Truth and Artistic License

A review of the truth, or lack of truth in architectural renderings.

Truth in Advertising...  We are always “spinning.”  Humans tend to exaggerate, massage and forget the past, and the same applies to the way we present ourselves and our work to others.  I once knew a couple who always acted insanely happy with their marriage, children, house, careers… everything.  I later learned that they had all the same trouble and disappointments as the rest of us; they simply “sold” it all as wonderful.  There have been few projects I have worked on that were strictly honest.  The preliminary sketch below was part of a legal presentation to prospective owners, and was truthful in all aspects from the brick color to the placement of streetlights to the typical angle of the afternoon sun.  It is hardly my favorite rendering, but accurate it is.

A typical honest lie is the use of axonometric drawings.  There are times, such as the long street shown below, when a street level perspective simply can’t show the entire space.  An axonometric drawing can present information but at the same time be completely unreal.

Similarly, if something is standing in between you and the object you want to see, an illustrator can eliminate it.  The preliminary sketch of my rendering of I MPei’s Louvre shows the underground architecture by dissolving the foreground plaza.  The glass pyramid is revealed to be a brilliant solution to an old circulation problem, as well as a brash architectural statement.

Interior illustrators have always wrestled with the problem of looking through walls.  This corporate headquarters staircase would have been distorted if I hadn’t backed up through an existing wall.  The outline of the wall opening can be seen in the faint dotted line on the left.

Computer renderings deal with the same interior wall problem by having cutting planes that can be placed in various places in the model.  The lobby below is being viewed from outside the glass curtainwall.  The mullions and glass have been eliminated in the original model.

 

The smaller the space the more distortion you can expect.  Elevator cabs are a special case in that any normal perspective would distort the ceiling or the floor or both.  A computer rendering would have a problem with this, but a hand layout can solve the problem easily by simple using a sliding vanishing point.  If you locate the vanishing point for the ceiling and floor in the drawing below you will find that they don’t correspond, but are slightly shifted vertically so as to lessen the distortion.

Sometimes the client will want to see something which is useful to know, but which is not a real situation.  The color sketch below shows a private terminal at JFK airport.  It is all perfectly accurate, but the silhouette of the Manhattan skyline (just below and left of center) cannot be seen from there.  You would have to level parts of Brooklyn and Queens to have a line of sight, and even then it would be smaller.  However, for people unfamiliar with New York City the silhouette provides a useful landmark to orient themselves and the terminal.

Finally, there is the problem of glass, and how much you can see of an interior during daylight.  The answer in the real world is “not much”.  In the layout below you can see that I wished away the glass (and some of the structure) so as to see straight through the building.  In the photo of the finished building you can see into the building, but it is at dusk, when the artificial light can challenge the dying daylight. 

Viewers of an illustration will go far to believe an interesting story, and will forgive much fudging to experience more of a building than is normally possible.  It is a delicate balance which becomes easier as you experience and observe the different buildings, materials and lighting.  An old artist friend once said to me, “if it’s right but looks wrong it’s wrong, and if it’s wrong but looks right, it’s right”.  My own motto is “establish the facts first, then lie and manipulate as needed.”  Or more delicately stated, “get out the old Artistic License”.

Truth

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.”  - Richard Feynman

The previous post on beauty leads to the obvious question of truth in human existence.  The following are some personal notes suitable for cutting through the mental thickets surrounding Truth.

Truth would seem to be a nice simple idea compared with “everybody has their own idea of” Beauty. However, looking at some quotes I dug up suggests otherwise.  The Bible talks of misleading external appearances, the “whited sepulchers,” suggesting beauty can camouflage what is ugly and evil.  Which is just another way of saying that beauty is “skin deep.”  The beautiful “gold digger” and the “diamond in the rough” are well worn phrases describing the disconnect between truth and beauty.  “In vino veritas”, suggests that truth comes from honesty and transparency, not to mention drunkenness.  Occam’s razor states that truth is related to simplicity.  Truth can be “ugly” and “brutal”, and Churchill famously said that the truth was so precious during wartime, that it had to be surrounded by a “bodyguard of lies.”  I could go on quoting from the “marketplace of ideas,” and noting the ideas that have “stood the test of time,” but the “cliché meter” would blow up so I’ll stop here.

Perhaps the degree of truth is related to the institution that proclaims “truth”.  For instance science tells the truth, while novels don’t.  Actually that definition doesn’t really work either.  Scientists 100 years ago considered Phrenology to be a serious science.  As physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”  Conversely, novels often convey a deep human truth imbedded in a pudding of lies.

I think I need to state some basic principles here.  I believe that there is a consistent truth out there; let’s call it capital ‘R’ “Reality”.  What we call truth is our human attempt to capture, model and record that “Reality”.  The model that we hold in our mind which reflects “Reality” is what we call “Truth”, let’s give it a capital ‘T’.  While “Reality” is unlimited and unchanging, subject to some deep but partially knowable laws, “Truth” is subject to the whims of our emotions and self interest, and our limited senses and brain.  It is charmingly naïve to believe that there is some perfect beauty.  It is not so charming, and it is certainly naïve to believe that human “Truth” equals absolute “Reality”.

While “Reality” is unknowable it is a consistent sounding board for our pursuit of “Truth”.  If your idea of “Truth” leads you to burn your finger and stub your toe, you may be on the wrong path.  So are we back to the “eye of the beholder”?  Not quite.  Whereas beauty can be very personal and idiosyncratic without harm, “Truth”, if it wanders too far from “Reality” can get the individual killed, or can condemn a group to extinction.  A poor person or a soldier on the battlefield had better have a close connection between his idea of “Truth” and the reality of “Reality”.  A rich person can get away with criminality or addiction which would destroy a poor person.  Similarly, a country with an out-of-touch ruling elite can make life miserable for everyone, and get themselves killed into the bargain.  From Caligula and Ivan the Terrible to Hitler and Stalin, absolute (and absolutely insane) rulers have run roughshod through the masses (for the good of the masses of course).  Without the “hard” truth of “Reality” to drag us back we would live in a fantasy world of our own making.    Perhaps someday technology will advance far enough to create such a “science fiction” virtual world, but I would recommend keeping a life jacket handy if you ever sign on for that cruise.

So “Truth” will always be at best an approximation of “Reality”.  We are stuck looking at Plato’s shadows in a cave.  My own rules for “Reality” are:

1. Always test your conception of the “Truth”. Read the opposition, and compare both sides with historic examples, related studies and human nature. “Truth” is found via skepticism.

2. Understand that, although hard science is the most rigorous model of reality, scientists are still only human, subject to confirmation bias. Feynman has a point.

3. Social Science is always fascinating, but is challenged by both confirmation bias in the scientist and “spinning” by the subjects of the study. On this field traditional morality and progressive values fight.

4. Religion, politics, art and business are all simply rationalizations of our instinctual moralizing. The foundation of nearly everything we do or think is wrapped up in our basically emotional brain. Doesn’t mean it is right or wrong, just means there is a lot of contradiction, Ad Hockery and outright lies.

Final admonition:  That we aren’t busy killing each other in small primitive groups is amazing. The peaceful daily life of civilization is an anomaly, and we should be thankful for it, and careful that we don’t undermine it.

Beauty

I occasionally toss a philosophical question at my practical daughter to get her to do some abstract thinking (a bad habit from my limited humanities training).  Yesterday I showed her Ode on a Grecian Urn by John Keats, and asked her whether she agreed with the famous final statement: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty”.  Being wise she said she did not know, and asked what I thought.  I, being a fool started to talk and analyze and tie myself in a knot.  Obviously I needed to clarify it in my mind before I opened my mouth.  As such… the following is an outline of my considered thoughts (or perhaps a rambling thicket of random thoughts).  This is a summary of personal research and opinion, so read on at your own risk.

First, in cold rational analysis, beauty is not truth, and truth is not beauty.  There is obviously overlap in certain areas of human thought and activity, but in general the examples where truth=beauty are minimal.  And, all of this is going on in our heads anyway, so… never mind.

At the other end of the ‘aphorism chart’ you have: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”  In other words beauty is entirely a matter of personal preference.  Yes, but how much individual choice do you have.  We don’t have wildly differing ideas of beauty, but we also don’t all love the same color or shape for instance (note that I’m a visual artist, and so will emphasize that area throughout the following).  We are a mix of freedom and conformity, and this border land is what follows.

Human Nature (based primarily on The Second Conquestof Earth by E.O. Wilson):   Brain wave analysis shows that humans prefer approximately 20% redundancy in abstract shapes.  We like a balance of the familiar and the unfamiliar.  We also prefer a balance between complexity and simplicity; we hate boredom, but don’t want to be bewildered.  Finally, we prefer images or views that provide a hierarchy of things to focus on; we dislike a blank world, but similarly hate a world with infinite points to focus on.

Human Nature (based primarily on The Blank Slateby Steven Pinker):   Meta-studies of human groups show that humans prefer open fields with scattered trees, similar to the savannah where early humans developed.  We like to see or be close to bodies of water.  And we prefer a panoramic view of our world.  Scientists who study these preferences suggest that they are “hard wired” via natural selection over thousands of years of human development.

In terms of physical beauty, humans prefers healthy looking things: symmetrical, uniform and conventional.  For instance most societies consider female beauty to include a 0.7 waist to hip ratio, although different cultures will favor thinner or fatter overall body types.

Cultural Variety (based on various sources):   Female beauty is the best documented area of cultural divergence.  For centuries foot binding was the way to get your daughter noticed (and married) to a rich and discerning man in China.  A woman’s elongated neck (produced by wearing metal rings) was the ticket to upper class marital bliss in old Burma.  A “full figured” woman is considered beautiful in Nigeria, while in California plastic surgeons seem to rearrange faces and figures to match the latest fad.

Internal cultural preferences are usually set by the ruling class, the elites and the taste makers in the media.  Up until the 19^th century the western elites were fat and pale, reflecting their access to plenty of food and their freedom from hard outdoor labor.  The modern “leisure” society features thin tanned elites, reflecting their access to health clubs and Caribbean vacations (people who are fat and pale are now considered poor, ignorant rednecks in our tolerant worldview).  We are also swayed by dominant foreign countries.  In the 18^th and early 19^th centuries France was the dominant European power (England forged a colonial empire, but France dominated Europe).  French fashion, language (lingua franca), arts and science were mimicked by the elite of other European states, and eventually were spread around the world.  The 19^th century saw the rise of the Anglo-sphere which established the universality of the English language and “anglo” culture.  Now nearly every potentate in the world is dressed like any state senator from Kansas.  We revel in the exotic third world “eco-vacation”, but the world is becoming an American strip mall.

Architecture and art have followed the path of cultural hegemony.  The Roman/Hellenistic style was fashionable in Renaissance Italy, but that gave way to the French Beaux Art movement in the 18^th and 19^th century.  A scattered rejection of tradition I’ll call “modernism” dominated the 20^th century, bolstered by the hegemony of the United States following World War II.  Whatever comes next will be an outgrowth of what has gone before, influenced by whatever polity dominates the world at the time.

Just one other thing I have to add to the cultural discussion.  The “modern” art movement rejects historical precedent, but embraces, or rather, worships innovation.  This is due to the artistic tendency to mimic and symbolize whatever is central in their world; and science is central now.  The value of scientific exploration and innovation is unquestioned, but mimicry of something which is important does not guarantee beauty (or importance for that matter).  Is every new thing beautiful?  No.  Is every new thing interesting?  Yes, by definition.  In our worship of “the new” we have relegated beauty to a minor position behind the “fresh”, the “edgy” and the “transgressive”.  Perhaps this is a phase which will lead to unexpected beauty, just as any good artist has to go through failure to master their art.  We shall see.

So, have I made myself clear?  No?  My schizophrenic outline pits the free individual against the preprogrammed individual.  Which is it, freedom or programmed?  The answer unfortunately is Yes.  We humans are a mix of ant and angel: a rational Dr. Jekyll attached to a psychotic Mr. Hyde.  We analyze and rationalize our gut reactions, and mindlessly defend our scientific discoveries.   Analysis and rationality is something we have built our modern world upon, but for the human animal the aphorism may be more than enough to live by and easier to remember than the algorithm.  The reality is that “In the eyes of the beholder” explains most of human experience.  And perhaps Keats meant that in the end: “- that is all /Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”.