Warning: Declaration of Imbalance2_Walker_Nav_Menu::start_lvl(&$output, $depth) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/wordsin/www/www/media-architecture/2012-spring/wp-content/themes/imbalance2/functions.php on line 102

Warning: Declaration of Imbalance2_Walker_Nav_Menu::end_lvl(&$output, $depth) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/wordsin/www/www/media-architecture/2012-spring/wp-content/themes/imbalance2/functions.php on line 102
Architectural drawing | Media and Architecture 2012

Architectural drawing

Answering the question about what happens when a design is translated into image, I want to start with the Mark Hewitt “Representational forms and modes of Conception.” He states that the most important things are the way we present the image and a subjective perception of it. 
The reason the design is being translated can be different as well. On the one hand, it can be  an idea of the architect being in the process of development. On the other hand, it can be a form of persuasion, the way Le Corbusier did, or as it is called in “The conventions and rhetoric of architectural drawing” a purpose of “rhetorical exposition.”
Besides, looking at all the variations and types of drawing I can say they all might represent different purposes. Such as perspective gives a three-dimensional space of the future/existing building. Sketches can be some ornamental pattern as work in progress as well as a separate artifact. While plans or section drawings can present how the building or part of it looks inside to show the hidden details. 
As Hewitt stated “drawing is said to be the language of architectural design,” so without putting the ideas on paper, it will be just an idea in the head of designer. As I said, everybody’s perception and visual thinking is different, so even the image of linear perspective and axonometric one sometimes cannot be enough. Then the representation comes to a modeling mode. 
The medium of representation is important as well. It ranges from pencil to watercolor to computerized graphic. In “The conventions and rhetoric of architectural drawing” it says that “drawing instrument obviously affect not only the appearance of the drawing but also the character of the building they are used to represent.” The color and shadow technique might play essential role as well. The usage of graphite can be used to present a wide variety of textures and shadow. The ink is a useful technique for perspectives, when distinguished lines and sections ar needed an accent. The watercolor definitely gives more of a pictorial effects. Again, on my opinion, the usage of a particular technique, mode or medium is solely depend on the reason of the presentation of the architectural drawing.

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

One Comment

  1. shannon

    Thanks, Anna! I’m glad you point out how different drawing media can not only convey different spatial qualities within the drawing itself, but can also have an impact on the character of the buildings they represent. The use of different media might not depend solely on the purpose of a drawing, though; couldn’t it also be determined by the personal style of an architect? A lot of Ackerman’s and Hewitt’s examples refer to the preferred media or various architects, and the parallels we can detect in their design styles.