then teach them.  autocad can vary lineweights.  we commonly use color on the screen to represent line weights.  school isn't going to teach them, and they aren't going to learn by magic.  if you (and by 'you,' i mean *you*; not the office revit bitch) can't get revit to do it, quit using revit.

*you* is the reader, not specifically citizen or sameolddoctor or whoever

Correct.  My post isn't indicting the "kids," it's aimed at the expensive programs the kids (and their parents) pay so much to attend.

i think it's historically accurate that many skills, including something like autocad lineweights, were taught by the office and not universities or trade schools.  i know most of us have had drafting classes where we learned how to vary lineweight or use different pencils (because we're old), but things have changed.  different offices use different colors and different lineweights and have a different way of doing things, so it may not even be practical for a university to teach that except occasionally in a review someone might say 'the communication in your section is unclear because of your lineweights.'

sorry for derailing the thread into a conversation about education.  all i'm saying is that i suspect this notion of 'kids' being prepared from day one is new and the people responsible for the 'kids' might need to understand that a bit better.

The rhythmic movements and processes of hand drafting on large sheets was often meditative for me.  If i could draw that way now and the BIM model get automatically created, I would do so.

^

Some schools have electives that tend toward construction drawings.  Others don't.  For the latter, they think it reduces them to vocational school level.  I certainly hope my doctors learned how to stitch someone up while in medical school or in the continuation of their formal education, as a resident or intern.  There are so damn many credit hours in ANY architectural curriculum, that it wouldn't be detrimental to allocate 3 or 4 credit hours to the preparation of construction drawings.

I used to hold a quarterly contest for the junior architects in my office (first prize: bragging rights and a Starbucks card). I'd give them a copy of an old, hand-drawn detail drawing done by one of the old masters in the office, with all its lineweight and poche character, and the contest was to see who could most exactly reproduce it using only a CAD program (no photoshop or raster manipulation...that's cheating...it had to be a CAD vector file with print/layer configuration to make it print out directly from CAD to look as much like the hand-drawn detail as possible). Some of them were so good it was hard to tell the difference. It's amazing what you can do with CAD to get decent drawing quality if you just think about it a little and have the proper motivation. The problem is, few think about it, and nobody seems motivated to do it well anymore.

Let's try this again...

(Thanks to Archinect.com's crackerjack IT team for tutoring this Luddite.)

^

Nice!  Freeway/mall?  Is that the Sherman Oaks Galleria or THE 405 at Centinela?

405.  And thanks.

v nice citizen. Reminds me a little of Leon Krier (in a good way)

Guys these are incredible and inspiring.  Thanks for sharing!  :D

beautiful, citizen!

Yes, Will, some of Ando's drawings are also drawn with just one hair-line width pen, and of course, they are beautiful. But I think that was an "educated" choice, not because his draftsperson did not understand lineweights!

There is a certain beauty to lineweights. To "see" a heavy cut line when a wall is cut, and then to actually see it built in a space somehow makes it worth it. It also makes one understand the whole notion of section in a much clearer way than any 3d model can.

Sure, with Revit, one does not need to learn .ctb pen assignments in Autocad, but then again, I dont see Revit being used for everything - especially for smaller projects, or non-repetitive stuff.

Thanks for the kind words, All.

Citizen - I love it.

This makes me want to go out and sketch.  Inspiring.

These are (mostly) from my summer with the Tulane Historic Preservation crew - no computers allowed.

The drawing instructor was Lloyd Sensat, my professor Gene Cizek's partner. He was a great freehand drawing instructor.

That's some nice work, Nicholas.

thanks citizen, it means alot coming from someone who (appears to have) actually learned the profession through hand drawing and sketching. 

Quondam:

"While there are things to be learned from a (nostagic) look back at architectural drawings before CAD, it is probably even more important to (now) learn from how CAD influenced/changed (all kinds of) architectural drawing, or, I should say, all kinds of architectural data sets."

Interesting post.

In your analysis, how has CAD influenced/changed architectural drawing and data sets?

what you describe, quondam, sounds a little like object-oriented architecture paradigm

'nother sketch

interesting point quondam.

not to be overly cynical but while there are some nice drawings above, none of us are matisse.

are we talking about art or craft?  as the former we maybe would get closer to art with computers, and for the latter, shouldn't the craft be the building, not the drawings? 

it is vaguely ironic that we are talking about the loss of craft in the digital age, but then get caught up in the least important part of our craft, or rather the bit that sets us up as aesthetes, distant from the act of building.  these images are mostly for us, not for communication even...

i don't know what ando or sejima think about drawing.  i do think there is some craft to their approach, but then they are telling a clear story even in the way they present things that none of the stuff above is doing.  is that a failure of craft or intention? 

if the medium is not the message then maybe it doesn't matter so much that cad has caused students to suck at making well-crafted pencil drawings...? perhaps we are better served figuring out how to say something meaningful rather than worry that the ink is the wrong type, or that lineweight is not as well considered as it used to be.

?

Quondam:

"...and, like most beginnings, its not as easy..... There are lots of things I have to do first..."

I think the image flow you shows expresses the point well.  There is a power and a perspective that comes from being able to jump between massive files (data sets), to copy/paste/edit iterate very fast, and to compare and contrast an enormous amount of data quickly.  I think the inclination is always there, but it is a question of what is feasible.  To the extent that thought processes are entrained to our tools and methods, using computers and software to aid design brings down the time and effort required to get into and manipulate big data sets, allowing us to interact with -- and think through the representations  -- in a way not possible when limited to representational systems constructable by hand.

i disagree with a lot of what you said, will. first, most of us are probably better at the KIND of drawing that serves our goals than matisse would be. not sure matisse's drawings would do what i need at all.  ; ) 

also, while buildings are *usually* the final product of our projects, it's not always so. a lot of projects don't get built, but they have a legacy in drawings and/or models. these communicate information to potential future clients or just to anyone who might happen to see them. they can plant seeds.

if those drawings or models are seductive - no matter the media - they are their own sort of product. sometimes it's these that may be more speculative, more adventurous, more likely to get us that NEXT project than the built project in a rural county that few will ever get to visit.

in the case of urban design proposals, for instance, idea-rich drawings can be starting points for larger community discussions - certainly as valid a product as a single built house. 

this is an argument for hand vs cad at all, but certainly craft is an important aspect of *some* of our drawn production. 

apologies quondam i was not intending to point the last comments to you, just the thread in general.  i agree with much of your post.

i'm not sure i understand the point then steven.  not your point, just the point of the thread.  many of the folks lamenting how we draw today are the same folk who post quite regularly that architecture is about building, not art.  and yet here we all are talking about how the art is gone from our drawings. The very thing that sets us furthest from the act of construction (if we don't count the new-fangled designs themselves).  I find it ironic that there are is so much "documentation/sketches as art" as well.

personally, i think a great design drawn poorly is worth more than a shit design drawn brilliantly. 

which is more my real point.  what difference does it make how we draw if it isn't content driven?

The thread has meandered, true, but that's okay.  People are sharing and there is an appreciation for both old and new methods, tools, and media.

It's not possible to speak of the rightness or wrongness of any form of representation in an absolute sense.  But it is possible to discuss whether a particular form of representation is useful in a given time, place, and for a given project.  It is also possible to both acknowledge an appreciation for an older way of representing designs while also contemplating the power of current representational methods and tools.

cool thread.  neat to see everyone's work.

Interesting post. Nice handwork. I am learning about it but not hand drawing i want to learn with the help of computer programs. I really like this hand  work.

The thread was started because we are seeing a lot of good portfolio work as applicants prepare to hear from their schools, and it is really kicked up a notch by having new media at their disposal ... which many of us did NOT have.

There is no right or wrong.  The manual stuff of yesteryear could be from school, work, or travel sketches ... or it could be hard lined or freehand. 

This isn't to evaluate designs.  It's to look at presentation methods.  (As long as we don't see any stuff of the Michael Graves yellow flimsy with prismacolor era, which was short-lived). 

And that philosophical discussion belongs elsewhere.  If architecture was about building, it would be a CM program in disguise.  I think that many of the graphics show an interest in both the artistic and constructability issues of building design.  In fact, most schools, in any given semester, usually tilt as follows: 9 cr. design + history/theory course, and 6 cr. technology + structures, still tilting toward the importance of the design lab.

And as much as I periodically work by hand, there is no way I would have kept on at architecture without AutoCAD.  Nothing worse than a backache from intricate drafting at the top end of the drafting table.  Fortunately, I've never had to manually draft or do manual presentation graphics, except adding color.

Much of the good work that architects do never results in a building, or built form.  Some of my teaching is to planning students and planners, whom I constantly remind that the work of architects and urban designers is important because it can envision form, and change, and alternatives.  Sometimes this results in built work, but often not.  If we only focus on things that get built (or are likely to get built), our relevance declines even more than it has already.

Plus, the very act of representation (e.g., drawing) for its own sake has always been a part of the architectural enterprise.  And, it's fun!

quote from citizen:"Plus, the very act of representation (e.g., drawing) for its own sake has always been a part of the architectural enterprise.  And, it's fun!"

+1

I would guess that most kids who leaned toward architecture drew a lot in their spare time ... or spent more time drawing and less time on their homework.  I would guess that's even the case for those who have more recent software at their disposal prior to age 10!  Wanting to draw seems very innate.