EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
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 illustrations have a certain vibe; the colors can be nice. Stonework in the foreground of the Teater Studio is attractive---literally . . .
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 an example, one might remember the Shepard Fairey incident:
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..."
"...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....
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 ?
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?