In the previous articles, we have established how hyperreal archviz relates to hyperrealist art and the philosophical understanding of hyperreality. Now we may define hyperreal visualization in comparison with other leading movements in digital archviz: photorealism and neo-analog. We will look at the conceptual, artistic, and technical qualities that are specific for each approach to digital archviz and define the scope and aim of each approach.

Photorealism has remained the prevailing trend in digital archviz since the 1990s when 3D rendering developed rapidly. The world felt enamored with photorealism because it represented the new advancements in digital technology and gave off the vibes of optimism and technological progress.

The architects and architectural rendering firms alike aimed for visualizations that were indistinguishable from photographs. By doing this, architecture studios signified that they were professional and wealthy enough to produce expensive and sophisticated realistic renders. Thus, the client believed the architects could be trusted with prestigious and costly projects. A realistic render might also tell if the project is worth an investment at all.

As 3D rendering technology became more available and widespread in the media, photorealistic visualization turned from a status symbol into a necessity. Due to overexposure to realistic renderings, people have grown unable to read and understand abstract visualizations. The clients now believe that abstract images lack information about the textures, shades, and other important qualities of buildings. Realistic representation has become unavoidable.

As photorealistic renderings try to become indistinguishable from photographs, they imitate the traits of digital photography. Among such traits are lens flare, the distortion, and curvature of perspective in a camera lens, sometimes even compression artifacts and noise. Advanced photorealist visualizations also recreate the wear and tear buildings acquire through time and weather. When well-executed, those imperfections bring the image to life.

Glossier and sleeker images often look artificial in comparison. Their less detailed, unnaturally perfect, and regular forms feel almost plastic. As a result, the image falls into an uncanny valley and becomes repulsive.

This is why photorealist archviz usually does not aim for overly visually harmonious images. Often, photorealist visualizations recreate the feel of plain spontaneous pictures rather than well-balanced artistic shots. Renderings look almost as if some hurrying tourist took them on their camera. Spontaneity makes such visualizations not just more ‘real’ but also more relatable and engaging. This rejection of artistic conventions unites photorealism in art and archviz.

At the same time, photorealist visualizations often come off as slightly mechanical and unexpressive. As a result, such images sometimes make it hard to emotionally move the viewer.

Architecture firms and architecture rendering companies strive for photorealism because they consider realistic renderings “the most effective means of conveying information about architecture to the general public”.

Or, as a famous Dutch architecture firm MVRDV puts it, they use photorealism “to make the building understandable to clients and users”. The studio stresses that “neither MVRDV nor the developer could afford to make a render that is far from reality”, the image “has to be precise”. For MVRDV, such “genuine images … best represent the intentions of our design proposals”. Exterior and interior renderings are indeed crucial for the project to be accepted and come to life. But they cannot adequately represent all the important aspects of a design proposal, especially in complex objects like airports, train stations, or hospitals.

To prove the power of genuine images, archviz studios like Mecanoo and Vizfire compare their renderings to the photographs of the finished projects made from the same angle. Both studios have created their own series of “Render vs Reality”. However, this ‘reality’ and ‘truthful representation’ they speak of is not the reality of the material world, but the reality of a photographic image.

Some viewers may be struck at the similarities between the visualizations and photographs while others may notice the differences between the two. But such comparisons of images to images tell us nothing about the real-life experience of buildings. A photograph may ideed be very similar to a render, but both differ drastically from the feel of the buildings in real life.

Visualization: a 'Render vs Photograph' comparison by Mecanoo, National Kaohsiung Centre for the Arts in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Photorealism strives to adequately reflect what the future building will look like rather than convey the deeper idea of the project. The concept of the project is reduced to its looks, while the performance its layout delivers is hardly ever taken into account.

By doing so, photorealism in archviz embodies Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality that we have discussed in the previous articles. Renderings and photographs combined become an illusion that replaces reality. And it happens mainly because photorealism claims to be almost indistinguishable from real life. Those who believe in the power of photorealism forget we perceive the environment not only with our eyes but all our senses.

Header illustration: "Render vs Reality" series by Mecanoo.