Why We Draw

DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Why We Draw.
A critical analysis of why we draw as architects.

Andrew Badley BA(Hons)
5/21/2014
MArch 5013: Comprehensive Dissertation
Tutor: Ben Cowd

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of De Montfort University for
the degree of MArch Architecture. May 2014. Leicester School of Architecture
1

Statement of Originality:
I confirm that I am the sole author of the text submitted for this dissertation, and
that all quotations, summaries or extracts from published sources have been
correctly referenced. I confirm that this dissertation, in whole or in part, has not
been previously submitted for any other award at this or any other institution.

Signature:

Full name (printed):

Date submitted: 02/05/2012

Final Turnitin rating:
2

0.1 Abstract
This thesis is an exploration of architectural drawing today; it began under a presumption that for the
reasons of BIM and nature of the profession itself that the architectural drawing was at risk. The need for
Symposiums such as Is Drawing Dead? at Yale School of Architecture and research from the RIBA in 2009
entitled The Drawing is Dead Long Live Modelling by Keith Snook suggested that the drawing could
potentially be dying.
Taking a phenomenological approach to architectural drawing this thesis attempts to answer why we
draw and define a purpose for the architectural drawing.

3

0.2 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my tutor Ben Cowd for his time and expertise through tutorials during this study.
Conversations with Ben have clearly shaped the direction of this thesis. Also to Dr John Ebohon, his lecture
series has provided me with much knowledge and entertainment over the course of this thesis.
I must also thank my dad for his continual support and reading this thesis through so many times.
Finally I must give thanks to all other members of staff and fellow students whom I have discussed this
topic with throughout the year.

4

0.3 Table of Figures

Figure 1, Cover of AD: Drawing Architecture.
Figure 2.Design for the Villa Pisani at Bagnolo, Andrea Palladio (c.1542)
Figure 3. Baldassare Peruzzi's drawing of St. Peter's Basilica
Figure 4. Leonardo Da Vincis anatomical drawing of the skull, (c.1489)
Figure 5. Frank Gehry, Preliminary sketch for the Walt Disney Concert Hall
Figure 6. Typical building construction drawing.
Figure 7. The Future of Drawing? Post graduate work, A Defensive Architecture by Nicholas Szczepaniak
Figure 8. A print screen of the website www.pinterest.com . This page continues in a similar vein for hundreds of images.
Figure 9. A closer image of one of the search results in Figure 7. Notice how little information is provided with the image.
Figure 10. Image of the Tower of living energy CRAB Studios (2010)
Figure 11. Image of the Tower of living energy CRAB Studios (2010)
Figure 12. Initial Venn Diagram of Drawing Categories, Andrew Badley (2014)
Figure 13. Peter Cook, The Plug-In City (1964)
Figure 16. Le Corbusiers drawings for mass production artisan dwelling from his Towards a New Architecture (1924)
Figure 17. Renzo Piano, Richard Rogers, Centre Georges Pompidou (1977)
Figure 18. Giovanni Battista Piranesi , Carceri Plate VI - The Smoking Fire (1761)
Figure 19. Lebbeus Woods, Photon Kite, from the series Centricity, 1988.
Figure 20. Lebbeus Woods, Radical Reconstruction, 1997
Figure 21. Lebbeus Woods, San Francisco Project: Inhabiting the Quake, Quake City, 1995.
Figure 22. Peter Cook, Diploma Project (Unknown)
Figure 23. Zaha Hadid, Diploma Project Malevichs Tektonik (1977)
Figure 24. Pascal Bronner, New Malacovia. (2009)
Figure 25. Pascal Bronner, New Malacovia. (2009)
Figure 26. Tom Noonan, The Reforestation of the Thames Estuary (2010)
Figure 27. Tom Noonan, The Reforestation of the Thames Estuary (2010)
Figure 28. Zaha Hadid, The Peak Drawing(1982)
Figure 29. Zaha Hadid, The Peak Drawing (1982)
Figure 30. Zaha Hadid, Vitra Fire Station Drawing. (1990)
Figure 31. Zaha Hadid, Vitra Fire Station (1994)

5

Contents
0.1 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
0.2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 3
0.3 Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.0 Setting The Scene ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Architectural Drawing in the Beginning ................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Defining Architectural Drawing ........................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Grasping for the Fifth Dimension: Reviewing the Literature ............................................................... 16
Going Beyond the Line: A Phenomenological Approach to Architectural Drawing .............................. 18
Peter Cook, Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture ...................................................................... 23
3.0 Context: Why do we Draw? ..................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Methodology: Ontology & Epistemology ............................................................................................ 27
3.2 Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Communicating the ideal ...................................................................................................................... 28
Dreamers ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Seduction ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Draw to Design ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Why Do We Draw? Continued ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Communicating the Ideal: Peter Cook & Archigram (1960-1975) ......................................................... 29
Drawing to Dream: Piranesi (1720-1778)/ Lebbeus (1940-2012) .......................................................... 34
Drawing to Seduce: Student Work ........................................................................................................ 38
Drawing to Design: Early Zaha Hadid (1976-1994) ................................................................................ 42
4.0 Conclusions: Why Do We Draw? ............................................................................................................. 46
5.0 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 48

6

Figure 1, Cover of AD: Drawing
Architecture.
7

1.0 Setting The Scene

My journey began by exploring the field of architectural representation, quickly discovering that it is a rich
picking ground for fresh ideas on how best to represent architectural ideas. Each individual medium has its
merits, showcasing architecture in a different light with different qualities; film is a fluid medium
incorporating both vision and sound, drawing a static and precise image carefully constructing meaning
within its lines and shade and modelling able to show a proposal at various scales highlighting various
different issues with a project. It is drawing which I have decided to hone in on, analyse and criticise
An initial reading of AD: Drawing Architecture, see figure 1, which if you like has inspired me to investigate
this topic further for myself, suggests that architects should strive to add an additional dimension to their
drawing. Implying that a drawing has the potential to convey feelings and emotions or at the very least
give an additional experience above and beyond what would be considered conventional within
architectural drawing today. The issue looks at architectural drawing from a largely phenomenological
perspective, through which you experience the drawing and are able to extract a subliminal meaning,
potentially making the drawing a much more useful tool for the architect.
The field of architectural drawing itself is both broad and complex with the term drawing being
extremely vague within the digital context of today. This has given rise to a wealth of methods and
techniques that are utilised to communicate architectural form, ideals and aspirations. Focussing and
examining even a small section of this would consist of more than enough questions that are yet to be
answered. Prior to a question being decided upon it would be correct to review the field within its wider
context then perhaps narrowing down further to a more precise remit within which to work.
Upon further reading it became apparent that there was consensus that architectural drawing was at risk.
The need for Symposiums such as Is Drawing Dead? at Yale School of Architecture and research from the
RIBA in 2009 entitled The Drawing is Dead Long Live Modelling by Keith Snook suggested that the
drawing could potentially be dying. With drawing being such an integral part of the profession till now this
was puzzling and an issue which clearly required further investigation. We begin by looking at a brief
history of the humble drawing, going back to its roots, and then through to the present day. How was it
born? Who has attempted to push the architectural drawing above and beyond its place at different
moments in time?

8

2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Architectural Drawing in the Beginning
Plato
Plato speaks of two kinds of simulacra (image making), which creates a thought-provoking context where
a discussion about architectural image can take place. The first is a faithful representation, attempting to
precisely copy the original. This relates to the plans, sections, elevations and their associated non-illusory
drawings. The second image type is distorted intentionally in such a way to make it appear correct to its
viewers. This second type of image is embodied by the more romantic perspective image; used to better
communicate the qualities of light, space and material of a space making them more susceptible to this
distortion. It is of no surprise to me that images of this nature could acquire a reputation for not being
wholly honest, comparative to the technical and precise orthogonal drawings. Perspective imagery seems
to have a tendency to omit or include details to further the impact of the idea which they intend to
portray
1
. These two types of simulacra is an issue that will need to be highlighted and addressed, but first I
must look further in to the history of architectural drawing, describe the origin of a drawing standard
which has not changed much over the previous five centuries, highlight those who pushed its boundaries
or attempted to question the paradigm in architectural drawing.
The Birth of the Drawing
The beginnings of the formal architectural drawing can be accredited to Giotto (1266-1337), even though
it was ultimately refined and popularised by Alberti (1404-1472) and his contemporaries, giving the
architectural drawing its high place in the architectural profession. Previously the architect would
communicate his vision through carved models
2
, drawings used were full scale mock-ups of details to be
carved by stone masons etc. They were used as more of a tool in their own right, to carve and shape the
stone accurately, rather than to communicate a complete architectural endeavour. The position of the
planar architectural drawing was strengthened further when Raphael (1483-1520) inherited the task of
completing St Peters Basilica, Rome, from Bramante (1444-1514) due to ill health in 1513. Work had
begun, yet there was no clear set of drawings which laid out Bramantes complete vision for the Basilica.
In a letter to the Pope Raphael expressed strongly that architectural drawings should consist of the plan,
the section and the elevation. Previous methods had proved inadequate, something needed to change.
Following this drawings were produced of the new design and upon Raphaels death in 1520, St Peters
was completed by Antonio da Sangallo the younger (1485-1546) using the drawings of Raphaels vision.
Finally Palladio (1508-1580) then cemented the place of the orthogonal architectural drawing as a
professional standard with his four books of architecture, which found many imitators, see figure 2.

1
(Powell & Leatherbarrow, 1983, p. 53)
2
(Carpo, 2013)
9

Figure 2.Design for the Villa
Pisani at Bagnolo
Andrea Palladio (c.1542)
10

The architectural drawing had become indispensable in the realisation of an architectural building, taking
the form from the mind of the architect into our reality through a series of unambiguous, precise
drawings. Over approximately one hundred years we see the birth of the drawing and its development
into an essential part of the profession. This move by Alberti, and his contemporaries that followed,
changed the role of the architect from a maker of buildings to a maker of drawings. Previously an
architect, or master builder, would have been on site directing the work as he saw fit from the design in
his mind. Since the architect remains the conceiver of the idea, but uses the drawing as a medium through
which they communicate their design.
Drawing in this way was born, as I see it, out of Albertis desire to communicate his ideal of the true
measure of a building. The planar orthogonal drawing proved the perfect tool, its language not distorted
by perspective, communicating precisely the principles of Vitruvian proportion so important to Alberti.
Following this birth through desire, the plan, section and elevation was then realised fully as a method to
communicate an idea unambiguously. The act of drawing a building precisely in a combination of plan
section and elevation is the point at which an idea leaves the mind of the designer and becomes
something physical, something buildable by someone other than its conceiver. Once it is drawn in these
planes it becomes unambiguous, no longer open to interpretation, it is in its self a complete idea. This is
an issue I will explore further at later point in this thesis.
This is not to say that this paradigm of architectural drawing was not challenged both during and since its
establishment. In the renaissance during its rise and other points in the history of drawing there have
been those who pushed its boundaries and played with its conventions. Around the time of the formation
of these standards within architectural drawing it was creative minds such as Giuliano da Sangallo (1445-
1516) and Baldassare Peruzzi (1481-1536) that were providing a counterpoint to the orthogonal drawing
as it began to grab hold of the profession. Both were experimenting with alternate methods of
representing building through drawing, whilst inevitably practicing orthogonal techniques.
Ideas seen beginning to surface in the work of Peruzzi and Sangallo include the passage of time, qualities
of light and the movement through space.
3
These characteristic are most evident in the work of Peruzzis
work. Peruzzi was an accomplished architect painter and scenographer. He was a master of both the
perspective and orthogonal drawing, these skills can be seen in his highly accurate orthogonal section of
the Pantheon in Rome and in his perspective as part of his scenography work. Therefore we can assume
that as Peruzzi bends and breaks and experiments with the rules it is clear he is searching for something
that neither perspective nor orthogonal drawing expresses individually, it is an attempt to create new
drawings beyond orthogonal (plan, elevation and section) and the perspective.

3
(Brothers, 2012)
11

This experimentation/ ingenuity can be seen in Peruzzis representation of his own design for St. Peters
Basilica, which mimics the qualities of anatomical drawing.
4
Anatomical drawings could allow us to
speculate the reasoning behind Peruzzis choice. Drawings in anatomy are not bound by the same
pressures and constrains of an architectural drawing. They serve only as a means through which to
understand the body. Through this we can read that Peruzzis drawing of St. Peters Basilica to be fulfilling
the same role. The drawing is highly complex combining perspective view sitting atop a plan. This drawing
shows:
1. The conception of the building, in the plan.
2. The construction of the building, the half built piers.
3. The completed building, at the back.
The drawing suggesting temporal ideas of the design in different stages of construction, combining ideas
that the plan or the perspective would struggle to communicate as well in isolation. This drawing shows an
innovative way to represent the space using the axonometric view, which in itself an impossible view and
an abstraction of space. The fact that Peruzzi was a painter and scenographer is reflected clearly in his
choice of representation, Peruzzi much more concerned with the qualities of inhabited space than the
quantifiable co-ordinates of Cartesian space.
5

However, these drawing efforts were not imitated like the orthogonal drawings Palladio. Perhaps due to a
lesser need for the qualities which they attempted to better express? Maybe it was because there simply
was not a clearly defined need for drawings of this type? Whatever it was these drawing seem to fade into
the background, used occasionally when an architect felt like displaying a little bit of flair. So the history of
architectural drawing continues, after the diversity of Peruzzi and Sangallo, along the path of the
orthogonal drawing with its clear purpose supplemented by the perspective view.
Drawing the ideal
It is clear from Architectural drawing in practice today that it has remained much the same since its
conception. Arguably the most influential change on drawing, at least for those who draw to build, was
the promotion of the architectural drawing to a contract document in the nineteenth century. With this
additional legal weight on the drawing it is reinforced as a communicative tool to build resulting in a
growing profusion of working drawings.
6
This is opposed to a drawing that explicitly expresses
architectural ideas. As a result, from this point this history will focus on those who had something to say
and explicitly communicated it through drawing, rather than those who draw to build. Comparisons will
never the less have to be made between the two, this will ground the ideas of those constructing in the
reality of the paper in the reality we all share.

4
(Brothers, 2012)
5
6
12

Figure 3. Baldassare
Peruzzi's drawing of St.
Peter's Basilica
Figure 4. Leonardo Da
Vincis anatomical
drawing of the skull,
(c.1489)
13

Conclusion
The stagnant nature of the field of architectural drawing, within the vast majority of the building
profession, has left architectural drawing as just a contract drawing; it is unambiguous and lifeless. Now
that the digital is almost ubiquitous within the profession, the seamless production of these lifeless
contract drawings is becoming a reality. This is through the development of software such as Revit,
competing with the traditional drawing method, encouraging the use of the 3D, from which contract
drawings would be generated by the software. If this were true it would release architectural drawing
from constrains over five centuries old. Freed from these constrains, what would architectural drawing
become? How would it evolve? Are the answers found in visionaries who have fallen by the wayside? Or in
the contemporary critics and champions of architectural drawing today?
Cammy Brothers presents an alternate history of architectural drawing
7
, which proceeds on the basis that
the functional elements of architectural drawing are relaxed. It is pointed out the since the conception of
the plan section and elevation architectural drawing in the 15
th
century, many of the qualities architectural
drawing have changed very little. Brothers drawn upon a comparison with the world of contemporary art,
which by contrast has seen its techniques, subject matter etc. progress and change drastically over the
same time period.
Brothers outlines a potential alternate history of the architectural drawing, suggesting that it was at the
margins of the 15
th
and 16
th
century, whilst the conventions were being formed that the future of the
drawing lies
8
. Rather than focussing on the conventional history of drawing, Brothers looks for
alternatives. Citing the work of Sangallo and Peruzzi, discussed earlier, who were challenging the drawing
conventions before they were set. She suggest with the art of drawing seemingly at risk it needs to find a
new niche, that its in the aspirations of creative such as Peruzzi and Sangallo, aspirations still not fully
satisfied today, that the future of the drawing lies. The question begs, what would this niche be? And what
is drawings purpose? Essentially, why do we draw?

7
(Brothers, 2012)
8
(Brothers, 2012)
14

2.2 Defining Architectural Drawing
Drawing could mean so many different techniques and types of drawings which themselves have many
different uses. This section aims to define the specific area of drawing this thesis will be directing its
attention towards.
Beginning with the sketch; a versatile rapid technique which can be used to understand, to explain or as a
form of notation. It is a very personal form of drawing integral to an individual architect and could aid in
helping to define them. This can be seen in the work of Louis Kahn as his sketching style developed during
his trips abroad to the ancient world so too did his architectural style. Kahn once said he was
intellectually, emotionally and physically interacting with the sketch. Immersed in the making, he had
rubbed out, crossed out and drawn over many aspects of the sketch as if it spoke to him
9
One must hold
the opinion that the sketch is not and will never be at risk. This is a technique unlike any other integral to
the architects design process, the part of the role of an architect which will never change.
Next, the construction drawing; this has; as we have seen, risen to prominence following the introduction
of the plan, section and elevation. This is a drawing which varies from architect to architect but uses what
is fundamentally the same language. The construction drawing has evolved out of the orthogonal drawing
introduced as means of communicating the true measure of a building, its humanist qualities otherwise
distorted by the perspective in the real world, it has become the drawing which instead much like the
sketch is a tool.
So where does that leave the architectural drawing? If BIM is to free the architect from the production of
the construction drawing, what does the architectural drawing become? We know from today that often
drawings are the only pieces left which show what a building was once like or what it could have been,
whether it was demolished, never reached construction or were never intended to be built. Thus the
architectural drawing provides us with the means of understanding the architecture its self. This is an
issue that need exploring further.
So to conclude the sketch is a design tool used by the architect to resolve, understand and develop a
proposal or its constituent parts. The construction drawing is a tool used to communicate the means of
construction. The architectural drawing then communicates the architecture or architectural idea,
whatever that may be. In this away the architectural drawings becomes about a want to communicate
your design ideas to a wider public. The drawing becomes more aligned with Platos second form of
Simulacra, an image distorted intentionally in such a way to make it appear correct to its viewers, so the
viewer can see the idea, much more about the ideal than a Cartesian representation of reality; an art not a
technical exercise.

9
(Kahn, 1991)
15

Figure 6. Typical
building construction
drawing.
Figure 5. Frank Gehry
Preliminary sketch for the
Walt Disney Concert Hall
Figure 7. The Future of
Drawing? Post graduate
work, A Defensive
Architecture by
Nicholas Szczepaniak
16

2.3 Grasping for the Fifth Dimension: Reviewing the Literature
In beginning a review of selected literature we start where the ideas of this thesis were planted and began
to grow, the issue of AD: Drawing Architecture. Upon flicking through the issue you immediately notice a
vibrant array of different image which utilise a plethora of techniques digital, hand and a combination of
the two. If unaware of the contents then you would be forgiven of thinking some of the images were
contemporary art, maybe architectural drawing is finally catching up? (This is parallel has been drawn
previously by Cammy Brothers.) At the very least it shows architectural drawing is by no means dead.
Although this architectural drawing is not dead it seems to be confined to
10
:
Experimental Practices (Will Alsop, Narinder Sagoo/ Foster and Partners, Morphosis)
Visionaries, whose projects are not necessarily intended to be built, the project lives through the
drawing, able to provoke a response from the architectural profession. (Archigram, Russian
Paper Architects, Neil Spiller)
Students, who find themselves in a similar position to a visionary in that their project is highly
unlikely to be built and again are producing drawings to communicate an architectural ideal.

The issue is guest edited by Neil Spiller, mentioned previously. In his introduction Architectural Drawing:
Grasping for the Fifth Dimension he highlights three key points that need addressing, these are
supplementary to the main thrust of the piece which suggests that there is an additional dimension
beyond the four dimensions (three spatial and time) that architects are aspiring to when producing these
architectural drawings.
1. Architectural Drawing has benefited from the digital revolution.
2. A good scheme and/or drawing must allow for speculative re-reading.
3. The notion of Donegality.
Firstly, architectural drawing has benefited from the digital age. Spiller says that while one might have
expected the computer to have fully exceed hand techniques Spiller suggest that paradoxically the
opposite is true.
11
Spiller supplements this with this thought, Todays architects have a wealth of
techniques processes and approaches with which to make their architecture. It is a consistent
disappointment to me that more architects do not explore the wilder and more beautiful terrains of our
discipline. Why are so many of us happy to revert to a tired and defunct modernist doctrine?
12
If the
word architecture is replaced with architectural drawing then the statement still stands, as architectural
drawing is an integral part of architecture, the first act of building (for architects at least) is drawing. This
seems to be largely true; the digital revolution has only contributed new techniques and methods of

10
(Spiller, Architectural Drawing: Grasping for the Fifth Dimension, 2013, p. 6)
11
12
17

drawing, not taken away. As for architects who choose to revert to a the modernist doctrine of clean line
drawings, even though one might argue that it does not represent their architectural ideals then the
question again needs to be asked Why are they drawing?
Included below is a brief first person account of the authors experience with the digital:
For myself born in 1991 I have for the most part grown up with computers and advances in
technology; it is a fully integrated part of my life. It is clear compared to many people, typically
older but also includes people around my age who are not as familiar with the computer, I find
programs on computer intuitive to use; easily navigating shortcuts and connections between tasks
and intuitively know how they could work together. It feels like this comes easier to me, which I
believe arises from an integral understanding of the computer that is embedded within me. Many
believe the argument and distinction between analogue and digital is tired and now
inappropriate. This is a sentiment, in terms of quality and image production, that I would agree
with. However the impact of the digital age on how images are perceived generally in this
information age could prove useful in the conversation about Why We draw?
Second the idea that A good scheme and drawing must have enigmas, a certain elbow room for
speculative re reading.
13
The way in which an architectural drawing is read and re read is an interesting
thought to consider, how an architectural drawing needs to have a certain amount of ambiguity in order
to be successful. Let me make it clear that this is by no means suggesting that planning drawings or the
like should be ambiguous, far from it; this only applies to drawings used to communicate ideas about
architecture. Perhaps the answer to this lies in Spillers next point.
Finally, donegality is a notion which Spiller raises with respect to architectural drawing. The word
donegality was introduced by Michael Ward in his book Planet Narnia. Spiller sees it as a potential route
to discovering what this fifth dimension may entail. Donegality is defined as:
By Donegality we mean to denote the spiritual essence or quiddity of a work of art as intended by the
artist and inhabited unconsciously by the reader. The donegality of a story is its peculiar and deliberated
atmosphere or quality. that the author consciously sought to conjure, but which was designed to remain
implicit.
14

Spiller urges readers to consider the donegality of each drawing as they continue through the issue, see
what would otherwise be inhabited subconsciously. It suggests that each individual reads each
architectural drawing differently, in a way that is subconscious but also subjective. This would fit into the
concept that a good drawing allows for speculative re-reading, how ideas would change as you gain new
thoughts and knowledge between subconscious re readings of the ideas presented in a drawing, this is
alongside those which are created sub consciously by the mind.

13
14
(Ward, 2008)
18

All the issues raised point towards phenomenological approach to drawing in architecture, an aspect the
author was keen to explore in this thesis. Too many architects revert to modernist methods to represent
their work using defunct modernist doctrines why? Is it because it is easier? Is it because clients read
them better? Is it because they are the drawings needed for planning approval? Is a financial pressure on
the office?
As a result of these ideas, my reading now focuses on the work of phenomenologists such as Juhani
Pallasma, Dalibor Vessely and Martin Heidigger; supplemented by the thoughts Peter Cook, a prominent
thinker on architectural drawing. Borrowing the ideas of these authors the text will assess each of the key
ideas highlighted from Spillers introduction in the hope that a thoughtful discussion upon the donegality
of architectural drawing arises.
Going Beyond the Line: A Phenomenological Approach to Architectural Drawing
Juhani Pallasmaa has a phenomenological approach to architecture, he concerns himself with the essence
of architecture and has researched and written widely on the subject including The Eyes of the Skin:
Architecture and the Senses, The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom and he was also a
speaker at the Is Drawing Dead? symposium at Yale School of Architecture. So as you would imagine in
his book The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture Pallasmaa talks about the image
of architecture in the poetic sense, its essence, and how these images are embodied and experienced by
an observer; ideas already beginning to draw parallels to those introduced by Spiller.
The Digital Age and the Image
As previously mentioned analysing the aesthetic qualities of architectural drawing as a result of the digital
revolution is not something which this thesis wishes to concern its self with, the aesthetics of drawing are
far too subjective and dependant on what and why it is being drawn. Pallasmaa addresses this in his first
chapter Image in Contemporary Culture he speaks of the negative impact of the current Hegemony of
the image
15
. Citing that prior to the age of mass literacy humans primarily communicated through the
use of images and gesture, Pallasmaa even goes so far as to suggest that we could be returning to a new
illiterate age.
This hegemony of the image is no more apparent than on the internet with sites such Pinterest, Instagram
and Tumblr, see figures 7 and 8. After typing your search criteria in you are bombarded with images which
are offered with no/the bare minimum of additional information. Pallasmaa talks about how this excessive
flow of imagery, caused by advances in technology and communications is leading to a fragmented view of

15
(Pallasma, The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture (Architectural Design Primer),
2001, p. 15)
19

Figure 9. A closer image
of one of the search
results in Figure 7.
Notice how little
information is provided
with the image.
Figure 8. A print screen
of the website
www.pinterest.com .
This page continues in a
similar vein for
hundreds of images.
20

the world. By comparison the information in a book is embedded within a causal narrative which gives
depth to the knowledge. Compare this to images on Pinterest where images are presented, initially, with
almost no narrative or additional knowledge to supplement or ground the image.
This makes the image a detached and fragmented piece of knowledge
16
, what Pallasmaa calls
fragmented knowledge. This could be looked at from two different perspectives; the first is, as the
draughtsmen of an architectural image how do you make your drawing stand out? How do you seduce
someone? Or is it that this kind of image searching is purely aesthetic and devalues a drawing, by
removing information that places it in context and allows it to speak fully?
The Re-Reading of the Drawing
In his second chapter Language Thought and Image Pallasmaa raises points of interest with regards to
Spillers second point A good scheme and/or drawing must allow for speculative re-reading. Upon reading
this chapter with the awareness of Spillers comments interesting ideas arise from the notion that a good
drawing needs sufficient elbow room for this speculative re reading, and provides potential explanations
as to why this is the case.
Pallasmaa begins the chapter by comparing the creator of the embodied image to a literary author. How
an author uses their words to construct their reality in our minds, a good book places us in that reality.
Elaine Scarry in her book Dreaming by the Book asks By what miracle is a writer able to incite us to bring
forth mental images that resemble in their quality not our own daydreaming but our own [] perceptual
acts
17
When writing a book it is impossible to include every single detail, therefore leaving much up to
the mind of the reader to complete the reality they are to inhabit while reading the book. However, it is
clear that each reader will interpret the authors description differently.
Scarry believes that the great authors have learned to mimic the way in which the brain perceived the
world within their writing
18
. The core ideas, what could be described as anchors of the reality, of the scene
will remain constant but the ambiguities in the description will vary. This is realised when a book is
translated to the screen, immediately these places read about are more complete, the ambiguities
reduced significantly, filled with the directors interpretation of the authors description. You see how they
have embodied the text and made the story their own; perhaps this is why many feel films never quite live
up to the book that they read?
It could be suggested that for architects our native language is drawing, sketches are often used to
communicate ideas in a quick and efficient manner, I have experienced this both in practice and
education. Would it benefit the architectural drawing in certain circumstances to have this ambiguity

16
2001, p. 15)
17
(Scarry, 2001)
18
2001, p. 29)
21

incompleteness to it, to encourage this kind of embodiment? Pallasmaa goes on further to suggest that
this incompleteness may prove more stimulating for a viewer, allowing for easier embodiment of the
image. Pallasmaa cites the work of prominent neurologist Semir Zeki.
Incompleteness and ambiguity of the artistic image activate our minds and maintain an active attention
and interest. Semir Zeki points out that artistic ambiguity is not vagueness or uncertainty in the usual sense
of these words, but on the contrary, certainty the certainty of many different, and essential, conditions,
each of which is equal to the others, all expressed in a single profound painting, profound because it is so
faithfully representative of so much.
19

This when applied to the architectural image in the sense that we discussing here, suggest that in order for
an image to be embodied, and have a maintained embodiment, the image itself needs to have enough in
it which is recognisable and familiar to the viewer in order for the authors aim to be grounded. Whether
these be physical objects in the drawing that are recognisable from our own reality, or the language of the
drawing has certain cues which allow the user to generate enough of mental image from their mind to be
activated. Once activated the interest of the observer is then held as they themselves take control of the
idea; they embody the drawing becoming part of the idea itself. They see things in a different way to the
author; the idea in a sense becomes theirs.
It is this same ambiguity in a drawing that makes the rereading of drawings so important. In Dalibor
Vesleys book Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow
of Production Vesley talks about the Greek phenomena of mimsis. In a traditional approach (non-digital)
to architectural design the architect would use skill, knowledge and imitation to derive a finished
building.
20
This knowledge can only derive from past lived experiences and memories of the designer;
21
as
such a certain element of mimicry occurs. The Greeks call this imitation through chance mimsis. If this is
true, then as our experience of the world grows so will our knowledge and thus the nature of our mimsis
will change.
This would suggest if a drawing is read in a certain time and place its ambiguities will be filled by a certain
element of mimsis, then as time passes and our experience of the world grows our mimsis will change
and thus the embodiment of the drawing. This could potentially lead to new ideas being created around
the same drawing simply through a rereading. Although because it is a re-reading, the observer will
already have the past experience or knowledge of the initial reading; over a short period of time it is
unlikely much will have changed. This phenomenon of re-reading becomes much more apparent when
taken over a longer period of time.

19
2001, p. 30)
20
(Vesely, 2006, p. 287)
21
(Vesely, 2006)
22

Donegality
Finally to the notion of donegality in architectural drawing which ties in with a phenomenological
approach to the drawing, ideas of poetics and a fifth dimension. Donegality is described as the essence or
poetics applied by the author of the image. Again Pallasmaa addresses ideas surrounding this in his book,
allowing for expansion and exploration into this notion of donegality.
Again using the idea that much that is applicable to architecture should also be applicable to the way in
which it is drawn, phenomenologist Adam Sharr suggests in his book Heidegger for Architects that: When
thinking about architecture from a humanistic point of view, the importance must be placed on the
inhabitation and experience of the place of the priorities of aesthetics.
22
Why should this not be a
consideration in our architectural drawings? Would the architectural idea not have a much better chance
of succeeding or being received well if inhabited and experienced by the viewer? Perhaps it is this
donegality, whatever form it may take that allows for this inhabitation; the essence left by the author
after finishing the drawing providing the spark/ tone for this inhabitation.
Pallasmaa says The most deeply existentially and experientially rooted architectural experiences impact
our minds through images which are condensations of distinct architectural essences. Lasting architectural
experiences consist of lived embodied images which have become inseparable parts of our lives.
23
This is
based upon a theory that the way in which we think and communicate our thoughts and ideas is
neurologically image based, rather than linguistic. It suggests images that we are able to embody and
project onto have a much greater architectural significance as they would become a part of our lived
experience; as suggested in the previous section on re-reading.
So, this inhabitation and embodiment of the drawing becomes key to its success. Pallasmaa describes
artistic images as taking place in two realities and their suggestive power derives from this very tension
between the real and the suggested, the perceived and the imagined.
24
So when a drawing is seen we
inhabit this reality, we touch by seeing. We feel its materials, an experience based upon our knowledge
gained in the flesh of the world. This relates directly back to what has been discussed previously regarding
the ambiguity of the drawing and the need for re reading. This concept of an architectural image having
two aspects, the perceived and the imagined, lends itself kindly to Spillers points if read that the perceived
relates to an images donegality and the imagined relates to the subject of re reading.
The perceived aspect of a drawing is that which is embodied by the artist/ draughtsmens architectural
idea/ ideal. One could suggest that this is the element which grounds the viewers imagination within the
architectural idea being explored, ensuring that the topic does not wander. At the same time this gives the

22
(Sharr, 2007, p. 38)
23
2001, p. 11)
24
2001, p. 63)
23

viewer enough information to allow for a basic construction of this reality, their mind can then begin to fill
the gaps and ambiguities with their own imagination, derived from knowledge gained from their
experience of the world.
The importance of this perceived aspect, becomes apparent in ensuring that there is enough information
sealed within the drawing for the viewer to construct their reality. Pallasmaa says The inability to grasp
the essence of an artistic work usually arises from the viewers incapability to project and experience the
imaginary reality of the work.
25
This inability to experience and architectural drawing would arise from a
lack of an ability to construct a reality in which to embody and experience an ideal, this would reduce the
image merely to its aesthetic qualities. Alternatively this could also mean that the drawing communicates
an essence other than that intended by the author, thus the architectural idea is lost in translation;
eventually having the same outcome as not being able to grasp the essence or donegality of the drawing
to begin with.
Pallasmaa warns of a danger to this kind of drawing saying Todays forceful effort to seek visually
impressive architectural images without concern for other sensory realms may well be the very reason
why these buildings usually appear so mute, rejecting and lifeless, regardless of their unrestricted play of
visual fantasy.
26
This again suggests that over doing the theatrics of the drawing means that the
essence/donegality is lost, the drawing is merely reduced to its aesthetic qualities.
Peter Cook, Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture
This phenomenological dive into Spillers points suggest that they may have some momentum, before
moving on further it is important to pause to look at the writing and lectures of Sir Peter Cook. Cook gave
his lecture Real is only halfway there at the symposium Is Drawing Dead? and has written broadly on
the subject of architectural drawing; all whilst being one of the biggest visual contributors to the field with
his work as a part of Archigram and since. This analysis will focus on his lecture given at Yale and his book
Drawing: the motive force of architecture.
Real is only halfway there
In his lecture Cook aims to talk about an area of drawing which is very much linked to the discussion of
this thesis. Cook is trying to talk about something which he himself describes as intangible. Perhaps the
donegality of a drawing? Cook defines this intangible element of the drawing as the creative moment
27

the point at which the guts of the architectural idea are shown at their best, most raw and not necessarily
sugar coated or clouded by any aesthetic quality the architect was partial to at the time. In his own words
To me the best drawings have always been those where the preoccupation dominated and the craft

25
2001, p. 63)
26
2001, p. 54)
27
(Cook, "Real Is Only Halfway There", 2012, p. 00:14:00)
24

came, if it was there or if it didnt
28
Suggesting that as long as the core creative moment is embodied in
the drawing then, whether or not the drawing is crafted in an aesthetically appealing way is neither here
nor there.
Cook shows various examples of series of drawings throughout his talk to try and identify where this
moment occurs in a process of drawing, and all follow the same format, an initial sketch, a progressive
drawing of the idea and then a final image. Each time Cook explains how in his opinion the perfect
drawing lies somewhere within the context of the three drawings, but is never achieved by any of them.
The example that struck me most was when Cook takes us through a series of images for one of his own
projects as part of CRAB studio. It is for the Living Energy Project, see figures 10 and 11, a competition
project for a tower in Taiwan. The 3D model had been built and the drawings were to be taken. Cook
shows us three images of the tower and as he flicks between them he talks through the process of
choosing where the image is to be taken from. Cook undulates and stutters as he tries to find the perfect
angle, eventually settling upon figure 10 as the drawing which best shows the creative process. However
the image chosen was in fact figure 11 due to the pressures of life. Perhaps an over desire to seduce? He
describes it as It does have a not completely blue sky, the children are suspiciously happy, the grass is
suspiciously well mown and the concrete is suspiciously smooth. A sense of disinterest or lack of
engagement is detected in his voice, and indeed Cook elaborates by captioning this image picture as he
knows that at this point the moment of creativity it is lost, the guts of the design issue are left behind.
A point which was, one might suppose quite shocking, during this talk was a conversation Cook recalled
having with Dalibor in which Dalibor remarked Buildings dont matter, drawings matter much, much
more.
29
Cook reveals too that he was taken aback by this comment, but one need look no further than
Cooks book Drawing: the motive force of architecture to find reasoning for this. Cook highlights the work
of key contemporary architects who have changed the thinking in architectural discourse through their
drawings, of which he is undoubtedly one. The building does not discriminate between the digital and
analogue reinforcing Cooks view that the preoccupation of an architectural endeavour should be the
main thrust of a drawing not its aesthetics.
Conclusion
This investigation into phenomenology has expanded upon the points made by Spiller in AD: Drawing
Architecture. Pallasmaas phenomenological approach to the image adds flesh to the bones, providing
insight and grounding as to why each of these elements may be important to a successful architectural
drawing. However, there is one question that keeps recurring which is why do we draw?
Cook provides a valuable insight, into the thinking of an author of architectural drawing who himself has
managed to use his reality, created within the bounds of the paper, to affect the reality that we all share

28
29
25

Figure 10. Image of the
Tower of living energy
CRAB Studios (2010)
Figure 11. Image of the
Tower of living energy
CRAB Studios (2010)
26

(this will be discussed later in the thesis). Cook looks at the work of contemporary architects who also
have achieved the same feat. What is striking to me is the wide range of reasons for drawing. It is not just
about creating a pretty picture, although there is no doubt this at times will help; it is quite clearly about
the idea. This is summed up no better than in his talk Real is only halfway there, where Cook takes us
through the iterations of his image making production as he searches for the image which really
encapsulates the creative moment what he feels is the essence of the idea, if you like has the correct
donegality.
The question of Why do we draw? is a complex question and may not have just one answer, but will
resolve both issues raised so far in this review of the state of the architectural drawing. One, is
architectural drawing dead? This will give the architectural drawing the purpose it needs to survive. Two,
how do we go about representing it? So far it would appear that the architectural drawing is becoming a
more emotionally charged object, leaning towards the world of contemporary art.
Knowing why we draw gives the author a better sense of how to go about achieving it. As such this
question of Why do we draw? - Assuming, as previously stated, that the sketch and construction drawing
are exempt - will be the main thrust of this thesis.
27

3.0 Context: Why do we Draw?
3.1 Methodology: Ontology & Epistemology
On the basis of the literature review this thesis tackles the question of why we draw from a
phenomenological perspective the drawing is seen as emotional and subjective rather than Cartesian,
technical and quantitative view. As such there is something subjective about this fifth dimension Spiller
suggests that architects should strive for through their drawing.
So as one reads this their ontological and epistemological outlooks should reflect this. A postmodern
constructivist ontological outlook is required. The fluid views taken upon reality by those who hold this
approach is key to embodying the ideas presented and expanded upon in this thesis. Ideas of embodiment
being different for each individual view creating an entirely unique reality to them which is both an
embodiment of the drawing and their lived experience. Ideas like this provide the backbone for an analysis
of a series of case studies conducted, each on a specific architect from each camp. As such an empirical
method of acquiring knowledge has also been used, using case studies analysed subjectively.
3.2 Case Studies
From reading Cook and AD: Drawing Architecture one would suggest that there is no singular answer to
the question why do we draw? As such in this chapter the profession will be broken down into the
predominant categories of why we draw outlining each individual category and then interrogating one of
its protagonists. Although architects will be placed in these categories, these are by no means set in stone.
For it may have been necessary for a drawing to attempt to achieve multiple purposes. This attempt to
characterise and then explore the drawing will begin to answer the question of why we draw from which
others may define new categories and explore those.
To begin this investigation the profession must first be split into their respective categories. One might
suggest from the in investigation so far that the profession be split into four categories. These would be
those who draw to design, those who draw to communicate the idea, those who draw to dream and those
who draw to seduce. Each of these niches which the architectural drawing can be used as a tool for will
now be outlined in brief, before being explored in more depth through a case study.
It should be noted now that it was incredibly difficult to place certain architects in just one category and it
could be argued on architect could fall into multiple camps. This is why architects are duplicated in
different lists.

28

Communicating the ideal
Architectural drawings roots lie in communicating an ideal and architecture itself incorporates many ideas
into the fold of the profession not just form; these could be social, political, economic or technological. All
of these ideas need to be communicated within the context of the project and each other. One could
suggest that the drawing provides the perfect platform for this communication of the idea as a whole.
Why would this tradition of architectural drawing, the language of architects, being used by architects to
communicate their ideals not continue?
Architects and visionaries who one would likely place in this category would be Peter Eisenman, Diller and
Scofidio, Peter Cook/Archigram, Thom Mayne (Morphosis), Foster + Partners, Rem Koolhaas (OMA),
Alberti, Palladio, Stephen Holl, Futurists and Bernard Tschumi.
Dreamers
This category represents those whos reality to build is solely the paper. Their projects are often
speculative work, the reality of the paper is occupied by worlds which are set in the far future or by
architecture of the wildest imagination. The paper often becoming the medium for a pure free expression
of an idea without the constraints of our reality. Even though this is the case many of the projects aim to
address issues which are very prevalent within the present days architectural discourse. Because these
projects are clearly never going to be built the paper is used as a reality in which these ideas can be
constructed, embodied and inhabited. As a result of this these project can then have an impact on the
building profession.
Architects and visionaries who one would likely place in this category would be Piranesi, Lebbeus Woods,
C.J Lim, tienne-Louis Boulle, Brodsky and Utkin (Russian Paper Architects), Felix Robbin , Superstudio,
Peter Cook/Archigram, Hugh Ferris and Neil Spiller.
Seduction
Drawing to seduce is not a new idea, and one would suggest that many people use this as a method to
distract from other elements of the design. However this seduction is an important part of why we draw,
firstly creating beautiful images that are worthy of a work of art is extremely satisfying. More practically
often times when you produce a project that is for a competition or for academic purposes those who are
marking/ judging the work will have very limited time constraints within which to judge. The work may be
on a wall filled with designs, in these situations in order to communicate its ideal your drawing needs to
stand out. It needs to draw in the viewer it needs to seduce them in order for the architectural idea to be
judged it needs to gain their interest and hold it amongst all the other projects.
Architects and visionaries who one would likely place in this category would be Students of the profession,
Snhetta and Thom Mayne (Morphosis). You could also consider many dreamers within this category.
29

Draw to Design
These are architects who use architectural drawing, as the main thrust of their design. Architects who
draw their ideal almost as a piece of art, then the building is produced as close to that work as possible.
This is characteristic particularly of the early work of Zaha Hadid. This concept that architectural drawing
shapes the design rather than vice versa is a new idea in this thesis; so far we have predominantly faced
drawing that has come post design which when compared to this method almost seem an afterthought. If
this category were to become a part of the architectural paradigm then it would shake up the process of
architectural design significantly.
Architects and visionaries who one would likely place in this category would be early Zaha Hadid, Enric
Miralles and Frank Gehry.
In order to better show the crossover between these categories I produced a Venn diagram to visualise
this. This more accurately displays the crossovers, beginning to suggest where combinations of the
purposes of these camps might occur. Although this was only an initial exercise the result can be seen in
figure 12.
Communicating the Ideal: Peter Cook & Archigram (1960-1975)
Archigram was founded in 1960, London. Originally comprised of Peter Cook, Michael Webb and David
Greene; this was then expanded in 1961 to include Warren Chalk, Ron Herron and Dennis Crompton. They
were brought together through a common displeasure with the state of the architectural profession. It
was too unadventurous and respectful, reflective of the world they found themselves in. Peter Cook and
Archigram set about trying to change this through a combination of drawing, modelling and literature.
During their fifteen year collaboration Archigram would create an array of exciting and visually appealing
projects which although never leaving the reality of the paper would significantly help change the
trajectory of the architecture profession and inject it with the optimism and technological progression
which at the time was being seemingly ignored.
We have already seen a snippet of their work Instant City (1968) in a previous chapter and in this study
we will look at perhaps their most influential project the Plug-in City (1964) drawn by Peter Cook. The
project is based around units which can be unplugged and plugged in as required, with their movement
around the city facilitated by a system of cranes mounted at the cities apex. The project is much like that
of what we have characterised as a dreamer would produce, but one must remember Archigram had a
clear idea of what they wanted to change, they were attempting to communicate and ideal and each
member was committed wholly to that purpose.
Cooks drawings can be seen in figures 13-15, these drawing would have been a welcome break from the
modernist drawings of the time, Figure , concerned primarily with the profile drawn through the use of
30

Figure 12. Initial Venn
Diagram of Drawing
Categories, Andrew
Badley (2014)
31

Figure 15. Peter Cook,
The Plug-In City (1964)
32

Figure 17. Renzo Piano, Richard
Rogers, Centre Georges
Pompidou (1977)
Figure 16. Le Corbusiers drawings for
mass production artisan dwelling from
his Towards a New Architecture
(1924)
33

clean line. They give off a hint of pop art; drawings that would have been pushing the boundaries of
drawing for the period in which they were produced, drawing people into the world of optimism and
technology Archigram aimed to create. Architects in the 60s would have seen this work alongside the
literature of Archigram which would have allowed them to embody the drawings in a way which better
expresses the donegality of Cook in his drawing.
Below is a brief one hundred word account of the authors imagination of the Plug-in City through the
drawing: To me the drawing reads as a complex bustling city, I walk amongst its gigantic web of services,
its once bright colours tarnished and worn. The web is pierced by top heavy high-rise structures; a wealth
of activity is a occurring, framed by the structural web of services. Units of varying sizes are moved by an
automated crane system, the city itself lives, breathes and moves providing a theatrical and ever changing
backdrop to life.
Even now in the twenty-first century the essence of the reality created is one of optimism (at least in my
mind), the idea itself is playful in nature and this is reflected through the drawing, and thus the
embodiment.
The drawing is filled with slight variations upon elements from our reality which everyone could relate to
through their lived experiences, such as the high rise structures and cranes. This is complimented by more
than enough ambiguities meaning the drawing would benefit from repeated rereading to draw new ideas
through re-embodiment. One could also argue that the drawing figure 15 of the Plug-in City is one of the
strongest cases that drawing can directly affect the reality we all live in from the reality of the paper.
This drawing can clearly be seen to have influenced the Pompidou Centre (1977) designed by Richard
Rogers and Renzo Piano seen in figure 17. One would find it almost inconceivable to imagine that this
drawing was not seen and embodied by either Rogers or Piano before or during the design of the
Pompidou Centre. This is a clear case of a project not set in our reality, drawn with the purpose of
communicating the ideals, that has directly affected the way in which architects in our reality design and
build.
By 1975 when Archigram disbanded they had successfully laid the foundations for the high tech
movement with a series of optimistic projects and schemes, drawn in a way which, as Cook would put it,
embodied the creative moment. Cooks drawings are by no means the suspiciously complete drawing
that, without interest, he describes in his lecture. They are full of life and intrigue, drawing architects in
and holding their interests through the possibilities of ambiguity. As a result the influence of Archigram
and Cook is clearly visible in the early work of the high tech movement and is acknowledged in the later
writing of architects such as Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid.
30

30
(Design Museum, 2007)
34

Communicating the ideal: Conclusion
Peter Cook and Archigram are living proof that by the means of simply drawing an idea an architect can
influence the profession. Building is no longer necessary in this respect. But communicating an ideal
comes in all scales and sizes, it could be social and technological like those of Archigram, or could be as
simple as describing the geometric concept of a small house and how this relates to its context.
One would suggest that drawing is the best way to communicate this, drawing is after all the language of
the architect and with prominent neurologist like Semir Zeki, suggesting the mind thinks through
neurological images, it may even prove scientifically more beneficial. Whatever the case the drawing will
have a better chance of success, it would seem, if it embodies the idea of the creative moment. Again
grounding itself in our reality through familiarities the design will have a better chance of being embodied
and, much like the work of dreamers, re reading will allow for the idea to grow and change as people gain
knowledge and experience of the world; making many of these drawing, such as those by Archigram, just
as applicable today as they were shortly after their conception. In a sense the drawing has a life of its own.
Drawing to Dream: Piranesi (1720-1778)/ Lebbeus (1940-2012)
Architectural drawing since the adoption of the planar drawing remained practically unchanged for two
centuries. It appears that there was a craving amongst some to communicate more through the drawing,
opposed to simply form and the true measure of a building. We see from the work of draughtsmen such
as Antoine le Pautre (1621- 1679) and his contemporaries a desire to communicate the experience of
space, a quality displayed by Peruzzi and Sangallo before them.
The next major stimulant of the field arrived in the form of Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778). Piranesi
was an etcher, archaeologist, architect and a dreamer. He left for Rome in 1740 in search of architectural
work; instead he found work as a vedutisti.
31
This involved producing etchings for the inclusion in
guidebooks and to sell to tourists. In this work Piranesi was free from the constraints of the orthogonal
drawing, which was now engrained in architectural culture. Without the pressure of the subject matter
needing to be built (much like the anatomical drawings discussed in with regard to Peruzzi earlier) Piranesi
was free in his expression of his interpretation of the ruins of Rome. Piranesis early plates served to
Construct his vivid and highly individual vision of Rome as he supposed it to have been in ancient times,
add imagination to discoveries of the archaeologists
32
In this role as a vedutisti Piranesi was free to
dream.
Piranesis work culminates in his Carceri plates, see figure 18, produced from 1745 to the early 1760s.
The plates depict fantastical prisons entirely of Piranesis minds own conception. They play with so many
architectural qualities scale, light, shade and integration with the landscape; working to communicate an

31
32
35

Figure 18. Giovanni Battista
Piranesi , Carceri Plate VI -
The Smoking Fire (1761)
36

architectural idea, freed from constraints, existing in its own reality. The emotions of Piranesi exist and are
communicated in the drawing. It is able to provoke and influence the architectural profession without the
need for the plan, the section for the elevation to bring it from its reality to the one which we all share.
Piranesi has so clearly influenced many of the great dreamers throughout history through the Sublime,
Futurists, Russian Paper Architects, Archigram and the visionary architects of today. Piranesis work, on an
emotional level, had inspired many in the architectural profession. A notion that architecture was about
both the intellect and emotion
33
is something which places Piranesi at the forefront of Romanticism. As
the idea of the emotion in architecture grows Piranesis work becomes a point of reference for many
architects and architectural movements. Following Piranesi the direction and purpose of the avant-garde
of architectural drawing sees itself concerned much more with this communication of emotion and
experience, championed by Piranesi.
Modern successors of Piranesi would be the likes of Hugh Ferris (1889-1962), Lebbeus Woods and to a
certain extent Neil Spiller. They are all dreamers but a moment must be taken to dwell on Woods work,
seen in figures 19-21. Woods studied engineering and called himself and architect and artist, even though
he never received a degree in or was licensed to practice architecture, in our reality. Woods did however
have a background in engineering which no doubt helped him when imagining these architectural
landscapes.
His use of the reality of the paper within which to build creating dream like worlds which were
inhospitable has no doubt influenced the architectural profession. Creating these anarchical dream worlds
seems at least to be much more politically motivated. Each of his projects, since 1985, proposes new
social structures, implemented by new urban forms.
34
These projects do not feel like perverse conditions,
a consequence of the greed of humanity, instead optimistic they test the wonderful vitality of the human
condition and its ability to find new ways to dwell
35
.
Even though set in inhospitable futures with new technologies many of his drawings just seem to float,
Woods has this ability through his drawing to make the unlikely look likely
36
. Cook attributes this to his
background in structure; this is clear through Woods drawings. He has a clear understanding of structure
that is ever present, even when his architecture seems to just float. Through Woods the architecture of
dreams becomes not just likely, but real.

33
34
(Woods, 1992, p. 9)
35
36
37

Figure 21. Lebbeus Woods,
San Francisco Project:
Inhabiting the Quake,
Quake City, 1995.
Radical Reconstruction,
1997
Photon Kite, from the series
Centricity, 1988.
38

Drawing to Dream: Conclusion
Dreamers are free to explore whatever they desire through the reality of the paper, they play with
architecture is a way in which architects based in this world cannot. Often dreamers use the reality of the
paper to explore impossible ideas whether for political, economic, social or physical reasons, this does not
make their ideas any less valid. Often by looking at the work of dreamers throughout history their
aspirations provide an almost social commentary. The work of Piranesi explores the emotional, evocative
quality of architecture during a period which mathematical precision. Even recently with the work of
Woods which often explores today, mans ability to dwell in the most inhospitable of landscapes,
considering the threats both climatic and nuclear; things that in our reality may not be in the too distant
future.
Dreamers use the donegality of their drawing to allow viewers to inhabit these realities with them, to ask
the same questions and consider the same issues they do. Re-reading allows there drawings to continue
further than they ever would have imagined to the future and still have an effect on the way people draw
and design; need look no further than the work of Piranesi to see this. Dreamers act a conscience to the
profession and as such should constantly question the work and ideals of the building profession.

Drawing to Seduce: Student Work
It would almost be rude not to include or at least mention the sheer quality of drawing work produced
each year by the students of the profession. Their work after all is a purely academic exercise which is
inevitably communicated through a combination of drawings and models; as a result it produces some of
the most exquisite drawings. One would need to look no further than the RIBA Presidents Medals website
to see this. Although when in the context of the student, the role to seduce is one which is aimed at
examiners who may only have thirty minutes to mark their work; it is, as previously mentioned, applicable
to many situations both in practice and as a dreamer. This is through competitions and perhaps even the
need to seduce a client, to bring them round to a particular concept, architectural idea or even material.
Indeed all famous architects today were once students; see in figures 22 and 23 the diploma work of both
Peter Cook and Zaha Hadid. Cooks work is clearly at a progressive stage towards the work we see him
producing as a member of Archigram and the Zaha Malevichs Tektonik (1976) as we will find later is also
of the same vein in that respect. As a result it must be appropriate to look at the work of the cream of the
crop of todays students with respect to this idea of seduction within a drawing. After all we could be
looking at the Hadids and Cooks of the future.
Two of the best examples of this work are featured in the issue of AD: Drawing architecture. This is the
work of Pascal Bronner, and his New Malacovia seen in figures 24 and 25, and Tom Noonan, with his
Reforestation of the Thames Estuary seen in figures 26 and 27. Both use a combination of the digital and
39

Diploma Project (Unknown)
Figure 23. Zaha Hadid,
Diploma Project Malevichs
Tektonik (1977)
40

Figure 25. Pascal Bronner,
New Malacovia. (2009)
Figure 24. Pascal Bronner,
New Malacovia. (2009)
41

Figure 27. Tom Noonan, The
Reforestation of the
Thames Estuary (2010)

Figure 26. Tom Noonan, The
Reforestation of the
Thames Estuary (2010)
42

analogue in their drawing, the quality such that the difference between the two is unnoticeable, yet it is
evident that each reinforces the other. Although the issue of aesthetics is not one which this thesis wishes
to concern itself with, the idea of seduction is largely based within the idea of aesthetics. Due to its
subjective nature, this art of seduction relies on knowing the person/ people you aim to seduce. The
reason we are drawing becomes tailored to this person/ people, thus why we draw? changes.
Drawing to Seduce: Conclusion
Drawing to seduce is more often than not a necessary component of the image, today more than ever
with the current hegemony of the image and prevalence of sites such as Pinterest, Instagram and Tumblr.
In order to even be seen to communicate its ideal and be embodies your drawing must grab the attention
of the viewer. Never has the competition of images been so high. As a result apart of the reason of
drawing becomes to be seen, drawing to seduce is an essential component part of drawing today.
In other situations such as competitions and as a student whose work is to be marked in minimal time, it
become important for a drawing to really grab the attention of its judges. The work of Noonan and
Bronner would stand out in any situation, through sheer appreciation for the craft of the drawing. It may
become appropriate to tailor your drawing to specific judges or audience, if you know a judge is
enthusiastic about eco-buildings, ensure your drawing embodies these ideas. This judge would be far
more likely to embody and explore your proposal if he has these ideas with which to ground his
constructed reality in, then as he walks around this reality he will begin to see other parts of the proposal
which perhaps appeal more to you.
In this sense the art of seduction is tweaking the donegality and combining with craft. Cook said earlier
To me the best drawings have always been those where the preoccupation dominated and the craft
came, if it was there or if it didnt
37
The drawing that seduces must have this craft in addition to the
preoccupation.
Drawing to Design: Early Zaha Hadid (1976-1994)
And so we move from those who dared to communicate their ideal through drawing to those they
inspired. The early work of Zaha Hadid provides particular interest as it resides in the camp of drawing
which is most unique and different from any of the others in this thesis, those who draw to design.
Projects such as Malevichs Tektonink (Diploma Project, 1976), The Peak (1982) and Vitra Fire Station
(1990-94) come to mind, before her more recent work utilising parametric design.
The Peak was the winner of an architectural competition set on a hill overlooking Hong Kong; the brief
was to design a social club/ penthouse apartments that would be an architectural landmark within Hong
Kong.
38
In an essay on the work of Hadid Joseph Giovannini states that For a decade before she finally

37
38
(Schumacher & Fontana-Giusti, 2004, p. 28)
43

Figure 29. Zaha Hadid, The
Peak Drawing(1982)
Figure 28. Zaha Hadid, The
Peak Drawing(1982)
44

Figure 31. Zaha Hadid, Vitra
Fire Station (1994)
Figure 30. Zaha Hadid, Vitra
Fire Station Drawing. (1990)
45

broke ground with her first major building, the Vitra Fire Station, Zaha Hadid developed her architectural
approach through drawing and painting in an office which some critics dismissed as an artists studio
39

Suggesting that the very act of the painting was the beginning and the method by which the building was
developed .Through this process it is suggested as if Hadid would produce these drawings (paintings), and
directly translate them to the planar drawing to replicate what had been painted.
The drawings produced by Zaha for The Peak, figures 26 and 27, are dynamic utilising an exaggerated
perspective; which compliments the form of the building; but is also applied to the existing context of
Hong Kong. As Peter Cook puts it, The drawing of the peak makes the city anticipatory of the peak
40

Cook then furthers this by stating, it suggests the whole of Hong Kong is of The Peak. This is either
extremely clever or extremely arrogant.
41
It could be suggested that this is all about the donegality of the
drawing, but one might feel that would be missing the point. These drawings are in way extensions of the
sketch, personal, providing a way for Hadid herself to inhabit the space walk around the design and fill the
ambiguities. Notice none of Hadids drawings include lavish detail, they leave much to the imagination,
maybe giving them the potential to be more useful as a design tool. As Hadid herself inhabits the reality of
her own painting the details and intricacies of the design become apparent. This technique resulted in
built form in Hadids Vitra Fire Station, figures 28 and 29. The exaggerated perspective of the painting
clear in both the painting itself and the built form; creating a dynamic proposal routed in the technique
and essence of the drawing.
Hadids work has now moved on from the painted concept
42
however, it is clear that in her early work
Hadid used a painted concept as a basis for her designs. The design process for Hadid was a much more
organic one than perhaps it is now. Hadid has shown that certain different techniques allow architects to
see in different ways, and by developing and multiplying these ways of seeing can generate, drive and
evolve the design itself.
43

Drawing to Design: Conclusion
The notion of using architectural drawing to design is least like any of the other categories outlined in this
thesis. Instead of using the notion that a drawing is of a design, is embodied by a viewer through which
they understand its ideal or essence; it uses the notion that the design is of the drawing. Even though this
would suggest the drawing becomes more of a tool in the design process it is a much more emotionally
charged method that would supplement sketches etc.
As the design is of the drawing, the purpose of a drawing donegality and re-reading changes, it becomes
much more personal. The drawing allows the architect to inhabit their design in a way perhaps the pencil

39
(Giovannini, 2006, p. 23)
40
41
42
(Cleant, 2006, p. 19)
43
(Giovannini, 2006, p. 23)
46

sketch or a working digital three dimensional model does not; the drawings ambiguities being filled by the
architect through mimsis. The Design becomes alive in the mind completing itself.
4.0 Conclusions: Why Do We Draw?

This thesis began under a presumption that for the reasons of BIM and nature of the profession itself that
the architectural drawing was at risk. The need for Symposiums such as Is Drawing Dead? at Yale School
of Architecture and research from the RIBA in 2009 entitled The Drawing is Dead Long Live Modelling
by Keith Snook suggested that the drawing could potentially be dying.
A look at the history of architectural drawing as we know it showed that the drawing was born out of a
desire to communicate and architectural ideal. The true measure of a building was communicated
unambiguously through the orthogonal planar projections of Alberti. Since this means of drawing a
building has been bastardised in such a way that it is now a paradigm through which architects draw all
architectural ideas. The architectural drawing has barely changed in half a millennia, comparatively the
world of contemporary art is unrecognisable to what it was five hundred years ago. Due to the
unambiguous nature of the orthogonal drawing this is a task which could be replicated by the computer.
BIM was introduced and the idea that the drawing, as product of the architect, could be dying emerged.
This was due to a seeming lack of purpose other than to simply communicate the unambiguous nature of
the construction of a building.
Upon picking up a copy of AD: Drawing Architecture it became apparent that drawing was not dead, it just
needs to find a purpose. Following this an investigation into what the drawing can achieve was conducted
through looking at both phenomenological literature on the image alongside the writing and lectures of
Peter Cook. Notions of a drawing donegality and the re reading of the drawing emerged, that a drawing
constructed its own reality which could be inhabited by a viewer. The drawing was becoming a more
emotionally charged object, much more like a piece of art.
Continuing with these ideas, of donegality and re reading, purposes for the architectural drawing were
suggested by splitting up the architectural profession into different camps based upon the purposes for
which they draw. Each was explored briefly and conclusions to its relationship with the ideas of
donegality, re-reading and position in the architectural profession were made. What is apparent from this
is that there is a multiplicity of reasons why we as architects should draw and continue to do so. Drawing
is by no means dead, quite the contrary; it has a more than meaningful life to lead.
Initially split into just four categories, it has become apparent to me that the best architectural drawings
do not just come from one of these categories. They embody two maybe three of them, creating a
drawing with much more depth, impact and re-readability. It should also be noted that this thesis is by no
means conclusive that there are only four types of drawing. It would be easily suggested that there are
47

many, many more purposes for drawing, some maybe havent even been discovered by the mainstream.
The intention was that these classifications would capture a substantial portion of the architectural
population.
Architectural drawings now have the freedom that has always been enjoyed by artistic drawings. What is
more the life the architectural drawing has gained breathes life into the profession with freedom to
produce drawings whose purpose is to communicate, to seduce, to draw and to dream. We can safely
conclude the drawing will never be dead. Through whatever form it takes, digital or analogue. Long live
the drawing!

48

5.0 Bibliography
Alturk, E. (2003). Architectural representation as a medium of critical agencies. Journal Of Architecture 13.
Bates-Brkljac, N. (2009). Assessing perceived credibility of traditional and computer generated
architectural representations. Design Studies Volume 30 Issue 4, 415437.
Blais, M. (2008, December 2). Understanding and Interpretation: The Work of Architecture as Image and
Representation. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from b-tu: http://www.tu-
cottbus.de/wolkenkuckucksheim/inhalt/en/issue/issues/207/Blais/blais.php
Blau, E., & Kaufman, E. (1989). Architecture and Its Image, Four Centuries of Architectural Representation.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Brothers, C. (2012). The Voice of Drawing: History, Meaning, and Resistance. New Haven: Yale University.
BSRIA. (2009). Drawing is Dead Long Live Modelling . Retrieved May 31, 2014, from bsria:
https://www.bsria.co.uk/download/asset/long-live-modelling.pdf
Cantley, B. (2013). Two Sides Of The Page: The Antifact and the Artefact. Architectural Design: Drawing
Architecture, 36-43.
Carpo, M. (2013). The Art Of Drawing. Architectural Design: Drawing Architecture, 128-133.
Cleant, G. (2006). Zaha Hadid: Adventure in Architecture. In G. Cleant, J. Giovannini, D. Mertins, & P.
Schumacher, Zaha Hadid (pp. 17-22). New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications,U.S.
Clear, N. (2013). Drawing Time. Architectural Design: Drawing Architecture, 70-79.
Cook, P. (2008). Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture (Architectural Design Primer). Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Cook, P. (2012). "Real Is Only Halfway There". New Haven: Yale University.
Cook, P. (2013). Looking and Drawing. Architectural Design: Drawing Architecture, 80-87.
Crosby, T. (1973). How to Play the Environment Game. London: Penguin Books.
Design Museum. (2007). ARCHIGRAM. London, Greater London, England. Retrieved from
http://designmuseum.org/design/archigram
Garcia, M. (2013). Emerging Technologies and Drawings: The Futures of Images In Architectural Design.
Architectural Design: Drawing Architecture, 28-35.
Giovannini, J. (2006). In the Nature of Design Materials: The Instruments of Zaha Hadid's Visions. In G.
Cleant, J. Giovannini, D. Mertins, & P. Schumacher, Zaha Hadid (pp. 23-31). New York:
Guggenheim Museum Publications,U.S.
Grice, G. (n.d.). The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture - See more at:
http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/embodied-image-imagination-and-imagery-
architecture#sthash.dJZOoO8C.dpuf. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from New York Journal of
Books: http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/embodied-image-imagination-and-
imagery-architecture
49

Heidigger, M. (2003). Plato's Sophist (Studies in Continental Thought). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
Ivy, R. (2009). Framing the Image. Architectural Record August .
Kahn, L. (1991). The Paintings and Sketches of Louis Kahn. Milan: Rizzoli International Publications.
Mohrle, J. (1994). Architecture in Perspective: Construction, Representation, Design, and Color. New York:
Watson-Guptill Publications.
Nettler, J. (2013, June 08). The Architectural Image: Who's Fooling Whom? Retrieved January 10, 2014,
from Planetizen: http://www.planetizen.com/node/63554
Noonan, T. (2013). A Two-Speed Landscape: The Reforestation Of The Thames Estuary. Architectural
Design: Drawing Architecture, 64-69.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli
International Publications.
Olsberg, N. (2013, April 23). The Evolving Role Of The Drawing. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from The
Architectural Review: http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the-evolving-role-of-the-
drawing/8646928.article
Pallasma, J. (2001). The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture (Architectural Design
Primer). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Pallasma, J. (2012). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Perez-Gomez, A. (2000). Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Powell, H., & Leatherbarrow, D. (1983). Masterpieces of Architectural Drawing. New York: Abbeville Press.
Quirk, V. (2013, June 16). Are Renderings Bad for Architecture? Retrieved January 10, 2014, from
Archdaily: http://www.archdaily.com/383325/
Rogers, R. (2013). Architecture: a modern view. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Ruthen, S. (2012, March 20). The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. Retrieved
January 10, 2014, from Spacing Vancouver: http://spacing.ca/vancouver/2012/03/20/the-
embodied-image-imagination-and-imagery-in-architecture/
Scarry, E. (2001). Dreaming by the Book. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schumacher, P., & Fontana-Giusti, G. (2004). Zaha Hadid Completed Works: Major and Recent Works. High
Holborn: Thames and Hudson.
Sharr, A. (2007). Heidegger for Architects. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.
Spiller, N. (2005). Deformography: the poetics of cybridised architecture. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from
Surrealism Centre:
http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal4/acrobat%20files/Spillerpdf.pdf
Spiller, N. (2008, February 20). Communicating Vessels. Los Angeles: SCI-arc.
50

Spiller, N. (2013). Architectural Drawing: Grasping for the Fifth Dimension. Architectural Design: Drawing
Architecture, 14-19.
Vesely, D. (2006). Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the
Shadow of Production. Cambridge Massachusets: MIT Press.
Ward, M. (2008). Planet Narnia: The Seven heavens of the Imagination in CS Lewis. London: Oxford
University Press.
Woods, L. (1992). Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act. New York: St Martins Press.
Yendo, M. (2013). Could Architectural Drawings Save Us From Philosohical Bankrupcy? Architectural
Design: Drawing Architecture, 124-127.

Why We Draw

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why We Draw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY

You might also like