You like it because it looks cool.


As for reasons, it is always a balance between information and aesthetics.
Beautiful graphics are beautiful graphics, part information, part art. Don't try to decipher their reasons (could it be a structural grid? a reference to a view? a line from an old construction site? does it matter?), worry about your own representation, look for ways to convey layers of information in an attractive way.



"Never do something just because it looks good, but if it looks good, chances are there is a reason"

Yea, I guess I like all the layers. So many layers...

but trace™ don't you think if you decipher their reasons and methods for constructing these types of drawings that that can help you develop your own cool looking way to convey layers of information?

Holy shit! One day soon all the architects will turn into Morphosis army of line soldiers oozing out of expanded metal holes. Shortly after their solidity dashed and the ephemeral flight sensation redeemed underneat the dissected cadaver of a dead metal detail exploded. That is how their drawings constructed. Now, go draw me a ten foot tall rational sensational kid!

I agree with trace. It's representation for the sake of representation, which is by no means a bad thing, but a critical position he is taking. The more you try to decipher the meaning, the more you give up intuition.

but you can study/analyze the thing to figure out why it works for you.

by attempting to learn mayne's tricks and how he attacks a drawing you can develop your own intuitive (hopefully successful for you) method.

i'd use the music analogy (especially blues and jazz) where successful musicians start off imitating their heroes; amalgamating all those influences into their own intuitive artistic expression.

that reminds me - i haven't written my daily loving-worship email to rem and zaha !!

Morphosis = very attractive.

The drawings are nice, too.

For more beautiful approaches/methods to drawings check out the Bartlett School. Some really amazing presentations. Mark Smout and CJ Lim in particular.

they had a series of the 6th street house lithographs framed up in the offices at the gsd. the most gorgeous, over the top architectural drawings i've seen. (and i'll distinguish these from, say, zaha's early paintings, some of which - for vitra in particular - are very nice in their own way).

completely changed my opinion on the firm.

Posting in a troll thread.

@Unicorn Ghost do you mind clarifying how the thread seeks to troll? As this was not my intent.

FRaC - of course it would help with your own drawings to understand his/their intentions (hence my brief suggestions - column gird, views, etc., etc.).


Basically, at least for my drawings, it comes down to #1 intuition - have to 'know' how to make it 'cool', then find 'reasons', know when to stop/start/add more/delete/change color/lineweight, etc., etc.

#2 come up with a process that helps you generate a hierarchical system of layers and representation ,ie what the lines mean and where they come from


Go worship Hadid, Libeskind, Mayne, Eisenman, Miralles (gorgeous drawings), even FLW, they all have amazingly unique, beautiful and informative drawings. Truly 'art'.


BUT it is an artistic endeavor, meaning that the author is responsible for 99% of what the result is, not the 'reason' or the 'why' of the lines/drawing. Sure, He can give you reasons for what each line 'means' and where it came from, but you will never truly know if it is the reason was there before or after the line was created.

Cool is cool, talent is talent. At the end of the day, it is that artistic talent that you notice, (post) rationalized or not.




My advice: study, study, study. Try to guess what the lines are, what they mean. Then incorporate those ideas into your own work, keeping very close attention to the overall artistic impression. Doesn't matter if your 'guesses' are right or not.

Don't dismiss my first quote (not sure where it originally came from, I heard it from a prof. semester 1 of undergrad), that says it all.

i worked for a summer for one of the few guys at morphosis in the 90s, and he definitely kept to their methodology in his own practice, especially in the way we built models and did composite drawings, often not for any clients or anyone in particular, but just for our own understanding of the project. there was very little talk and reasoning involved. just a lot of doing, and i have to say i learned a lot that summer.

.. from my understanding, Thom Mayne stated that he's not into 'cake decoration' and by that, his forms are semi-direct results of critical thinking, logic and his own methodologies.

.. i say, decipher his way of thinking, then youll get his forms... I too was supposed to post a similar Morphosis question before coming across this thread...

@ dot. does it mean that he (Mayne) doesnt share his mind to his students?, him being a professor at UCLA?

18x32 - yeah, i picked up a copy of the small monograph on the house (that i think the gsd press put out), which is beautifully done as well. the lithos in the offices were roughly 30x40 in size - if memory serves, they were one of the artist's proof sets. real point is that the sheer detail in the originals doesn't translate at all at a smaller scale.

If you like the drawings of early Morphosis then look to the inspiration. Architect James Stirling. At one time he was the post -Corbu guy to look to. His reverse axonometric drawings, constructivist building sequences anticipated Morphosis 'revel kit' presentation. And for me, Stirling's sculptural, some say brutalist, detailing and arrangement of parts was his design signature. Morphosis in the drawings and details, and early on Gehry, in the brutal material choices, owe a lot to James Stirling. There is alot of Stirling in Morphosis.

eric chavkin

eric,

funny just read an interview with thom mayne and hernan diaz alanso where they discussed drawings and methods of representation. One of the first things Mayne mentions is how he was inspired by James Stirling's axons.

sublime,

never had thom mayne as a professor so i can't comment, but my colleagues that are close to him describe how he is in his methodology, and it's very similar to the job i had that summer.

Instead of just harping on our envy of Morphosis, isnt it more pertinent to point the OP in the direction of [url=http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/EdwardTufte[/url] ?

Graphite, you might like the drawings from Morphosis because they're adept at making abstract non-spatial phenomena understandable through a 2-d graphic representation. Or you might just like their Illustrator layers.

If the first is the case, then the work of Tufte is beneficial to you. If the second is the case, then just get a job with them and you'll find out that they're presentation drawings come through a graphic team with decades of honed skills.

The architecture of morphisis is very much their drawings, so studying their drawings would very much inform you of their architecture which can be experienced in many places these days.

You think they are cool most likely because you like the process of complexity, a process that leads to visions that are not discernable immediately like say a Richard Meier drawing or detail. you work it thru and you work it thru and eventually the coolness happens.

check out the early scarpa drawings too...bees

You may also want to check out Neil Spiller's work. He lectured at my school earlier this year... some incredible stuff.

or anything over at avatarlondon for that matter...