Drawing/s

Abstract

Drawing has become essential to the making of architecture. Though some of the most magnificent structures were created without documentation, testified by The Pyramids, the Parthenon, primitive dwellings, treehouses and many other "spontaneous" constructions, the contemporary profession of making buildings demands countless representations. From sketchy initial concepts to persuasive presentations to detailed construction documents, the making of images for a design sometimes takes longer than the construction process. Images must be read by many diverse people involved in the formation of buildings, therefore architectural notation systems demand consistency. Despite the accepted language of representation, images are abstractions of real objects. They are limited in their scope of information and allow us to bring our own perceptions to them. Architectural drawings stand between us and an object Due to their two dimensional nature, they must present information with symbols and conventions that we take for granted, just as we accept the structure of language. Many contemporary drawings are created not to serve the making of buildings, but to make a visual or ideological statement They are illustrative of ideas, and their resultant physical forms would express the manipulations of drawings, rather than the reverse. This aspect of representation has led me to question the substance of architectural images, their functions and the use of traditional notation systems specific to architecture and its allied crafts. Herbert Spenser said. "language must truly be regarded as a hindrance to thought" We think in images, though the mandatory learning of verbal formations may well befuddle our visions. Notation systems in architecture are similar to language. They too are abstractions of concepts and require training for understanding and manipulation. An investigation of their implications may offer more effective utilization.