The thing is hand drawing has passed from becoming a representational idea to a more personal tool to document ideas.
Nowadays fewer people know how to represent their ideas through sketch, imagine Gehrys or Wolf Prix sketches put up on boards (they would not be effective), they are not as beautiful as when architects used to do renders by hand.
It is much quicker and efficent to translate ideas through digital graphic representation but hand drawing is now more of a personal tool to document a personal idea or objective.
So in my opinion, I dont believe hand drawing will die since it is basically the representation of the brain processing ideas into the visual.
It is more of a personal thing than a studio

One thing I'll add is that, for hand drawing, there's still some amazing work being done on the other side of the pond. The AA and Bartlett produces some amazing hand-drawn work. Like No Name said, it's really a matter of process and skills. If you can show a large hand drawing or water colour painting, that can be a really valuable skill depending on the firm.

I understand that hand drawing is arguably a less effective or less commonly used tool for illustration and agrre with the first reply in particular, but what I'm wondering more specifically is whether students in architecture still draw, whether for personal design benefit or representation to a group? And if so, why these are not included in portfolios?

One of my colleagues went to a conference in Australia recently on this topic. so it has at least enough cache to be the subject of an academic conference.

my experience has been that conveying an idea about space to a potential client through a spontaneous (and beautiful) sketch is a more effective way to generate business than just about any other.

I just finished my BS Architectural Studies and am preparing to put together a portfolio for applying to M. Arch programs.

I do still do hand sketches, but very little. And nothing in 3D. Usually they're just basic floor plans or sections to show the professor to go over with.

The only time I've even had to bother doing nice hand drawings is now, in preparation for doing a portfolio. In some cases I'm doing "process sketches" from projects I designed 8 years ago, either because I never did them in the first place, or they've been lost, or they were so terrible I'd never include them in a portfolio.

I have seen some very nice perspective hand drawings from people in my school. I, however, have very little artistic talent for that (despite the fact that I have lots of artistic ideas), so generally I use the computer to express them.

I would have made a terrible architectural illustrator back in the day.

It's worrisome to me that the young architects in our office are unable to pick up a pen and sketch paper and draw to explore an idea. Drives me nuts when I do a quick sketch, hand it to a staff member, saying "why don't you work up a few quick ideas based on that", and I come back to their desk a few minutes later and see them using the CAD program. In the time it took them to launch the program and set up the paper space, they could have done three quick studies.

It's not about presentation, it's about quick communication, and exploration of ideas.

EKE-

I'm what you would probably consider a 'young' landscape designer/planner and I understand and agree with what you're saying.

I'm just posing the question. I feel that architecture in many ways, not all, is somewhat ahead of landscape in terms of technology and perhaps design ideation so I'm curious about the lack of hand drawings I've seen in portfolios lately from arch students.

all-

Again, I am not necessarily looking for hand 'renderings/illustrations,' but evidence for process. My criticism would be that the digital diagrams I feel like I see so often are typically confusing and appear to me to have been completed in post production, I guess you could say. The same style is becoming more common in landscape as well.

For me, personally, I can read a loose doodle and understand the intent of the design better than a lot of these refined diagrams. Given, there is a time and place for both.

Though to be fair, they do teach hand drawing / sketching at the school I did my undergrad in. It might be required now, but back when I was starting out it was an elective.

Students that took this class used to have to keep a sketchbook of their work, and they were required to turn it in once or twice a year with a certain number of drawings in it.

Usually the night before it was due you'd see about several students from the class crowded around light tables the school had, tracing over photographs they took of local buildings.




Let's face it, there is a looooong list of skills that can benefit an architect. Not every architect is going to excel at every skill, and not every architect should be required to be good at everything.

One architect may say, "You can't sketch your way out of a paper bag", while they might get the response, "Yeah, but you can't render this in 3D with materials and create the animation our client wants to see by the deadline". And this could be applied to many different skills, not just the two examples above.

Different stroke for different folks, baby.

I agree with that, but it seems pretty clear that 3D renders and sharp diagrams are replacing hand sketches in a lot of portfolios, not to say that those people should have to draw or that they're not potentially great managers or 3D modelers, just that I see the shift.

There are many schools that still have a hand drawing cur.

- The University of Miami: at one point, U.M. prided itself on the visual representation of it's students, and because of that, a large group of firms recruited straight from this school. U.M. developed it's own style which they are noted for, but are since going through a transitional period where REVIT and computer courses are taking over. They are worried that their graduates aren't learning enough computer skills to compete in the fast pace , technology changing environment that we are in.

- University of Notre Dame: Not the best example, but their work is twice as flashy as U.M.'s with little substance. The work produced here is beautiful to look at as art work. Once you get passed the "oooo's" and "aaaaaa's" the designs are pretty much bland. It's no wonder that a school with traditional focus excels in the traditional representation technique.

- Carniege Mellon: supposedly

- Tulane: supposedly

- Syracuse: supposedly you don't have to take any computer classes. You could theoritcally graduate without ever learning CAD. They have drawing intensive courses as well.


There was 1 other I can't remember.

Not that I have particularly anything constructive to add to this thread...

But I would say composition is probably the more important aspect-- placement, hierarchy and rhythm make or break images. In that sense, rendering is just an extension of drawing as in painting an extension of drawing.

One might assume photography would be closer to rendering; however, with rendering and hand drawing, I can easily distort shape (and by extension space) and perspective without being as noticeable or obvious as images in generated through photography.

In that sense, drawing provides both composition (weight, emotion, focus) without being hyper realistic (although you can get pretty close). One can do the same with rendering if they lay off photoshop and alpha'd card trees (and entourage... yuck).

If I see a drawing of a building (or other object), I can equate that object to its function and purpose without taking it "seriously." Drawings do not necessarily infer that they have to be taken as fact.

A slick render or a photograph, however, maybe construed as more actuality and as fact despite the fact that the entire thing can be fabricated.

In the world of planning, really bad hand drawn maps, plans and what not seem to do better than CAD as the hand drawn variety doesn't seem as "binding." Meaning, there's both breathing room and room for imagination in the final product.

I suppose this is why I personally think architectural animations are pure, uncut dogshit. I get the whole point of them... yet they aren't really interactive nor are they indicative of anything (unless they are showing you how doors, windows lighting schemes and screens function).

it's not dead in my work.

you something, i'm just going to say here that i don't think it's a personal thing. yeah, you can ooh and ahh clients with 3d renderings of course, and i love that stuff and i'm all for it. however, it is mentioned above in the thread that nothing is as useful as creating a sketch right in front of a client. in the few instances i've actually dealt with real clients, i'd say i find this to be the case. people are very impressed when they see how well you can draw.

le bossman-

I agree as well and I'd echo your statement, which rings true for my own experience. I've had little 'face time' with clients, but my boss has always included me when 'charettes' or design meetings come up because he knows I enjoy drawing.

In my short time in the professional world I've had the opportunity to sit at a table with other designers, owners, and managers over a design project and noticed that being practiced in drawing and eagerness to pick up the pen and scribble can help give a designer notoreity, but also push that designers ideas forward.

We had a professor in school who was an amazing person and artist. A group of us would go out one or two days a week and sketch with him during lunch. Anyway, he always said, 'the person holding the pen has all the power at the design table..' Or something like that. Now, I know this isn't necessarily true, but I'd say it's ppretty close.

Drawing, in terms of design, in my opinion has less to do with creating art as it does with thinking.

I've certianly noticed the 'shift' you mention. I graduated in 1999 and almost never used a computer when studying. When I began interviewing for jobs, my portfolio was 100% by hand. It's not that my hand skills are that wonderful I just suppose at that time I was a bit intimidated and ignorant. I recall one interview where I submitted my portfolio and the interviewer asked, 'This is a nice portfolio but can you do all this stuff on the computer?' Being young, desperate for a job and the like I replied, 'Sure!'. I ended up securing that job and had to get to work every day an hour early just so I could get up to speed with CAD.

I agree with those that that say it is about communication

For most projects, it doesn't make much sense any more for those beautifully and painstakingly rendered pencil or ink drawings, (orthographic or perspectives) during design. We can't commit that way anymore. But sketching, drawing, and modeling will always be a part of this profession, digital or not.

Hand sketching will always be useful because all it requires is a medium, hand-eye coordination, and an idea; no mouse, no electrical outlet, a screen, knowledge of software, waiting for the program to start up, etc, etc.

One thing that we're missing from the hand drafting days is that when you're hand drafting, you're locked into a scale for longer periods. These days we constantly zoom in and out of scale. Sure its great to work in and out of scale so fast, but I think we lose a little something. Just a thought.

Oh, and another thing:

I think more intuitive the interface for computing gets (which seems like the way its headed), the less it will be important whether or not its digital. Although some things you just can't replicate digitally. Or maybe not. I don't know.

The firm I'm interning at right now produces most of their construction documents by hand, but the more recent graduates do all their work in CAD. I was told that the clients respond better to hand drafted plans, hence the heavy emphasis on hand drafting skills. All the renderings produced are also done completely by hand, and in water colour, though this is outsourced for whatever reason.

Personally, I stopped sketching after a professor noted in my sketchbook, "What is this drivel? Jettison this and draw something real." Now all my process work is done in illustrator...

slartibartfast, i would say the exact opposite. what i actually love about hand sketching is that there is no scale. it can be convenient to keep things intentionally vague in the short term. across an in-situ hand sketch, the scale usually varies from one part of the drawing to another.

personally, i don't mind the commitment to hand rendered drawings in the design process. a good drawing by hand takes no more time or effort to a quality digital rendering in my mind.

Le boss, I do make a clear distinction between sketching and hand drafting.

true, although for the purpose they serve in todays world, i would usually lump them into the same category.

So in terms of sketching, yes, I like the vagueness of scale. When hand drafting, it is a different story. You're working on that section or plan, at the same scale on paper until the drawing is refined, whereas these days you're zooming in and out, and printing it out once in a while (sometimes out of scale) to check it. I feel like there is something there we may be missing. But yeah, we're not necessarily contradicting.

As for hand rendered drawings, hey if you can squeeze that into a project, awesome. I would love to do it (see the Official Sketch Thread, I do like to draw), but never had a real opportunity to do so for a real project during design phases. Maybe I'll try to squeeze one in.

I wonder if Endoo got the right lesson from his sketchbook critique. Perhaps it was the content, not the medium, that was being criticized ?

To add to captain's list, UW also does quite a bit of hand drawing.

endooo/sdr-

or..I wouldnt be surprised if the professor meant exactly what endoo took it to mean. I have a sore spot for studio professors.

For me, sketching is a number of different things. Working on an early concept it could be about an internal dialogue, later I could be figuring out a parking configuration. In my sketchbook its about seeing. In presentation sketches, of course, its about communication.

An interesting part of my design process lately has been to scan in the sketch and manipulate it in photoshop and trace the print out. Ive found this to be a great way to get 'fresh eyes' on the design, sort of like flipping the paper. I dont know how you would do that with a computer, at least not with todays common tech.

old debate. not sure if there will be an answer until their is a real shift towards minority report style GUI.

for me i am happy in digital and with hand sketches in my sketchbook. my 3d work is with old software though. cinema 4d and formz, so i guess it is time to learn some more rhino and take the leap to the new frontier...or maybe not.

honestly, bad design looks like shit by hand just as much as it does with CG. there ain't no way to clean up the rubbish no matter the technical skill. usually when we look at portfolios (we get a few a week) we only keep the ones that have good work, i'd say about 1 in 20 of what we are sent, and of those maybe only 2 people a year we are really impressed by.


i seen good stuff with both mediums and feel the actual issue is the design sensibilities that are expressed. the rest, i frankly am not interested in worrying much over.

the only way it really matters is that i don't have time to do 3d modelling anymore and we wouldn't mind someone in the office who could manage that work as well as the presentation work. Apart from that, the person we really really are looking to hire (assuming the economy gets better) is someone who is creative, works like a madman, likes to laugh, and can take straight talk about design and turn a criticism from us into fantastic work. drawing skills are not part of the mix.

in the real world its people skills that matter. funny we almost never talk about that herein the land of archinect ;-)

'drawing skills are not part of the mix'

I know we get so long in our careers that we start believeing a lot of the stuff that we say, but really? Ok.

'in the real world its people skills that matter. funny we almost never talk about that herein the land of archinect ;-)'

Not to derail the good discussion, but doesn't it seem like nearly every other discussion on design and graphics (what I would consider the findamentals of architecure practice) seems to digress to one person or a group of people arguing about the validity of business, management, and so-called 'people skills in The Profession? Seems that way to me. How about people that can think critically and actually make stuff instead of pontificating? There are plenty of pontificators in architecture.

I think the point Jump's trying to get at is that whether you draw or use the computer, the quality of your thought and design shows through. I went to a school where I hand-drafted everything until the last studio, I don't think I'm a worse designer now because I can use a couple new computer programs, or because the scribbles in my notebook are less legible than they used to be.

Ultimately, the quality of the final design is absolutely based on people skills. Perhaps you haven't seen a client or developer rip a designer to shreds before, even though the design is pretty damn good. I get that its annoying when the conversation always turns to the people skills thing, but it's a huge part of how the project turns out.

To say that, because someone can't sketch, means they can't think, is somewhat strange to me. I agree with you that it's nice to see some hand sketches to show process. At the same time, most contemporary concepts are shown through diagrams. Why does it matter whether it's by hand or not? If you saw two sets of diagrams that showed the same thing, one hand-drawn and the other done in illustrator, would you say there's more thinking in the hand-drawn rendering?

I think the point Jump's trying to get at is that whether you draw or use the computer, the quality of your thought and design shows through. I went to a school where I hand-drafted everything until the last studio, I don't think I'm a worse designer now because I can use a couple new computer programs, or because the scribbles in my notebook are less legible than they used to be.

Ultimately, the quality of the final design is absolutely based on people skills. Perhaps you haven't seen a client or developer rip a designer to shreds before, even though the design is pretty damn good. I get that its annoying when the conversation always turns to the people skills thing, but it's a huge part of how the project turns out.

To say that, because someone can't sketch, means they can't think, is somewhat strange to me. I agree with you that it's nice to see some hand sketches to show process. At the same time, most contemporary concepts are shown through diagrams. Why does it matter whether it's by hand or not? If you saw two sets of diagrams that showed the same thing, one hand-drawn and the other done in illustrator, would you say there's more thinking in the hand-drawn rendering?

No.

I'm not saying people who cant sketch cant think.

I've seen and been one of those people 'ripped to shreds' over design work whether by my boss, another consultant, professor, or client. I get your point.

Would you say 'people skills' trumps drawing/graphic skill (not that this was part of the original query or anything)?

I get what you're all saying, but the term 'people skills' really makes me cringe for some reason, and to think that these 'people skills,' whatever they are are somehow more valued in a design office than fundamental architectural design skills is odd to me. Please refrain from reiterating the point though.

I appreciate the fact that people need to understand how to deal with criticism and communicate with clients, we all get that, but is it really THE most important thing? (I'm not directing the response at you specifically intheloop, just generally posing the question, nor was I passively criticizing your portfolio work in any way, by the way).

I've noticed that at all the firms I have worked in, the people who have a talented "hand"/sketch very well, tend to OVERTHINK issues; the Keep it Simple Stupid method is hard for them to grasp. However, they are the ones who are given a lot of SD, DD work. They know cad, revit, like others, but are a bit more artistic...or should I say, TOO ARTISTIC.
While people who know every little trick in CAD are drones. They're even more valuable than the sketchers because they crank out production and lots of it. They get DD, but mostly CD and back end stuff. They are stumped whenever they need to deal with the smallest of design issues.

In every firm I've worked for, corporate or small, and I've worked for 5 very different firms.....9-10 times, the sketchers are always laid off.

Can you give me their names? We'd like to interview them.

:)

lol captain a-hole. that sounds quite likely if not happy news.

larchinect, my point was trying to get at your question about what hiring managers are looking for. if you hadn't posed it i wouldn't have brought it up.

possibly i was unclear, but as someone who is running small office with a few other folks in tokyo we are keeping our eyes out for someone with gumption and critical thinking. computer skills and drawing by hand i really don't care about. we have been looking for someone like that for a couple years now, not actively, but like i said we get portfolios pretty regularly, all unsolicited and while there have been some near misses, we are still waiting to be bowled over.

people skills are absolutely the center of it all. if i am going to put someone in front of a client i want to know they are not going to cause an argument. ok, that isn't fair cuz i talk to the client most times, but dealing with the contractors is definitely a job i need staff to be ready for. cad monkeys are not of much use to me if that is ALL that they are.

we are small firm, so this is not standard but the kind of person i am interested in is someone who can work with my partner and i to make a design that kicks ass and that neither my partner nor i could have done on our own. that is to me the point of having staff,to make the team more than we were before everyone joined together. otherwise why bother?

if we win a large commission probably i would want a packet of drones and a manager to go with them, but in general the same criteria would apply, even then. design is a process and every person puts a mark on the job at hand. having good drawing skills might be useful but such things are not a deal breaker in my mind.


as a final thought, directed at captain a-hole. i am one of those creative types who thinks a lot (i have a ridiculous amount of education), and i run my own office. i think it is the creatives who lead, as long as we are able to talk to people too. i am also, not in any way by accident, a good hand at the details. that has come from experience in good offices and a willingness to ask questions continuously. creativity has never stopped me from learning how to put together a good detail nor a good construction set. opposite is true to be honest.

Agreed jump. I have never understood why so many people think that creativity and the craft of putting together a building (or CD set), or running a business for that matter, are mutually exclusive.

My first built project was drawn entirely by hand, working drawings, permit drawings too. That was my summer internship with the civil engineer. Then I went to work for an architect and where we used CAD and along with learning CAD, I learned how overly cumbersome and time consuming it was to do the same thing on a computer with software. I am so thankful for that first internship.

The working drawings of that first building I did by hand are nothing to oooh and aaah over like the renderings I would do later for the architects, but they did the job with less effort, time and energy.

Ok, jump. I think you phrased it better the second time and I generally agree. Still, there is a misunderstanding of the statement I think on both sides of the issue---people with cad and management skills, for instance, are interpreting what you're saying as 'we all need to be MBA types,' while some of us 'artistic' people are probably interpreting that differently.

Regardless, as I was reading cpn a-holes reply I was clearly categorizing myself in the former category as well. I like to think I am well-rounded, but my boss openly complains frequesntly that I 'overthink' things---which is completely subjective and may hae as much to do with the type of projects and budgets we're working with as much as my tendency to (over) think.

Let's face it, there are people in this profession who just dont like to think about design also, we all balance each other out.

I like how you reiterated your point the second time when you said, 'people skills' are what brings it all together or something to that affect. I still just cringe at the term 'people skills' here, but I get what youre saying. I'd rather hear a more generic term like 'lif experience' which is what I think you're really looking for. SOmeone that has taken knocks and learned things like problem solving, communication (verbal and non), and coping with disaster is more likely in my opinion to get along with contractors and help a project run smoothly.

Personally, I would consider myself a good designer with ok 'people skills.' But I have that tendency that I think a lot of criticial thinkers have which is that I can be pretty antagonistic at times--I'm learning how to curb this in different situations and utilize it in others--again, in my opinion it's life experience and no one is necessarily born with it.

Bringing this all back to the original topic, I thinkthe amount and value of drawing a person shows in their portfoliocould be indicative of their peronality--for better or worse. That said, would it be too much to assume that since there is a general lack of hand sketching and loose graphic ideation (ugh, I'm getting sucked in) then there may also be a fundamental shift in the professional culture AND craft?

hand drawing is not dead. remember my words.

Larchinect, people skills aren't the most important thing to me either. It's sad to see so much (really expensive) crap being built in the US because the designer had the ability to schmooze and find the clients to build their stuff. No one is saying that good design isn't important, just that you need to be able to talk to clients, who have trouble getting it, so that they know why it's good.

Likewise with contracters. If they like you and you communicate well, they'll be more willing to pass-up CO opportunities and put more care into what they're doing.

Looks like we all agree on this. I see your frustration with this point on this and other threads. Sometimes the terrible designs win out because of "people skills." It sucks, but we both know that's how life works sometimes.

For the longevity of the firm, quality design work is ultimately going to bring you the kind of clients you need to make even better work. It's just a matter of getting to that point.

On a side note, having seen a lot of CD sets from a lot of firms, I'd say you can actually tell a lot about the overall firm and design aesthetic by pouring through the set... What details are important, how organized they are, how they choose to graphically represent things. There are actually some pretty big differences and character in those "boring" construction doc sets.

The shift away from hand drawing happened years ago in large metropolitan areas like LA or NYC; you're expected to know the software. Hand drawings are still admired, but being able to hit the ground running with the programs is really important.

I always get this sense from people with really great hand drawing skills that its gotta be an all or nothing, "I hand draw or I don't" kinda thing. I'm not saying that's your attitude, but I still get that vibe when I talk to people from my school.

I've met a few really amazing entertainment industry folks who can out-draw the best of us, and then turn it around and blow you away with something in Maya. You mentioned that you like working your drawings over in photoshop, have you ever thought of getting a drawing tablet? With the right settings, it seems like you can blur the lines of digital and analog pretty well with those.

intheloop-

I have used a tablet for about five years.

I know what youre talking about with what I call 'concept design' in the enterntainment industry. I actually have a few DVD's of concept artists tutorials...Dylan Cole and the guy who did the concept art for Bladerunner, cant remember his name.


Good Points.

yeah dude, Sid Mead is the shit. I need to pick up a tablet and get with it I suppose.

Pitkin, H.F. The concept of representation. University of California Press. 1984

Feinstein, H. Meaning and visual metaphor. Studies in Art Education, 1982

Also.

Gell, A. Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford University Press. 1998

I work assisting an architect and we discuss quick ideas through sketches simply to get the point across. After that, we take 3d software and test out a couple of renders, and extract plans and sections and and crank out some diagrams for the reason that is much quicker and saves time which equals money.
A way of making a client or a team member feel involved in the process is to discuss ideas and sketch them at that specific moment.
The digital diagrams and renders are more of an advancement towards the concept which wows the client when he sees his dream a little more environmentally realistic than a simple or complex drawing, we can simply crank a couple of quick views instead of having to draw various perspectives separately ( it takes time and $$$). He then can make some changes afterwards beginning from renders or the idea of the diagram.
Everyone appreciates a really nice drawing, but architecture has moved on because technology is available. I personally believe that not too far from now diagrams and renders are going to become less and less efficient as 3D visual projectors and animation is making way into the field and is much more efficient to describe the building and its behavior.
Its all software based now, its nice to draw but it will be better if you can produce and communicate ideas more timely efficient.
But all of this whole process begins by sketching

He who wields the pencil to sketch in an office makes the rules!

funny you say that stawbeary. my first project was all hand too. then we got cad and i been using computer ever since. I found cad much more efficient than hand drafting, especially when there are changes in the design. we did have beautiful drafting tables though. fantastic to use.

i dunno, we use whatever is required for a job and don't fuss overly much about how we get the ideas out. not sure about the point that people skills lead to rubbish building either. sounds strange to me, even if i do understand the sentiment.


not sure if it adds to discussion or not, but by chance we are building small house in tokyo right now and recent blog posts show a few sketches and diagrams of the work/process.

if you scroll down and also check out the next page there are renderings and a model as well. the blog is actually about the construction of the house, not the drawings that we used to start things off, but i was just thinking we really used all the tools available on the project, and perhaps explains why i am so indifferent to the discussion about sketching. the important thing is to design and build the house, or the school, or the tower, or whatever.

how it gets designed and built is important, but i don't really see that drawing skills matter so much once the building is up. A young trainee architect in the office made the physical model. But I made the diagrams and the sketches on the blog, and also did the renderings. I also did many of the working drawings. But when it comes down to it my portfolio is largely filled with photographs of built work, not renderings, and not working drawings. I do include sketches and diagrams too, but the final judgement is in the built work, isn't it?

anyway, for me the real skill of an architect is to take all the possible tools and apply them as he or she requires to get a project built. that is the talent i would be looking for if we were hiring, nothing explicit like drawing skillls or cad experience. those are just pointers towards something bigger...

The point isn't that being a great communicator = having poorly designed buildings, but more that those skills aren't inclusive of each other. There are some great designers that can't get their point across clearly and some poor designers that excel pushing things through, and most people fall somewhere in the middle. I think you've written on other forums about Tokyo being saturated by non-arch. trained designers that often aren't very "good." I assume many of them can land clients through connections, low fees, and persuasiveness, rather than having a killer design, although I'm sure there are exceptions.

I think what we could take from your blog posting (fascinating to see how the bldg is going together, btw) is how the different processes show different aspects of the process. The plaster model seems to accentuate the mass of the structure, you think of it all as one piece and you've carved these spaces out, it really seems to float above the site; the diagrams are more dynamic and show how the building is working programmatically, how you thought about views and use and site in the finished product. The sketches show your process, i.e. you had the colonnade and it went away from one sketch to the next.

I was talking to a friend the other day about the use of renderings/drawings in architecture and he's of the same opinion, as I think you are, about the finished product being the most important thing in architectural practice. Basically, just do what it takes to get the job done in a satisfying way. I generally agree, but I do think there's something to be said about paper architecture as well.

I'm reading that feature on the drawings of Denari. For guys like him, or Rossi, or Hadid, the drawings form this really crucial component of their practice and shape how other people see their work.

Like you said Jump, this is an old debate. I do think there's something to be said about the importance of images, diagrams, models in architecture though, in that they often disseminate the idea of a building just as effectively as the finished product (to many people) and there's some importance and beauty in that, as well. More people are going to see the images than they are the actual building.

it seems that the main difference between drawings in the architectural world and drawings in the art world is the simple fact that architectural drawings exist purely for the purpose of promoting an architectural idea - a means to an end - which inevitably itself becomes the artwork (the architectural piece itself) if it is realized, whereas in the art world the image itself the end unto itself. it strikes me that in this way, drawing in the profession of architecture isn't usually really art.

i think in general, architectural drawings aren't that interesting because they are so hollow in this way. they don't convey a message of any sort except what something else is supposed to look like. to think about our drawings as real pieces of art rather than just a kind of utilitarian communicative tool means that we are more likely to experiment with different media to explore and explain our concepts. i would posit that the reason digital artwork has become almost ubiquitous in the world of architecture is a little sleazy in that it is purely a business related reason.

it is mentioned above that digital renderings can look real, regardless of whether or not they are, and they are often faster, if you think about tools like revit and sketch up. i would argue that architects who meditate more deeply on their concepts might be more likely to use a wider range of media in their work. this doesn't make hand drawing a more relevant way of working, but it does make it an equally relevant way of working.

while i would certainly agree that in architecture it is the final product that is the most important, i still think this only applies to built work. in competition work, or in other projects that aren't realized, if we as architects only think about the final product, that concept that exists only in our minds - what i would call the most important 1% of any project - is lost forever.

Ultimately what is presented to others regardless of the medium, will either work or it won't. To whine, (for the sake of argument), about hand-drawing dying, and taking process and thought with it, seems to imply that computer modeling and rendering lacks such attributes. Really? What is process? A hypothesis? Iterations? For anyone that has fired up 3DSMax, what could possibly be more iterative than creating a PRESENTABLE image in that or nearly any other software?

i don't think there's any whining in what i just posted. my point is just that architects who hold a high importance to the conceptual will probably utilize whatever medium gets their point across best, be it hand drawing, digital rendering, modeling clay, collage, whatever, whereas architects who just think about their work as a product to be sold will reach for 3dsmax every time.

SDR

It was the content that was criticized, but partly due to my lack of a "consistent sketching style" as I'm constantly told. I interpret that to mean, basically, that I can't sketch for beans.

bossman, why is it then that so many of my profs seem to despise anything outside of hand sketching when it comes to process work? I tend to work a lot on the computer for my process; I usually just create a large artboard and sketch/vector/copy and paste whatever I need onto the board, yet many of my profs will refuse to look at anything on my laptop. Am I missing something by opting to hand sketch less?