Why is it that He/his style has become some sort of standard in landscape rendering? When did this phenomenon/standard begin. Or more importantly why did it begin? Do 'people' actually like it?
All renderings done in this Lin-scape literally all look exactly the same. Some nameless plaza in some generic mall in some generic cityscape. Is that an oak, maple, salix? I dont know.. they all look the same in these renderings. It just depends on what prisma marker you grab that will determine if this nameless orb is a spring dogwood or autumn burning bush.
I would rather 'be tight' than produce some rendering in this style, not to mention his class/required products are so expensive it makes this elusive 'loose' quality an equivalent to LA's 1%. Occupy Prisma?
Curious to see if there are any others questioning of this style of rendering.
(Don't get me wrong, I would rather see some Lin-scape than some awful sketchup 'rendering' where green = grass)
Excellent point Jason, sometimes you can give too much information too soon. I made the mistake of providing plant labels on a conceptual drawing for an office building a builder was developing. He had signed up with me for a full set of CDs and construction admin for the project. After I presented the concept drawing I never heard back from him after several follow up calls. So a couple of weeks later I drove by the site to see a bastardized version of my concept design being installed by some fly-by-night landscaper. Needless to say, I was pissed. But, don’t feel too bad now because that office building has only leased out one of the eight suites since it was built in 2009. Karma’s a mother.
Current state of landscape architecture graphics...
Hey kids (firm partners), you can hold meetings in that clubhouse. The commercial sez so!
Very clever dude.
I think what you are seeing is also a by product of schools no longer teaching drawing and rendering techniques. i know graduating with an urban planning degree i had one class in 4 years where i had the chance to draw anything, and what we were told was "the computer will to everything" what they didnt tell us is that you have to understand the basics of hand drawing and graphics to apply them effectively in the computer.
with that said, there are a limited number of choices when it comes to learning sketching and rendering techniques after school. i took mike's 2-day class and learned a lot, the style didnt stick i found myself leaning other directions, however with a limited number of teachers will get a limited number of styles.
I'm wonder how you actually conceptualize designs yourself if you insist on such detail all the time right off the bat.
Don't you do bubble diagraming at all? It's not a plaza yet, it's a nebulous "gathering space" connected with "circulation" indicated by dashed lines and everything has great big arrows, right?
Thinking about species specifics is putting the cart before the horse.
The "nameless orb" is part of that; you don't have a plug-and-play planting list for everything, do you? But you do know whether or not you what a deciduous vs. coniferous tree and approximately how large it would be.
So you do that; throw out the quick idea of a tree.
You know who else can do that, besides Mike Lin?
I knew of him before Mike Lin (information on his style was introduced in college for me) and Bob Ross and his "happy little trees" and "happy little bushes" where he was rolling out scenes with quickness and forming just the right impression of a place in a light manner that was inspiring.
So no, you don't know what species of tree Mr. Ross was dabbling out with his paint. You didn't know how tall exactly they were or how close they were together.
That's not the point, at that stage of conceptualization. It's about ambience and spatial quality.
The way I see it, one can wow a potential client with computer generated graphics (that have a quick turnaround time, great for billings) or you can seduce with media that has tactile qualities. It's all good.
The time for precision would be for making plans after the client's taken the plunge and actually booked you for the job. Then turn that globule into a xx caliper Lagerstroemia or whatever.
Bob Ross? That’s not fair; he was able to harness the total awesomeness of his incredible afro to make clouds and mountains happy. Bob Ross was boss. RIP bro.
“…at that stage of conceptualization. It's about ambience and spatial quality.”
Alex if you don’t want to listen to me then listen to Jamie. Otherwise you’ll never be a designer. You’ll end up being something more like a decorator.
That was quite possibly the rudest thing i have ever heard (even from myself). I AM a designer. Maybe im not some backyard-weekend-warrier, but I am a fine graphic designer, landscape designer, et cetera. I mean lets be serious, how did Robert Ross get drug into this mess? Im confused how listening to Jamie or you Mr. Anthony will determine my life pursuit? This thread has already steered away from its desired path. I give up. No one cares about good design, type faces, good layouts, et cetera. They all have to take a back seat to something else, because they "waste too much time" or "firms don't care" Well Mr. Anthony, I would like you to just examine one (maybe two for good measure) mega firms, in any discipline. I think they care about all the things i have mentioned above, and look where they are at. I think ill stick my nose down, and shoot for the (mega) stars.
You are aware, perhaps, that having nice typeface and margins just so can only help presentations, but don't have anything intrinsically to do with actual design?
So the big firms have standardization. Great. It seems like you wish to use their systems for yourself. There's nothing wrong with good CRMs, project management, databases, and CAD standards that don't piss off the subcontractors with janky missing x-refs.
But you come on here and quite sourly dismiss a person who makes a living teaching other people ways to express themselves quickly and effectively VISUALLY.
It's not about markers. It's not about SketchUp. It's about process, which ought to be right up your alley, seeing how process-orientated you seem to be.
Drawing is a process for design. Same thing for writing. Building models.
We are an ideas profession. Our ideas must be caught and then slapped down into physical rendition. For many in our profession, that way is drawing.
A picture is worth a thousand words and Mike Lin is just one guy who has one way of pulling that off and he's sharing it. Bob Ross also shared a method for quick visualization, with paint.
There are all sorts of ways to do the big do. And as far as I am concerned, all avenues towards communicating the design vision for a client and then WINNING said clients are valid. Everybody has bills to pay.
So I don't see why anybody needs to be at all dismissive about methods of visualization. I've pulled off some oohs and ahs with models made out of cardboard and toothpicks and generous amounts of Elmers glue. (I knew my green markers were out of juice, I wasn't too hot with AutoCAD at the time, and I didn't have enough balsa wood. I DID, however, have access to empty cardboard boxes from Costco. Shazam. As Tim Gunn says, Make It Work)
finally someone on here actually has a tactful response, i recede in your favour.
That’s the fighting spirit Alex. Of course you’re a fine designer—you said so yourself. [Yawn]
confidence is the key to success.
you should check out the forums on this site:
You'll LOVE it...or tear your face off with rage..either way.