Okay - firstly, I'm impressed by the very determined and positive way you've moved from your first OGR to this point. That's a lot of distance travelled, so well done. In broad terms, I like where you've got too, and how you got there, and like too the eerie quality of your 'unreal' space. That said, I do think there is one remaining issue - and that is simply that I don't think you've quite created an actual city yet - or rather your 'buildings' aren't buildings - or aren't buildings 'enough'. In terms of scale, and volume and architectural language, they do just remain 'monoliths' or 'rock formations' - for example, the scale (as expressed by the clock face and the bird) describe these structures as actually very small, no taller than your average suburban house. Now, yes, this is a surreal space, but is it 'enough' of a city and what makes your structure's 'buildings'? It might help you to look at ruined cities as a more useful guide to upping the scale of your vision - while keeping its fragmented, melancholy charms: so:
My broad point is that in thinking about those key assets, it might help to think about them as fragments of buildings (which have an abstract quality) as opposed to purely abstract elements? You should absolutely think about varying your scale too, because right now, everything is the same height at the same scale, and which your concept art is definitely very evocative, I think it needs more 'city' going on.
Thanks for the advice Phil, I'm having a look at those images now, I did have a similar thought myself and wasn't really sure how to make it more citylike? I also wanted an impression of the city feeling empty but I understand how it may be too empty! :)
OGR 20/11/2014
ReplyDeleteHi Kayliegh,
Okay - firstly, I'm impressed by the very determined and positive way you've moved from your first OGR to this point. That's a lot of distance travelled, so well done. In broad terms, I like where you've got too, and how you got there, and like too the eerie quality of your 'unreal' space. That said, I do think there is one remaining issue - and that is simply that I don't think you've quite created an actual city yet - or rather your 'buildings' aren't buildings - or aren't buildings 'enough'. In terms of scale, and volume and architectural language, they do just remain 'monoliths' or 'rock formations' - for example, the scale (as expressed by the clock face and the bird) describe these structures as actually very small, no taller than your average suburban house. Now, yes, this is a surreal space, but is it 'enough' of a city and what makes your structure's 'buildings'? It might help you to look at ruined cities as a more useful guide to upping the scale of your vision - while keeping its fragmented, melancholy charms: so:
http://sesquicentenary.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/richmond-ruins.jpg
http://ww2db.com/images/battle_hiroshima57.jpg
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/007/a/4/ruined_city_singapore__by_mernrock09-d571jq1.jpg
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/russ110/images/newestscannedfrombooks/ruinedcity.jpg
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/092/9/1/RUIN___AD_3107___speedpainting_by_the_speedpaint_tard.jpg
http://stevemccurry.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/usa-10051ns.jpg
My broad point is that in thinking about those key assets, it might help to think about them as fragments of buildings (which have an abstract quality) as opposed to purely abstract elements? You should absolutely think about varying your scale too, because right now, everything is the same height at the same scale, and which your concept art is definitely very evocative, I think it needs more 'city' going on.
Thanks for the advice Phil, I'm having a look at those images now, I did have a similar thought myself and wasn't really sure how to make it more citylike? I also wanted an impression of the city feeling empty but I understand how it may be too empty! :)
Delete