In between working on other projects I have started playing around with drawing. These are a collection of three drawings all taken from the same subject. I had placed a pashmina at the side of my desk and took out a piece of paper every time I needed a break. The first is done in pen, the second in conte and the third is ink and brush. The ink is not something I normally do, but thought I might expand out of my comfort zone. There is a definite difference in competence and quality from the first two to the third. But, in the end, it is an experiment.
These are a few trial images in a sequence I was thinking about. It lacks something I am am trying to come up with a better way to go about it. But actually tracking the movements that go along with a drawing is quite interesting. These look a bit too fake. I had to cut out the shadows which makes the whole thing look created, when it is really just a layering of images.
Here is the first attempt at photographing the Act of Drawing. I started with the simplest element of drawing, the line. Obviously there is the "point", which is even simpler but no one is interested in seeing a point being drawn. The line is the simple element of drawing that involves motion.
These are really just testing out the apparatus for documentation. It still needs some work (ie better lighting, subject, etc) but it is going somewhere.
The next step in my thesis is going to be documenting the act of drawing it self. A record of the moments, thought and time that go into creating an image. I need to develop a system or machine in order to do this. Below are the first conceptual sketches:
A quote that I think is quite relevant to the new endeavor of thinking about and recording the act of drawing:
"All drawn lines have a speed that can be deduced: they have a beginning and an end, and therefore represent time, as well as space. Even a tracing of a photograph contains more 'time' than the original photograph (which represents just a fraction of a second) because the hand takes time to do it." - David Hockney
The following are sketches based on exercises that the first year class are doing in Arch 110. I am helping out and participating in the class and these are the most current. Each student was given the opportunity to select a gourd and then the drawing began:
Draw a circle on your page. Now, turn that circle into the gourd that you selected.
Imagine a larger circle. A circle that surrounds your page. Now, turn that circle into the gourd that you selected. The stepping up of scale made you focus on a different level of detail, and as a result, a different set of lines. You can see a similarity but the shift is evident.
A few gourds fell and were broken so I changed the subject of the sketches but continued with the same exercise.
With this change of scale, more of shift can be seem than in the previous gourd.
The final one from this series was an investigation of my own. I was interested in the interior of the gourd and what make the ridges so pronounced on some. We cut one open to see what was going on. I drew the plan and elevation as a study of that.
I was away in Washington D.C for a few days and did some sketching. Also, I am going to be experimenting with some different scanning techniques over the next little while and would welcome the feedback.
According to Maurice Merleau-Ponty, "The blind, says Descartes, “see with their hands.” The Cartesian concept of vision is modeled after the sense of touch.""For Descartes it is unarguably evident that one can paint only existing things, that their existence consists in being extended, and that design, or line drawing, aline makes painting possible by making the representation of extension possible. Thus painting is only an artifice which presents to our eyes a projection similar to that which the things themselves in ordinary perception would and do inscribe in our eyes. A painting makes us see in the same way in which we actually see the thing itself, even though the thing is absent. Especially it makes us see a space where there is none."
The Cartesian system may not lend itself to painting but it most definitely lends itself to architectural drawing. This is an area that needs more research before I can say more.
The act of drawing just as important as the end result. The evidence that the act occurred is, of course, the drawing itself. It is a remnant. Evidence that the act occurred.
But what is the “act”?
What occurs during the drawing process?
It is an exploration and a record at the same time.
Act: take steps, react, move, work, function, serve, have an impact on, action, feat, exploit, move, gesture, performance, undertaking, stunt, operation, achievement, accomplishment.
It is the movement of the body as the result of of the mind. The communication between what we see in our mind and the paper. The body, the hand, is the tool.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty agrees, "The painter “takes his body with him”, says Valéry. Indeed we cannot imagine how a mind could paint. It is by lending his body to the world that the artist changes the world into paintings. To understand these transubstantiations we must go back to the working, actual body – not the body as a chunk in space or bundle of functions but that body which is an intertwining of vision and movement."
The etymology of thesis topics came up in conversation the other day and I thought it might be interesting to investigate the matter a bit more fully.
From "An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" by Rev. Walter W. Skeat:
Draw - to pull along. Merely a variant of drag; the form draw dates from about A.D. 1200
Draft - the act of drawing, a draught. A corruption of draught, by the usual change of gh to f, as in laugh. See Draught.
So I went and looked up Draught:
Draught - Not found in Anglo-Saxon, evidently derived from Anglo-Saxon dragan, to draw, drag. In Dutch; dragt, a load, burden. From dragen, to carry. In Danish; dragt, a load. In Icelandic; dráttr, a pulling, a draught (of fishes) or draga, to draw.
Also draughts, a game in which alternate draughts, i.e. "moves", are made. Chaucer uses draughtes, in the sense of moves at the game of chess, in the Boke of the Duchess.
In order to continue with this drawing (fill in the rest of the space) I need to figure out where the light sources are. The bed was first drawn without consideration for the rest of the room. That was the point, if you go back and read the original post. Let the drawing dictate the space. With shadows already established in the bedding and as a result, the bed is dictating the light sources for the room. Below is my way of figuring out those sources.
Here are two more sketches from the sketching class. No real theme here, just some interesting examples of different types of subjects.
The first is a sandcastle that Hugh Thompson had built previously. I tried something a little different with this one. More just a recording of shadows. Differing depths of shadow generating the form. There were very few (read "one") materials to render so it fell on a different technique to get it across.
The second is just another house from the west side of Cambridge.
Another from the sketching class. I am actually quite proud of this one. To me, it is the most successful to date. The perspective is correct. It is set nicely in the landscape around it. There is sufficient detail to understand most of the materials and elements.
From a previous post, you can see how Hockney, with a few lines and gestures, can create a compelling sketch of another person. I had tried to do something similar with the 25 Second Sketches. I was a little bored one day during sketching class. Maybe "bored" isn't the right word; distracted may be better. I was distracted one day and thinking about the Hockney sketches that I had been looking at. I was a little envious of the ease by which he seems to be able to sketch people. As a result, I thought maybe, instead of just trying it with buildings, I should see what I could do with people. Below are 3 sketches of people who were around me (and unaware that I was sketching them).
These are the second grouping of sketches from the "25 second" idea. They are drawn under the same guidelines are the previous set so I won't go into the explanation again. As per many peoples comments, these are posted in chronological order. Starting from the bottom of the set, up.
There is, however, one change to criteria for this set. From now on, all of these sketches will be done with one line. The lifting of the pen was always a moment of indecision; a pause in the process. This allows the mind to better filter to the hand.
These are the second grouping of sketches from the "25 second" idea.
I had been thinking about this project recently, after looking into the sketches of Hockney (there is an image in an earlier post). His sketches of people seemed so loose and off-hand, yet they still carried a definite impression of the subject. I started doing the same thing with people around me; really quick, free-form images. Normally without their knowledge, I would take 30 seconds and quickly sketch out what I was seeing. I will post some of those once I get that sketchbook back. Could the same thing be done with buildings? I didn't see why not.
Staying within the confines of previously used numbers, I would give myself 25 seconds to sketch out a building. To see what was recorded, what were the major elements were and what the eye immediately identified. It is very much about the connection between the eye, the mind and the hand. How fast can you process certain information and then record or translate (transcribe might be a better word).
This is the first collection to date; House - Cambridge. I hope to come up with a better name than that, but that is what it is called for now.
The question was posed at my last thesis meeting, how would you advertise your thesis in the real world. After thinking about it for quite a while, I boiled my thesis down to very simple terms. On the base level, my thesis is a guide on how to draw architecture. From that I went looking around for advertisements that were along those lines, and I found this:
I thought it was a great example of the ads that used to be in the back of comic books and other, similar publications.
More of the vintage ads here: http://www.drawger.com/loubrooks/?section=gallery&gallery_id=564&
Here is the last of the sketches from previous weeks. What I will be posting from now on will be one sketch a week as I do them. This sketch is from Langdon Hall in Cambridge, Ontario. I decided to take the view from further away, to allow me to include more of the surrounding area. To set the scene, as it were. Also, the longer distance gave me the opportunity to skip over a lot of the finer detail. In my opinion, this is the first successful "sketch" that I have completed for this class. I must remember, in the future, to scale the sketch appropriately to the subject being drawn as well as the medium that I am using. With the fountain pen that I have been using, this seems to be the way to do it. I may try to use the ball-point pen that the professor has been promoting. Which, I have a feeling, will take time to get used to.
This is the next sketch from Cruickston Park. As you can see, there is more progress made on level of detail and, as a result, the number of lines. I chose something on a smaller scale and left much of the detail to the imagination. I hinted at grass around the paving stones with a few simple lines. The bricks that make up the wall gestural, but the viewer understands what is going on.
This sketch seems to have fallen apart when I tried to fill in the background. With so many objects and the field of depth, I tried to include as much as I could to fill in the scene. I am beginning to wonder if my choice of viewing position is having an effect on the level of detail I think is required. When picking a scene to draw, I need to be more careful with what I am including. Currently, I am including everything I see, which has been my problem. I don't need to include every detail of what is in front of me, only the important portions. I can hint at what else is there, but I don't need to draw every line to get that across. Enough to give the impression of what I am sketching.
I have been have a conversation with various people about the sketches. What makes sketch, what make a successful one, etc. In this conversation the topic of lines came up. The amount of lines used seem to be a deciding factor in the idea of a sketch. Accomplishing a drawing with minimal lines. Conveying enough information to get the subject across with turning it into a drawing. I went and looked at a few artists sketchbooks as a result. I have four more coming into the library in a few days, but I thought I would start with David Hockney, who was suggested to me as an example of the minimal sketch.
The above sketch is entitled "Celia Sleeping" from 1972. The simplicity of the sketch amazes me. From the expression on the woman's face to the bedding hanging off the bed, Hockney has managed to capture an entire scene with only a few well placed lines.
Below is the next sketch I had completed from my sketching class. I will be posting all my sketches as they are finished, but over the next few days I will be posting all the ones to date.
As you can see, there is a difference in the line content and amount of detail included. I feel like I am starting to get a handle on that aspect. There is still a ways to go yet. I find it difficult to exclude much of the detail that I can see. I normally end up doing portions of a building or the entire building from much farther away. Just so I can omit details in good conscience. I need to learn to pick what is important and only draw those lines.
Here is the first sketch from the class I mentioned in the last post. This, to me, is more of a drawing then a sketch. There is a difference between the two, but I am not looking for definitions of each. Just acknowledge that there is a difference and to figure out the uses and advantages of each.
This sketch borders on a drawing. The level of detail and amount of work put into it pushes it beyond sketch. A sketch should be simple. It is meant to concisely convey some aspect of the subject. That aspect is why you decided to sketch it in the first place. You saw something you wanted to record. Whether it be a detail you want to remember, a scene that caught your eye or just the fact that you were there. I will be writing about the sketching more in the coming weeks and posting one of the sketches I do from every class.
Yesterday was the first day of the sketching course that I am taking and the Professor, Hugh Thompson, said something that I had been thinking about for a while. We were discussing sketching building in some sort of landscape and two people came up; Bonington and Railton, both of who are accomplished Draughtsmen and artists.
While looking at some of their work, Hugh mentioned the preference for lowering the horizon to bring the view point more of a human scale. It is that which started me thinking. When creating a perspective, be it a sketch or a finished drawing, from where should it be taken? I understand the decision to create sketches from a human position, it makes sense. You draw what you see before you. It makes the drawing more believable to the human eye. This seems to hold true to what I have observed in previous drawings. Viewing the building so that there is some relationship between what is being viewed and what the viewer can relate to, the objects they see on a daily basis. It lends familiarity to the subject being drawn, and as a result, the drawer can be less accurate or less realistic in the actual representation. The drawing can be simpler if the viewer is presented with spacial relationships they already unsterstand. Of course that doesn't mean that you shouldn't add the detail or make it less realistic. It just means that when creating a drawing, use how people understand space and buildings to your advantage.
Something that I have been thinking about recently has been the actual medium that I am using and will be using in the future. Most of this is due to the fact that I will be doing quite a bit of drawing/rendering in the coming months and I am comfortable with certain set of tools. They are what I know, what I understand and what I have some competence with. This has lead me to wondering about the different groups of tools.
The first grouping is the pencil and ink group. When I say ink, I include pens and computer plotting. They achieve the same thing, in the same manner. The only difference is that a computer is controlling one of them. These seem the core of architectural drawing. They are what people learn first and what is produced most often in firms. I suppose that is due to the speed of which drawings can be completed. They are the most efficient but they are also the simplest. That is not to demean them, just a analysis of their characteristic. The pencil and ink create Line drawings, most often. They are simple. Line after line, defining space, conveying the base information for a set of drawings. The construction set; meant to convey information in a simple manner, straightforward and concise.
As an extension of this, the pencil and ink can be used to render the drawings. Adding texture and shadows. Giving a bit more meaning and information to the drawings. They create a character for the building that is being drawn. Give it a bit more depth, literally and figuratively. These drawings are usually black and white, the medium I seem to be using the most often.
The next grouping is the watercolour, markers, painted. In essence, it is the addition of colour to the previous group. They become more literal. Convey more information again. The viewer no longer needs to imagine what colour fills the room. It is laid out in front of them. But even these can be ambiguous in some regards. It isn't a photograph, it is still and interpretation of what may be.
The final group that I have identified is that of the photorealistic drawings. This mainly consists of the computer rendering. Normally, these drawings don't leave much for the viewer to invent in their imagination. It is exactly as the building will be. Material, colours, and scale.
All of these still leave a lot of the image up to the artist creating them, but the further along the groupings go, the less is left to the imagination of the viewer. Something can be said for allowing the that person to fill in what ever they see fit. It can allow for some ambiguity in the design, which can be useful. The tools can determine what type of drawing is being created, and vice versa. It comes down to the intent of the drawing to figure out which of them fits best.
This is a scan of the drawing I am currently working on. Looking back at 3x3x3, it was said that the bed was the most successful element of that drawing. This new drawing is building on that success. Staring with the same bed, let the drawing generate the design. No orthographics, just rendering. It is a reversal of the standard way that architects work. This drawing is the work in progress. I thought documenting how the design grows and develops would be a useful exercise.
There are so many things happening in the folds of the fabric. The way the lights hits the fabric creates the deep shadows and causes the gradients to spread outward across the bed. From this, other ideas have begun to develop about the design of the rest of the room. The chaos of the bed makes me want to have a more regular pattern to the floor. Something more linear; Wooden floor boards, crossing under the bed horizontally. They will also need to be darker than the sheets. The sheets are very faint while being surrounded by white, but with something darker butting up against it, they will be easily distinguishable.
Below are the songs that I have chosen for the soundtrack for my thesis. Some of them are easy to identify as related, and others are a bit more difficult:
Working Full-Time - The Constantines Here I Dreamt I was an Architect - The Decemberists My Mind is Ramblin' - The Black Keys Draw Us Lines - The Constantines Photocopier - Fujiya & Miyagi Making Plans for Nigel - Nouvelle Vague Lines in the Suit - Spoon A Strange Arrangement of Colour - I Am Kloot We Will Become Silhouettes - Postal Service Same Old Thing - Black Keys
I would be open to suggestions for other songs or if anyone just wants to comment on what is already here.
I found this t-shirt at Threadless.com and wanted to share it. It isn't something that will go into my thesis but I found it interesting non the less. I had never thought of drafting tools in this way before.
I made an observation yesterday in my daybook, while I was working on the next drawing. There is a definite difference in the creation of space (on paper) between Line drawings and Rendering. The lines of an orthographic drawing define the space, interior and exterior, with a single stroke. The line divides one area of the page from another, just as a wall would do in the built world. It is a straightforward way to create the spaces that the designer is looking for.
With a rendering, however, it is more complicated. You can't create that boundary in the same way. Rendering is the illustration of how light interacts with the different components in a design. (ie. walls, windows, furniture, etc). Instead of giving a bounding line, rendering needs to fill the space with light and shadows to give it definition.
"I wonder, and have for some time now, where is the best place to take a perspective from? Eye height seems to make the most sense, but it doesn't always show the building as I would like it to. Maybe more from above...
...I close my eyes and try and picture the perspective in my mind.
I just went and scanned through some collections of architectural drawings in the library. All were different in regards to the viewing angle, but this does lead me to an answer of sorts: My perspective has to demonstrate something that the other drawings don't. In this project, I am trying to gain additional "dwelling" space. Therefore, my perspective should show that.
A lower angle, looking through the extended exterior space into the interior.
Also, picking a scene/scenery. It needs to have a location, so it doesn't sit all by itself in a blank field."
"I think I have figured out what the perspective is going to look like. It seems that setting up the fore, middle and back-ground gives the drawing depth and character.
The perspective is now roughed out in pencil. It looks okay, but there is something slightly off about it. I think the perspective of the background might be a bit wrong. I can't quite seem to figure it out."
I was unsatisfied by my last effort so I just went looking at some other help and resources.
I found this on the blog I just want to take pictures, linked below. http://ijustwanttotakepictures.blogspot.com/2009/03/formulating-abstract-some-advice.html
Questions to help formulate an abstract:
What am I doing?
Why am I doing it?
How am I doing it?
What do I hope to find?
What will the significance be?
What am I doing?
I am drawing architecture.
Why am I doing it?
I am looking for some connection between what and how we draw and the design. I am also looking to have a better understanding of what is the best way to go about drawing a project. In addition to these I want to be better at all aspects of architectural drawing. So, I guess I am looking to answer some of the questions I have in this regard to make me a better architect. I feel that, depending on the circumstances, an architect should be able to decide on what type of drawing would be best suited and how to best accomplish it. In some firms there was something missing in the drawings that were issued. An unexplainable lack of certain elements. Be it detail, information, clarity or beauty. All which are elements that are essential to an architects drawings, in my opinion. The drawings are the product that architects actually create, not buildings. They are made by the contractors and construction workers.
How am I doing it?
Through various drawing exercises, I am exploring the different aspects of architectural drawings. By drawing different building types, with different media, for a variety of purposes.
What do I hope to find?
I hope to find some connection between what we do and how we do it. I am also looking to gain enough experience to have some sort of guidelines for projects in the future. If a project comes up at an office, I have some experience on which to base decisions on how to best represent the project.
What will the significance be?
This is a question I have been asked for a while. Significance for whom? The significance for me is the exploration of something I feel strongly about. Becoming better at something architects are required to do every day, as explained in the preceding paragraphs. The significance for Architecture as a profession? I really don't know.
I think all of these can be expanded on and developed, but I think it is a good start for my abstract.
With people constantly asking "What is your thesis about?" it becomes habit to say the same thing over and over even if your thesis has changed since you wrote it down last. I thought I would take a new attempt at writing what will become the abstract for my thesis. I am going to start a bit slow and start with a few sentences that continually come forth when I am explaining what I am doing:
This thesis is an investigation into the relationship between Architecture and the Drawings that Architects produce. Architects trade in images, they are the language with which we communicate. An understanding of that language is essential to the architectural process. Through a series of drawings, this thesis will gain a better understanding of architecture and the relationship that exists between the two.
I guess without knowing what the relationship is it is hard to write about. But that is what the thesis is all about.
Exercise Synopsis: for a "Dwelling" measuring 3m x 3m x 3m, complete enough drawings to sufficiently describe the building. Two restrictions: only 1 sheet of paper, and I must draw for 25 hours total. If the drawings are "finished", I must keep drawing up to the 25 hr mark.
This is the result. An ink orthographic with pencil renders. The design was up to me and was completed quickly. That was not what the exercise was about. This is the first in a series. There will eventually be 3 total. All will be dwellings of some type, but they increase in scale: 8 x 8 x 8 and 24 x 24 x 24.
I think the increasing scale done on the same size sheet of paper is an interesting investigation into the effects that the drawing surface (or the constraints there of) will have on the drawing.
Because of the scale of this people, being 1:20, a fair amount of detail needed to be added so that the drawings didn't look empty. With it being a dwelling, I thought that some illustration of inhabitation should be added. I started with the bed; ruffled sheets, duvet tossed aside. These things added the feeling that someone was/could actually live in this space. This, to me, is the most successful part of the drawing. As I continued on, I made mistakes, fixed them, made new ones, etc. It was a very interesting process, being forced to continue drawing even if I thought it was done. I thought that I either needed another day of drawing, or 4 hours less.
With the bed being the most successful portion, a new sub-project has arisen. On a new sheet of paper, start with the same bed. Draw the way the light plays across the bedding, and begin to spread outward, letting the drawing (the light and shadow) determine the room. It was almost working backwards. Letting the drawings generate the design. It should be and interesting project.
Throughout the drawing process I am keeping a journal of the thoughts, revelations and questions that occur to me as I work my way through each drawing. I may be posting some of these pages with the drawings in the future.
I am having a few problems uploading my first drawing exercise. So, for now, here is an image I had done early in process that I still think represents one of the main ideas of my thesis. Every building was first a drawing. Behind all the design decisions, dimensions and materials; there was drawing or sketch that translated the ideas in an architects head for others to see and understand.
The sketches are my own. The photograph is not. I have apparently lost the source, so I apologize to whoever did take it and I thank you.
Below is a list of most of the books that I have been reading. It is here as a primer for those reading the subsequent posts. To give you an idea of where some of the ideas and concepts are coming from.
BENTON, TIM. The Villas of Le Corbusier : 1920-1930. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1987.
Proved useful for developing the concepts from which I derived an early project. Looks at buildings specifically through some of the images to find similarities between projects and drawings.
BLAKE, VERNON. The Art and Craft of Drawing; a Study Both of the Practice of Drawing and of Its Aesthetic Theory As Understood Among Different Peoples and at Different Epochs; Especial Reference Being Made to the Construction of the Human Form from the Practical Draughtsman's Point of View, New York, Hacker Art Books, 1971. New York, Hacker Art Books, 1971.
Looks at how the practice of drawing and the theory behind it changes among different people and through different art styles. It differs in the fact that it address Architecture in a very minimal fashion. Some of what is discussed can be applied to what I am doing.
BLAU, EVE. Architecture and Its Image : Four Centuries of Architectural Representation : Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Montreal: Distributed by the MIT Press, 1989.
Architecture and it’s Image begins as a collection of architectural drawings. It proposes that architectural drawings can be organized into sets and certain characteristics are indicative for each set. Beyond the planning set or construction set, this book organizes drawings into sets such as theatre and performance, architectural publications and exhibitions. They all relate to each other. Drawings are meant to be viewed individually. In such a way, this book provides and insight into the nature of architectural representation. “Drawings are projections through which architects visualize, test an order imagined relationships.”
BONTA, JUAN. An Anatomy of Architectural Interpretation : a Semiotic Review of the Criticism of Mies Van Der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1975.
A useful book. Initially taken out for use on the Project for M1. Looks at a building as a culmination of the articles published about it. A good starting point for looking at a building in the same manner but through the images that are published. The images can become the building to those who can go and see it in person for whatever reason.
DONDIS, DONIS. A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press : Cambridge,
This book is a primer designed to teach students the interconnected arts of visual communication. The subject is presented, not as a foreign language, but as a native one that the student "knows" but cannot yet "read." Deals with the concept of visual literacy which seems to be becoming a phrase that I will be using often.
EVANS, ROBIN. The Projective Cast : Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1995.
The Projective Cast by Robin Evans is a study in Architectural theory and representation in regards to geometry and composition. In addition, Evans writes about the problems facing architects and architecture with discussions on the meaning of space, imagination and perception. It is the latter which is of the most interest to topic of research but the other areas presented may hold other insights which could prove useful as well. How we percieve and interact with spaces and to best use them can be applied directly to my thesis because they are discussed in the terms of geometry and represented though architectural drawings. This book is a comprehensive look at architectural drawing before the computer.
GEBHARD, DAVID. 200 Years of American Architectural Drawing. New York: Whitney Library of Design for the Architectural League of New York and the American Federation of Arts, 1977.
Another straight forward text. It is a historical record of the progression of architectural drawing with specific focus on North America starting in 1700.
GOMEZ, ALBERTO. Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1997.
It examines texts, concentrating on the relationship between drawing and architectural space in the period from the seventh to the twentieth century. To understand and evaluate the place of vision in the Western architectural tradition, the book includes a general introduction to optics in antiquity and the Middle Ages and addresses the question of the evolution of linear perspective.
GRAVES, BRIAN. Michael Graves : Images of a Grand Tour. New York Princeton Architectural Press 2005: New York Princeton Architectural Press 2005.
Similar to the Corbusier sketchbooks, it documents the sketches of Graves while he was on the “grand tour”. Useful for the same reasons as the Corb. To follow ideas and concepts through from the sketching stage and try and find a correlation between the image and the idea. Also, contains a printing of Graves' article “The Necessity for Drawing” which may be a very useful text. Addresses the problem of architectural drawing.
GREENE, HERB. Mind & Image : an Essay on Art & Architecture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1976.
Looks to be a very influential book on my thesis. I deals specifically with the relationship between the Image and the mind. Talks about the Image as a symbol and the various meanings that can have. Haven't read to far into it yet, but what I have read has been directly applicable to what I have been discussing.
GUSSOW, SUE FERGUSON. Architects Draw Freehand Fundamentals (Architectural Briefs). New York: Princeton Architectural P, 2008.
Architects Draw offers a very practical way for Architects and other sketchers to translate what they see onto the page, not as an imitation of reality, but as a blending of voids and solids, light and shadows, lines and shapes.
HEJDUK, JOHN. Education of an Architect. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.
This book is a collection of student projects from the Cooper Union school. It is useful to be able to see how different people respond to the same design criteria and what sort of images are produced for that falls into how different people see the same thing. In this case it is an abstract idea which is the described through images.
KEPES, GYORGY, ed. Sign Symbol Image. New York: George Braziller, Inc, 1966.
A collection of essays from a variety of disciplines which will help me define the concepts of symbol and image. Find the differences between them and also deals with how people respond to the various types of images that we live with on a daily basis.
LEBORG, CHRISTIAN. Visual Grammar. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.
This book is dealing with every imaginable visual concept - from abstractions such as dimension, format, and volume; to concrete objects such as form, size, color, and saturation; to activities such as repetition, mirroring, movement, and displacement; to relations such as symmetry, balance, diffusion, direction, and variation. It also deals with the modern problem of designing with the computer.
Cinemetrics deals with the concept of the architectural image in the 21st century. The traditional 2D, paper based image that normally accompanies architecture is said to be obsolete. This book proposes a new way in which architecture can be presented. Combining new technologies, a new drawing system is introduced. Using film specifically, the authors believe that a new interaction can occure between the the viewer and the image itself. Movement and interactivity become the new line weights. They propose going beyond the two dimensions that have become the standard for the architectural image
MIDDLETON, ROBIN. Robin Evans : Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. London: Architectural Association, 1997.
An interesting collection of essays. The most relevant of those being “Translation from Drawing to Building”. Discusses ways in which ideas get transfered from the darwing surface to an actual construction. Ann Bordele has borrowed it for her class next term. Would like to discuss it with her when we both get a chance.
NELSON, GEORGE. How to See : a Guide to Reading Our Man-made Environment. Oakland, CA: Design Within Reach, 2003.
This is a very interesting book. It is not simply about how to appreciate things visually. It is a book about how to recognise and evaluate the things that surround us and how to “decode” their meaning from visual information. Nelson is a famous furniture designer and photographer. It boils down to how to see the world from a designers perspective.
POYNOR, RICK. Obey the Giant : Life in the Image World. London: Birkhauser, 2001.
A look at the culture of the image in everyday life. How we as people are flooded with images everyday and a lot of the time don't even realise what we are looking at. Has some interesting insights, but it does tend to be a bit on the overly dramatic side.
ROBBINS, EDWARD. Why Architects Draw. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1994.
Another interesting book. It is a collection of interviews with architects from some prestigious offices about how each office, and architect, tends to address the issue of drawing and images. Some of the interviews are very good and have lead to some other lines of investigation, while others are sometimes dull. Yet, gives a good idea of the breath of the attitudes towards the topic in Architecture culture.
SWEENEY, JAMES JOHNSON. Vision and Image: A Way of Seeing. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.
Discusses the Image as a means of communication. This book deals with this concept mainly through the examples of fine art, museums and the media. It is a bit dated but still addresses a lot of interesting topics.
That list was a lot longer than I thought it was. I will admit right now that I have not completed the reading of these books. They are on the list because they are related in some way to the my topic.