draw is so vague, draw to me means the ability to free-hand sketch, although prince charles refers to measured drawings, which are entirely different than sketches. i'm not the best sketcher in the world, but with the technology available to architects these days it's pretty difficult to not come up with something that could easily express what the building would look like.
My initial reaction was to dismiss this topic, then I realized I've had the same question in my mind, relative to education:
How much hand-drawing is required of architecture students in this digital age? None? Some? Lots?
Does it even matter anymore? My gut screams "Yes!" ... at least about down & dirty diagramming and sketching as part of the design process, but not necessarily about finished, measured drawings.
sketching/drawing/drafting are not synonymous, are a fundamental tool for process work, communicating design intent, and producing legal/technical documents.
Not being able to do any of the above removes all credibility. I believe an accomplished architect is able to tap all three as necessary resources for the creation of design work.
Not being able to draw free hand is detrimental to an architect's ability to express him/herself without the limits that a computer places, no matter how advanced the software. Freehand drawing is often required when meeting clients/user groups to express ideas, to revise a computer drawing being reviewed. Drawing freehand is improved by drawing even on the computer since it is your eye that you train, not the hand.
britches, I'm assuming that the unwritten end to the question posed above is "by hand", and if you read the AJ article referred to, this is what Prince C. in fact means. The two key questions as posed in the linked site are:
What is your opinion? Would you trust an architect more if s/he gave you a hand-drawn sketch versus a computer rendered drawing? Or does the idea of receiving something hand-drawn seem old-fashioned to you?
So the real question is: does it remove all credibility when the drawing(s) submitted are done on a computer or other "technological" means which are not what we (and the Prince) think of as the traditional methods pre-computer (sketching with marker or pencil on trace, drafting with parallel rule and triangles, etc.)?
When the Prince says "I don't trust any architect who can't draw, and who doesn't submit a drawing, or a measured drawing from which I can judge what the building is going to be like", he, by his own narrow definition of drawing, means a traditionally made, hand-produced, non-computer drawing, so I would say that statement is bloody nonsense. In what way does a computer hinder making a drawing that will show what a building will look like or be like...if anything, it does it better than the traditional methods.
and one of the notions that was also debated in the other thread I linked above is exactly his statement that "However useful computers are, and they are very useful, they should be the servant, the slave, not the master", assuming that an architect can assume domination over a pencil or parallel rule, make them his servant tools, but the computer will make, or has made, a slave of the architect...a very dubious theory with little reflection in reality.
Yeah, 'drawing' means lots of things. But I'd say yes, an architect loses credibility if they can't convey a design intent to a civilian with nothing but paper and pen. Extra points if you bring your own pen!
765, that's not really true in most cases. Most early design meetings I go to I bring schematic drawings (and that could be plans, elevations, axos, rough computer models) and these are discussed, with an occasional sketching over with trace paper - but this last is pretty rudimentary and does not represent the "production" of the drawing. At no time, ever, has the client expressed to me that he now has doubts about my abilities because what I placed in front of him was not hand drawn (except if I ever have to present to Prince Charles, I gather).
well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. I really don't feel like doing a repeat of the other thread all over again, so you can read that to see what I think about the issue in more detail, if you wish...
but as far as the credibility issue of this thread, most clients don't really give a flyin' f how you produced the drawing, as long as you've go something to show them.
Nope, I'm saying something different from what Prince Chuck means. It's not about 'presentation', it's about communicating intent on the fly with marks on paper. If you can't do that, somebody should pull your card.
When I was working in oma, I heard of a person (from their friend) who came in for an interview in the early(ier) days when Rem would still interview architects. The interview went well, work was good, good construction experience and project management etc etc. Then they slide into the 'chat' phase of the interview. The topic of drawing came up and apparently the end of the conversation went something like this:
Rem: So you can use Autocad?
Interviewee: Yeah, I think it gives another dimension beyond hand drawing.
Rem: So you can draw too?
Interv.: Yeah, I don't trust any architect that can't draw.
Rem: I can't draw.
Interv: *silence*
He didn't get the job. Most probably because he just saw there in silence (likely thinking *shitshitshitshit*).
we were talking about this with ray kappe last night who draws a lot of his buildings himself with pencil on his drafting table. when we said drawing though, it included both hand and computer drawings. so basically the conclusion was, you first must have the idea of what you are drawing and go from there. i said, i'll get there with whatever means necessary.
all agreed on that one. who draws in front of the client?
'drawing' describes a whole range of related practices: for example diagrammatic sketches and measured and rendered perspectives are very different conceptual devices. We still talk about CAD drawings, and in my view it's not a misuse of the term.
for me, drawing is about thinking externally: using delineation devices like pencils and computer mice to construct thoughts outside of my head.
so, in my view, it may not matter if an architect can't represent 'well', but it would certainly be detrimental if an architect couldn't think externally.
pencils are great because they are lighter and less-fault-prone than a laptop. but if you draw on the computer, and you want to carry a laptop all the time, great.
maybe rem 'can't draw' - but I bet he has sketched, or drafted, or scribbled, or in some way graphically communicated and architectural idea.
That interviewee should've asked him whats its like to be Orson Wells shouting design commands from his office chair while everyone else scrambles to bide his bidding.
*crizz* - true, I didn't read the article. I have an itchy posting-finger and its crunch-month in the office. Forgive! I was kind of responding without any thought to Prince Charles or his context because I really don't register that as anything of consequence (in my own shimmery green world).
But the term 'drawing' is itself interesting. Even more abstractly, it is something like 'the bringing forth of essence' or 'birth' or 'manifesting' - sounds like I love me some patchouli and All Hallows Eve!. But thats the essence of the concept - perhaps this notion of 'drawing' speaks more about the limited capacities of the observer to draw from different modes (technically and so graphically).
The less experienced you are, the less you can 'draw' from anything - so credibility is beyond your ability to judge. Which goes to several posters on here who refute the origin of the statement, being that it is from someone who does not 'draw' the way we may 'draw'.
Good god, after all that I keep saying the word and it sounds so funny and alien!
aspect, maybe an architect gains credibility when s/he refuses to bullshit?
As for "drawing", there are many times when the ability to accurately display your ideas to others via an extemporaneous hand drawing is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean one can't succeed without that skill.
PS peridotbritches, I totally adore your posts and I'm really glad you've joined.
Syn - but he still did it. Can't vs won't is an interesting little subcurrent in these here waters of discussion.
Libs - I've lurked for a while, biding my time until I had compiled a rather large dossier. Mostly so I could say the word 'dossier' in my head.
It is also a shimmery verdigris.
I can sketch and I can draw - but I am shite at drafting. If I had spent even 3 years drafting in auto cad during my educational purchase I would receive less diva-dom from the bosses (who are way into their napkins-as-ultimate-communication-medium phase).
i have a problem drawing in front of people. i really hate it, feels like i am being judged. my thoughts/drawings are so connected to my brain, that it's only comprehensible in my eyes...
teaching is really good for drawing skills - sitting down with a student and trying to work things out on paper in fifteen minutes is amazingly useful.
I think I know the feeling a little bit. Sometimes, I find I just need to slow down, it is easy to feel like I am wasting someones time, but in reality, taking just a little more time to draw patiently and clearly will save time by communicating the idea effectively.
drawing is useful but is not that impt. the rem story is interesting - especially as it seems to say feeling better about oneself by placing people beneath you is not part of being/becoming great.
all of my clients love the pretty drawing. unfortunately, once they've seen it, the rookie clients don't understand why the project isn't complete. 'cds take 4 months?!'
drawing for architecture is part of the production process... unlike art which drawing as final product.
actually, drawing in art was once part of the production process, not the fianl product. you weren't supposed to show anyone your preparatory drawings: the final product was the painting. but that was a long time ago.
a lot of the attitudes expressed by the prince and others here regarding production are quaint and traditional but stuck in the mud. fact is, even in art drawing is not necessarily central to production anymore (video, installation, trash art, conceptual, etc. etc.) many artists have decent careers without ever knowing how to draw or sketch and not caring that they don't (not making a judgement here on whether that is a good thing or not).
architects and artists are (or should be) swift foxes (and that includes the production process), and let everyone else be stuck in the mud...most stuck-in-the-muds not realizing until years later that what their holy rules (like "music should not be performed on electrified instruments" or "using a silk-screen is not art") are really besides the point.
Poll: Does an architect lose credibility if s/he can't draw?
Prince Charles recently slammed architects who can't draw. What is your opinion? Post your answer here or visit the poll on our blog: http://3six0architecture.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/to-draw-or-not-to-draw/
draw is so vague, draw to me means the ability to free-hand sketch, although prince charles refers to measured drawings, which are entirely different than sketches. i'm not the best sketcher in the world, but with the technology available to architects these days it's pretty difficult to not come up with something that could easily express what the building would look like.
There is a very good discussion on that topic here, with people defending both the yes and no answer to your question.
although the discussion centered on whether hand drawing was a direct generator of design ideas/concepts or not, not about credibility.
My initial reaction was to dismiss this topic, then I realized I've had the same question in my mind, relative to education:
How much hand-drawing is required of architecture students in this digital age? None? Some? Lots?
Does it even matter anymore? My gut screams "Yes!" ... at least about down & dirty diagramming and sketching as part of the design process, but not necessarily about finished, measured drawings.
sketching/drawing/drafting are not synonymous, are a fundamental tool for process work, communicating design intent, and producing legal/technical documents.
Not being able to do any of the above removes all credibility. I believe an accomplished architect is able to tap all three as necessary resources for the creation of design work.
Pavarotti couldn't read music
Prince Charles is Britians Brad Pitt...So what the Hell does he know?
Prince Charles should probably stick to what he knows, which is what: polo?
Not being able to draw free hand is detrimental to an architect's ability to express him/herself without the limits that a computer places, no matter how advanced the software. Freehand drawing is often required when meeting clients/user groups to express ideas, to revise a computer drawing being reviewed. Drawing freehand is improved by drawing even on the computer since it is your eye that you train, not the hand.
That an heir to some throne made the comment doesn't invalidate the issue:
Should architects be able to draw well?
britches, I'm assuming that the unwritten end to the question posed above is "by hand", and if you read the AJ article referred to, this is what Prince C. in fact means. The two key questions as posed in the linked site are:
What is your opinion? Would you trust an architect more if s/he gave you a hand-drawn sketch versus a computer rendered drawing? Or does the idea of receiving something hand-drawn seem old-fashioned to you?
So the real question is: does it remove all credibility when the drawing(s) submitted are done on a computer or other "technological" means which are not what we (and the Prince) think of as the traditional methods pre-computer (sketching with marker or pencil on trace, drafting with parallel rule and triangles, etc.)?
When the Prince says "I don't trust any architect who can't draw, and who doesn't submit a drawing, or a measured drawing from which I can judge what the building is going to be like", he, by his own narrow definition of drawing, means a traditionally made, hand-produced, non-computer drawing, so I would say that statement is bloody nonsense. In what way does a computer hinder making a drawing that will show what a building will look like or be like...if anything, it does it better than the traditional methods.
i'd say let the single poster make another before taking him serious.
should must have to need to got to, what do these words have in common
and one of the notions that was also debated in the other thread I linked above is exactly his statement that "However useful computers are, and they are very useful, they should be the servant, the slave, not the master", assuming that an architect can assume domination over a pencil or parallel rule, make them his servant tools, but the computer will make, or has made, a slave of the architect...a very dubious theory with little reflection in reality.
Yeah, 'drawing' means lots of things. But I'd say yes, an architect loses credibility if they can't convey a design intent to a civilian with nothing but paper and pen. Extra points if you bring your own pen!
765, that's not really true in most cases. Most early design meetings I go to I bring schematic drawings (and that could be plans, elevations, axos, rough computer models) and these are discussed, with an occasional sketching over with trace paper - but this last is pretty rudimentary and does not represent the "production" of the drawing. At no time, ever, has the client expressed to me that he now has doubts about my abilities because what I placed in front of him was not hand drawn (except if I ever have to present to Prince Charles, I gather).
drawing=thinking
Maybe you can do it all on the computer but this is not a common talent.
drawing=thinking
well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. I really don't feel like doing a repeat of the other thread all over again, so you can read that to see what I think about the issue in more detail, if you wish...
but as far as the credibility issue of this thread, most clients don't really give a flyin' f how you produced the drawing, as long as you've go something to show them.
Nope, I'm saying something different from what Prince Chuck means. It's not about 'presentation', it's about communicating intent on the fly with marks on paper. If you can't do that, somebody should pull your card.
When I was working in oma, I heard of a person (from their friend) who came in for an interview in the early(ier) days when Rem would still interview architects. The interview went well, work was good, good construction experience and project management etc etc. Then they slide into the 'chat' phase of the interview. The topic of drawing came up and apparently the end of the conversation went something like this:
Rem: So you can use Autocad?
Interviewee: Yeah, I think it gives another dimension beyond hand drawing.
Rem: So you can draw too?
Interv.: Yeah, I don't trust any architect that can't draw.
Rem: I can't draw.
Interv: *silence*
He didn't get the job. Most probably because he just saw there in silence (likely thinking *shitshitshitshit*).
if you can't draw/sketch/etc on paper then you should be able to take the ARE exams
there's already enough weak designer architects out there...we dont need more
i can't draw much either.
we were talking about this with ray kappe last night who draws a lot of his buildings himself with pencil on his drafting table. when we said drawing though, it included both hand and computer drawings. so basically the conclusion was, you first must have the idea of what you are drawing and go from there. i said, i'll get there with whatever means necessary.
all agreed on that one. who draws in front of the client?
computers, for me, god send instruments to draw.
'drawing' describes a whole range of related practices: for example diagrammatic sketches and measured and rendered perspectives are very different conceptual devices. We still talk about CAD drawings, and in my view it's not a misuse of the term.
for me, drawing is about thinking externally: using delineation devices like pencils and computer mice to construct thoughts outside of my head.
so, in my view, it may not matter if an architect can't represent 'well', but it would certainly be detrimental if an architect couldn't think externally.
pencils are great because they are lighter and less-fault-prone than a laptop. but if you draw on the computer, and you want to carry a laptop all the time, great.
maybe rem 'can't draw' - but I bet he has sketched, or drafted, or scribbled, or in some way graphically communicated and architectural idea.
That interviewee should've asked him whats its like to be Orson Wells shouting design commands from his office chair while everyone else scrambles to bide his bidding.
*crizz* - true, I didn't read the article. I have an itchy posting-finger and its crunch-month in the office. Forgive! I was kind of responding without any thought to Prince Charles or his context because I really don't register that as anything of consequence (in my own shimmery green world).
But the term 'drawing' is itself interesting. Even more abstractly, it is something like 'the bringing forth of essence' or 'birth' or 'manifesting' - sounds like I love me some patchouli and All Hallows Eve!. But thats the essence of the concept - perhaps this notion of 'drawing' speaks more about the limited capacities of the observer to draw from different modes (technically and so graphically).
The less experienced you are, the less you can 'draw' from anything - so credibility is beyond your ability to judge. Which goes to several posters on here who refute the origin of the statement, being that it is from someone who does not 'draw' the way we may 'draw'.
Good god, after all that I keep saying the word and it sounds so funny and alien!
peridot - you seem to have a pretty bad view of Rem as some totalitarian ruler. Can I ask why?
Yes. Yes you may.
Dear Peridot,
Why do you seem to have a pretty bad view of Rem as some totalitarian ruler?
does prince charles know what drawing means?
prince charles is an accomplished watercolorist and has many saville row tailored suits and kilts...
Dear Chris,
Because he's super hot when he's being stern.
Cordially,
P. Britches von Trapp
Does the Prince love the Holl?
who wants to bet 3six0arch will not post again?
in reality,
an architect lose credibility if s/he can't bullshit.
aspect, maybe an architect gains credibility when s/he refuses to bullshit?
As for "drawing", there are many times when the ability to accurately display your ideas to others via an extemporaneous hand drawing is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean one can't succeed without that skill.
PS peridotbritches, I totally adore your posts and I'm really glad you've joined.
yes.
Walter Gropius of the Bauhaus was known for being terrible at drawing and didn't like doing it.
Syn - but he still did it. Can't vs won't is an interesting little subcurrent in these here waters of discussion.
Libs - I've lurked for a while, biding my time until I had compiled a rather large dossier. Mostly so I could say the word 'dossier' in my head.
It is also a shimmery verdigris.
I can sketch and I can draw - but I am shite at drafting. If I had spent even 3 years drafting in auto cad during my educational purchase I would receive less diva-dom from the bosses (who are way into their napkins-as-ultimate-communication-medium phase).
i have a problem drawing in front of people. i really hate it, feels like i am being judged. my thoughts/drawings are so connected to my brain, that it's only comprehensible in my eyes...
i think HRH started this thread...
teaching is really good for drawing skills - sitting down with a student and trying to work things out on paper in fifteen minutes is amazingly useful.
Beta,
I think I know the feeling a little bit. Sometimes, I find I just need to slow down, it is easy to feel like I am wasting someones time, but in reality, taking just a little more time to draw patiently and clearly will save time by communicating the idea effectively.
i can draw like forrest gump can run.
drawing is useful but is not that impt. the rem story is interesting - especially as it seems to say feeling better about oneself by placing people beneath you is not part of being/becoming great.
LB> of course, i was bullshitting :)
drawing for architecture is part of the production process... unlike art which drawing as final product.
peridotbritches,
Are you sure you aren't the re-manifestation of the Queen of England, who also used to post in these forums?
does a carpenter lose credibility if he can't build?
everybody, not just every architect, can draw.
some are just self-conscious about the quality of the drawing...intimidation is revealed in the product, so a choice is made to prefer technology.
a good drawing shall convey information of certain principles in the production process...
while a pretty drawing only visually pleasing to architects... (i.e. useless)
: totally untrue.
all of my clients love the pretty drawing. unfortunately, once they've seen it, the rookie clients don't understand why the project isn't complete. 'cds take 4 months?!'
Beta - I appreciate you sharing! My experience of drawing is much different so its interesting to hear what its like for others in the act of drawing.
Apur - Queen indeed, England, not so much.
Genetic Engineering 001
2005.12.30
actually, drawing in art was once part of the production process, not the fianl product. you weren't supposed to show anyone your preparatory drawings: the final product was the painting. but that was a long time ago.
a lot of the attitudes expressed by the prince and others here regarding production are quaint and traditional but stuck in the mud. fact is, even in art drawing is not necessarily central to production anymore (video, installation, trash art, conceptual, etc. etc.) many artists have decent careers without ever knowing how to draw or sketch and not caring that they don't (not making a judgement here on whether that is a good thing or not).
architects and artists are (or should be) swift foxes (and that includes the production process), and let everyone else be stuck in the mud...most stuck-in-the-muds not realizing until years later that what their holy rules (like "music should not be performed on electrified instruments" or "using a silk-screen is not art") are really besides the point.
"Once an Architect has a T-square in his hand, he can no longer think architecture. He can only think about drawing it."
-Bruno Zevi, The Modern Language of Architecture
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.