i would recommend against it unless you create some sort of unique sketch

okay, thanks for the response afrdzak (i liked your portfolio, by the way. i don't think i'm qualified to coment on it though). so why is it inadvisable? the buildings i've chosen are ones that i cannot be physically present to draw (because of cost and time). if i could afford to fly to some of these places and sit in front of them, i would.

ask yourself, if you "copy" a picture, or even a building in person, what ability does it show?

i get your point, but i guess i see it slightly differently. i thought drawing others' buildings (of course, i'll credit the architect) was analogous to a writer taking his subject matter from life and putting it in his own words; i was thinking this (my drawings, way of drawing/sketching) would show how i think.

thanks for your input, i'll think more critically on whether i should include them--i only did a couple.

well that's why I said, don't do it unless you have a unique sketch style

I think copying a photo isn't a bad idea. really it comes down to if you think you need it. a sweet computer render may impress just aswell.

It does put you at risk of being caught out. One of my drawing tutors could always spot students who used photos due to the curved perspective caused by the camera lens.

as an exercise is worth doing. for portfolio i would assume you were there and drew it live...no reason to think so except that is normally the way of such things.

when i was first applying for architectre school (almost 20 years ago, now) i came from fine arts and included scuptures and dwgs...many of the latter were of dancers i had drawn from video. i was very interested in modern dance at the time and vdeo was almost the only way to see it...i made the sketches into paintings and did a lot of figure dwgs in other live settings, so was never a copy per se...but i never felt guilty about where the artwork was coming from. however i was presenting it as art, not as evidence of technical competence. that point may be one way to decide. if it feels like filler then i would not put it in. if it feels like amazing good illustration or art, then i see no reason why not to include it...perhaps to assuage any worries you can say it was based on photo by so-and-so.

mhollenstein - that's an interesting point. if i do choose to include them, i'll just say they are sketches made from photos of the buildings because i couldn't be physically present.

jump - drawings of dancers sounds pretty cool. i agree with you in that i don't believe i'm "copy[ing]" because the illustrations are meant to be evidence of artistic merit.

yeah, i'll just say "drawing based on a photo" to avoid any misunderstandings.

The concern I'd have with drawing from a photo is that you will not capture the real essence of the building/place/thing. The light and shadow are just more real in person and influence your drawing in a positive way. I coudl never sketch well from a photo, its just a billion times easier to capture depth, shadow, etc., when you are really there.

If I was judging a portfolio, I would prefer to see kick ass sketches of your bunk bed or neighbors porch than a flat sketch of the Empire State Bldng.

A good drawing is a good drawing, the subject matter is not as important.

I would go so far as to say that if you are sketching great architecture, it could hurt you if it looks like you are just sketching them because a book is telling you they are great.

Sketch something that means something to you.


If you must sketch from photos, consider a theme and explore a more creative angle, like afrdzak suggests. Maybe photos that are at night, or find a photographer that has a unique style - analyze the style, sketch parts about it that you find interesting. Create a series of these.

The point is that you need to make it 'yours'. Your portfolio is about you, your interests and talents, not about some famous building somewhere else in the world.

to expand on what jump said.... maybe be creative with it compositionally.. for instance, just straight up put iphoto/drawing side by side and express it as a study with some kind of comparative analysis presented, whether its a study of the building, a study of the photo, or, most likely,both. that should be easy for you if your original intentions for drawing these drawings was out of an affinity for studying the subjects and not just 'cause you had to' for whatever reason.

i think if your coming from a non-arch background the more you can delineate you have a fetish for building and spatial composition, for studying it, and for representing it technically/expressively ..the better. indicating that in a unique way is all part of the art of putting together a portfolio.

but also, as trace said, having something like 'here's a sketch of the niche between my toilet and bathtub from 12 inches away' (or whatever) shows another side of how you view spatial composition and is also necessary, and indeed beneficial side by side full on love for architectural representation.


and, naturally, give the photographer credit.

trace - that's really great advice. i was originally doing them more as exercises rather than as portfolio material. since i'm making a portfolio from scratch, i've been trying to tie my portfolio together with my statement of purpose and trying to make it a cohesive expression of me, my beliefs, and goals.

would you mind if i forwarded you a draft of my portfolio when i get it together? you seem very insightful and i would really appreciate your criticism.

i don't think there's anything wrong with it. gerhard richter made a career out of it. i think if they aren't your photos, cite the photographer. just don't take pictures of other people's designs and draw them and then claim them as your own. it takes talent to draw, regardless of what you are looking at. all art is eventually recycled anyway.

http://www.gerhard-richter.com/home/index.php

When Steven and I review applicants to the Governor's School program, we ask that they make a certain required number of sketches from life, and then they can bring in sketches from photographs and require that they bring in a small copy of the photograph too. That way we can compare their hand/eye to the original and see how they've reinterpreted it.

I think it's fine, but do cite that you worked from a photo as opposed to life.

to copy or "draw" a photograph of somewhere you haven't been is inauthentic and sends the wrong impression.
however, I do understand (and agree in differing degrees) with taking photos of places you visit and sketching them after the fact (you were indeed there)
of course, nothing beats sketching in situ -- so it it's really a matter of degree

ttlin1, i am coming from the same boat you are in (non arch background applying to m.arch1)... personally, i don't really see anything wrong with copying a picture - i've included two sketches that are reproductions of works from famous artists into my portfolio (one is a full copy, the other is a 1/3 copy with the rest from my own imagination - which was part of an exercise from one of my drawing classes). however, i wouldn't go all out and make every single piece in your portfolio a copy of a picture.. try setting up your own still life at home with a spot light, if that helps.

francis bacon drew it from sport magazine, tabloids and playgirl.

i guess whatever u do, do it creatively... if u do not see things in "depth", it dun matter u do it life or photographs.

i remember all francis bacon drawing of ppl opening month was from the magazine found in the dentist office.

how can you tell it is drawn from a photo?

if question refer to me, there was a documentary on francis bacon and he explained his work process.

One telltale sign is scale issues, another is depth of field conflicts, because sometimes a photo shortens the depth of field in a way that confuses the eye, resulting in a misunderstanding of a scene, and therefor a drawing that's a bit off.

I don't know specifically about architecture programs, but this is one of the #1 no-no's for art schools. It's easier to draw from photos than from life, and since this is common knowledge, it is now taken as a sign that you don't have the talent to draw from life and resort to photos instead.

I remember helping an engineering student to get into grad school for architecture and she couldn't understand perspective when she sketched buildings from life. She then showed me some sketches she did from postcards and they turned out fine. You have to understand how perspective works!

An important difference between sketches done in field and from photographs is that the eye does not "crop" like pictures do. There is a fade between our primary vision and our peripheral vision. Also, there is a tendency to move your head for sketches done in real life gathering much more information than a normal camera would. So when you sketch in real life, you decide what the boundaries are, on top of deciding what to abstract from what you are seeing (there is a tendency to allow the picture to do that for you if not sketching from real life). I remember taking panorama photos after doing the sketches for record keeping, and one turned out that I had to stitch about 5 pictures together (Photomerge) to get everything that I sketched.

I'll post if I can find it.

ttlin1 - sure, send anything you want thoughts on, I'd love to help (if I can).

Some questions:

Do you have any experience or skill/talent with sketching? If not, then what rationalist points out will hold true.

For my own sketching, I know that I have to be there, in front of something, have a super super soft pencil and no eraser (I'll use it if I have it). Without that, my drawings look flat even though technically they are very accurate.
It always frustrated me seeing someone else's sketch that was quick, inaccurate, but captured the 'emotion' and 'feeling' of the subject.

That's the goal. First see something, then capture it. It's difficult to 'see' clearly in a photograph.


Have you taken any drawing classes? If not, there are numerous things that you are put through to learn to 'see' and 'capture', from timed sketches, to not lifting your pencil, negative space, etc., etc.
Good stuff and you learn a lot.

I'd suggest trying to 'see' things first. Maybe take a unique architectural photographer's work, read about their ideas and process, then use that to study other buildings. Dunno, the possibilities are endless.

Something like sketching only the light in night photos, or shadows in day photos, then taking your own photos and doing the same.


Learning to 'see' what inspires you and translating that into something that is yours is the hard part.

To be good at anything creative, you need to not only know what the greats are out there, but what makes them great. This is the part that too many miss - to grow from other's work, you need to 'see' what inspires others and, hopefully, yourself.

School's love process. If you can demonstrate a clarity of process you'll be golden. Come up with an idea, an experiment, then follow it through. You'll be surprised at how much you can learn.

This is what I would find interesting. Anyone can sketch a photo, but capturing something that you 'see', exploring it and testing it would show a thoughtful process that was personal to you.

I think I am just repeating jump and work's comments...



Gerhard Richter took his work into a new dimension, it was a process (he's probably my favorite artist). Take a look at his subtle manipulations in the more realistic work, then look at his abstracts - you can almost see a clarity of subject, like looking through a window with rain falling on it, possibly a reflection in a puddle or a pond outside.
His stuff is amazing!


I am done rambling...for now :-)

i didn't know that it is easier to draw from photos than from life rationalist (it isn't for me), nor that art schools care. the one i went to didn't seem to care about anything except the act of producing art; method, rigor, insanity, drugs, and alcohol were kinda optional. i did a sculpture in dwg class, painted in design class, lithographs for photography. no on cared. whether it sucked or not seemed to be an issue thouhg; although that coul dbe debated too (was the age of conceptual art still).

that was late 80's though. times have changed?

best/oddest memory of art school was crazy painter guy who for final presentation in dwg class stripped naked, pretended to masturbate with a carrot, got seriously drunk, drew blood from his arm and then painted a portrait on a white bed sheet nailed to the wall. no one batted an eye. well, the lesbian couple were angry, but they were ALWAYS angry, so that doesn't count. he also did all his paintings using twigs and hairs from a wig he found...that was 1st year dwg studio. in light of his production i don't think live or memorex type of questions really grazed the brainpan of the teachers...

really, if you give credit the main thing is to show creativity. technique isn't very interesting. you will learn that in archi-school. attitude is harder to learn. if you can show that, the method is almost moot.

i will now also seize with the rambling...;-) (although trace's rambles were pretty good)