claims about these "artistic illustrations" himself. The article David linked from home-designing.com uses standard verbiage to fluff up their piece, with lines like:
"...interpreted into colourful artistic depictions, expertly illustrated by..."
and
"...these powerful representations restore each original concept in precise tonal graphic form..."
But my guess is that Mr. Sajid was just doing a quick job for a quick buck....
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
http://www.home-designing.com/captivati ... -the-world
More work by the same artist---here identified as a designer---as linked at the bottom of the original article. I think we can be grateful that Muhammed Sajid used photographs of actual buildings as the basis for his Wright work, as this at least assures fidelity to Wright's proportions and details, in most cases. And I don't think these illustrations deserve to be dismissed as "quick" or "basic": while we can assume that a computer program (or programs) were employed as replacements for what would have been airbrush-and-template techniques, the elements in a photograph do not automatically translate themselves into the corresponding pieces in an illustration, no matter what techniques are in use.
It is true that they are of a different sort than illustrations commissioned by an architect to represent his work; they lack detail and do not attempt to forecast actual effects of light on building material, nor to show realistic landscape schemes, for instance. While they may appear facile, and perhaps are closer to children's book illustrations than to professional architectural renderings, that does not mean that they were tossed off. And, the sheer number of them is surprising for a web magazine to have ordered with no clear purpose beyond the amusement of its readers ?
S
More work by the same artist---here identified as a designer---as linked at the bottom of the original article. I think we can be grateful that Muhammed Sajid used photographs of actual buildings as the basis for his Wright work, as this at least assures fidelity to Wright's proportions and details, in most cases. And I don't think these illustrations deserve to be dismissed as "quick" or "basic": while we can assume that a computer program (or programs) were employed as replacements for what would have been airbrush-and-template techniques, the elements in a photograph do not automatically translate themselves into the corresponding pieces in an illustration, no matter what techniques are in use.
It is true that they are of a different sort than illustrations commissioned by an architect to represent his work; they lack detail and do not attempt to forecast actual effects of light on building material, nor to show realistic landscape schemes, for instance. While they may appear facile, and perhaps are closer to children's book illustrations than to professional architectural renderings, that does not mean that they were tossed off. And, the sheer number of them is surprising for a web magazine to have ordered with no clear purpose beyond the amusement of its readers ?
S
Re: Article: Artisitc Illustrations of FLW Houses
More of Mr. Sajid's work:
https://www.behance.net/muhammedsajid
You're right, SDR, I shouldn't be dismissive of the work, or assuming anything about its production. Mr. Sajid is clearly a talented illustrator. And perhaps the photos weren't "drag and dropped" into a program that spit them out after a few quick edits....(but that bird feeder "smudge" sure makes me wonder)... Regardless, the question remains about the ethical usage of a real photograph and its minor alteration as illustrative form. I know members of this community have been upset when their photographs were pulled off the internet and used without permission... So what about when an artist is paid for illustrations that were rendered directly from those photographs? Is this okay? Including when those renderings are additionally sold elsewhere?
https://www.behance.net/muhammedsajid
You're right, SDR, I shouldn't be dismissive of the work, or assuming anything about its production. Mr. Sajid is clearly a talented illustrator. And perhaps the photos weren't "drag and dropped" into a program that spit them out after a few quick edits....(but that bird feeder "smudge" sure makes me wonder)... Regardless, the question remains about the ethical usage of a real photograph and its minor alteration as illustrative form. I know members of this community have been upset when their photographs were pulled off the internet and used without permission... So what about when an artist is paid for illustrations that were rendered directly from those photographs? Is this okay? Including when those renderings are additionally sold elsewhere?