The most momentous and significant features of the avant-garde in architectural science are practical representation and proliferation of paper design into the actual object. Over the last decade, architectures of different orientations have represented interesting combinations between pictures and objects comprehensively drawn in a blueprint. This argumentative research paper attempts to explore the significance of drawing in the field of architecture in the periods from the ancient era to the present times. Besides, the treatise concentrates on the arguments of Evans on Revit. In addition, the essay is keen on how a graphic presentation is essential in transforming a drawing into a building and what modern architectures are losing by adopting the Revit technique.
Architectural transformation emphasizes translating a drawing idea into a physical structure. Despite the varying opinions over time, technological push and functionalism remain almost the same (Brown 123). Spectacular designs have been embodied in sharp and spectacular blueprint drawings, paintings, and pectoral cuttings as a result of Revit technique. Interestingly, the idiosyncrasies surrounding these pieces of art often make it an uphill task in architectural description (PĂ©rez-GĂłmez 311). Thus, this has led to much architecture to question relevance, association, and the link between drawing and actual building. By description, drawing is essential in literal architectural essence. Drawing presents the meditation, future vision, medium, and architectural bear (Byron 124). Moreover, it builds auxiliary which constructs design dominion (Evans 31). However, the drawing medium seems to be divorced from the future of architectural construction. It is therefore necessary to conceive visualization before embarking on creation. In my opinion, the art of building is a constituent of scientific architecture, but secondary in reality. Reflectively, drawings of architectural nature reveal stealth reality. In fact, this nature of visualization on paper is sufficient guidance for builders to practice potent and not latent conception (Cheng 145).
Robin’s conceptualization of drawing is particular, is distinct, and resonates generatively on translation without alteration. Evans asserts that drawing is the only unfailing communicant even in pretense of autonomy by architectures (Cheng 321). The only quantifiable variance would be the fact that endeavors are not a direct medium of operation for an architect. Out of this concept, two views emerge. The first would touch on the texture. The predicament is to ultimately relate a two-dimensional blueprint to an architectural inception to distinguish a mere art form construction (Etienne 231). As asserted bluntly by Robin Evans, architectures are mere drawers of blueprints from which actual buildings are derived. Thus, a systematic translation of a blueprint into a building may be challenging, especially under innovation as a condition. Architecture only constitutes drawing as the basis distinguishing physical art of building and drawing. Moreover, architecture discipline is clear on the facets of a representation of expertise visualization on the domain of what is projected to be the outside appearance of the actual construction process (Wojtowicz 88).
As seen in ancient Greek architecture, the initial effects coming out from a blueprint drawing were an increased standardization capacity, regulated reproduction, and precision, despite the complexities across the territories of Greek. On the other hand, Roman architecture completely benefited from this exposure and widened scopes to include by hinting a systematic capacity of invention exploitation afforded by the drawing medium of their time (Evans 156). Factually, a physical proliferation of the Roman typological architecture without drawing is inconceivable. From the era and stages of Renaissance to present that is from the metamorphosis of Mannerism to Baroque, drawing as a speculative moment for transformation, actually has been gathered mass and reinvented with the discovery of Revit, as opposed to what Evan thought would never be possible (Goodman 179).
The full and practical link between drawing and translation into building was only discovered in the early 1920s. As modernism surged upward, the potential and full power of blueprint drawing, as a vital and high economic mechanism for trial and error, facilitated the adoption of effortless series of invention planes (Smith 187). Basing arguments on this basis, it is to quantify the fact that architecture of the modern era is dependent upon visual arts revolution as a constituent of actual representation. This perception and universally accepted belief of modern abstract art have placed a highly integrated architecture into a legacy of total conquest of unimaginable constructive freedom that was common in the past decades. In the past era, hitherto art was only assumed and understood as a reiteration and mimesis of a subject of the argument and not an important element of complete comparison between a mere drawing and translation into a similar physical structure. According to the architecture ancient era, the basis of architectural operation only lay in representation and not creation (Evans 12). For instance, a canvas was often an easily being presented as the original construction field and planes (Wojtowicz 101).
A monumental and universally accepted breakthrough emerged with the identification of a link between pectoral representation and actual building. As a matter of fact, modern civilization demands experimental architecture. This form of architecture demanded that the drawing and actual structure be a blueprint-actualization process. Through the DeStijl movement group, this representation was made possible. My argument is based on the support of the fact that a drawing should be as practical and possible for direct translation into a visually admirable structure with deep architectural precision as represented in a planning blueprint. From the two-dimensional drawings, a physical structure with similar features should be the basis of the architectural design. Thus, the refusal to link the above elements to each other is only a spatial representation of architectural design and may limit the exploitation of full drawing mediums as part of invention medium (Wojtowicz 199).
On the basis of transformation, graphic maneuvers explicitly drawn by an expertise should gain freedom and fluidity to play indiscriminately irrespective of the complexities surrounding its design. Therefore, these graphics shouldn’t be determined, and set loose from the burden and assumption of preset meaning (Walter 432). From this point, the stage of proliferation and play should be immediately accompanied by informed and tenacious selection and interpretation of work at architectural design. If well augmented, this graphic can easily and consistently translate onto an actual building as visualized and predicted (Walter 67). However, this is not the case in all the projects. Some projects of architectural nature cannot be transformed into actual structures and only remain paper projects. The architecture which is restricted to drawing only allows for such occurrences. In fact, the whole idea of Robin Evans may not be practical in the modern architectural design and implementation. What is the way forward then?
The first move would be translating dynamism and fluidity calligraphic hand into fluid tectonic systems of similar and equal magnitude as situation may require, as done by Hadid (Walter 345). Besides, a calculated and timely move should accompany this in order to relocate from the usual perspective and isometric projection into a more defined exploded auxometry, as a means of avoiding literal space distortion. If professionally assembled, literal space explosion can be represented as fragments of fisheye perspectives of superimposition (Evans 15). Consequently, the meltdown and literal bending of these space components would reflect actuality (Palladino 128). Though this view may seem to be impractical and out of logic, surrealists have confirmed that it was achievable and was best among series of architectural models.
As new models of architectural representation drawings emerge, it is now clear that experimentation of transformability of a drawing into a building should be flexible, distinct, and possessive of content and form. Also, graphic manipulation requires a distinctive representation mode and not a mere object of representation as asserted by Robin Evans. In fact, his school of thought left the question of mode unanswered and unclear if it should count in architectural work. In addition, certain components such as bending, twisting, interpenetrating, and fragmenting were left in the dark and assumed to be inconsequential transformation orbits (Palladino 298). Wholesomely, this argument only presented a constricted fisheye and multi-view model based on a number of assumptions. Sadly, it neglected the reality that a series and chains of display graphics reveal a realizable feature of spatial momentum when systematically and slowly configured into a transformation project. Over time, the modern graphic projection and interpretation have disapproved Evan’s leftist argument by the discovery of the mode component as a transformation feature of any visual drawing for projects expected to transform into a final similar building.
The mode component of graphic design is a powerful compositional tool for articulating programs with rigid complexities. When included, movements along dynamic streams of a complex project are legible as fluidity regions of the transformation structure avoid trapezoidal distortions and immediately and thoroughly respond to any consequential non-orthogonal imbalance. From a functional point of focal view, controlled distortions allow for a reflective and perspective element orientation to operate within design logic. Besides, it ensures that over spilling outrageous logic violation becomes a strategic repertoire deployed to articulation and spatial nuance.
Painterly and pointillist techniques of modulating colors and dissolving objects, along with a natural background, are essential in the process of new design articulation, such as threshold morphing of field space as a constituent of graphic space (Simon 198). Different from the traditional and mindless texture graphic sketching, morphing integration separates different forms of texture and color as selected by the architecture. This dialectic and programmatic abstract machine engenders desired conditions and in the process inspires functionality and configuration. Thus, this radical detour succeeds in meeting its target of transformability.
To understand transformability of a drawing into a structure, it is only fair enough to consider relativity of articulated graphic design or picture (Evans 234). Based on an assumption that monstrous aberrations are part of the beautiful and higher graphic organization, relativity is a constituent of the formalism of typologies tested over time proliferation optimality. Each measure commences with a definite array of comparison options and arbitrary forms. This logic of interpretation is based on the fact that mutation is a result of innovation, reproduction, and selection (Mclehan 125). The drawing Hadid is a critical mutation engine to the architecture culture, especially the transformed two-dimensional medium expected to acquire a three-dimensional reality.
Being an active component of visual representation of the actual architecture, drawing is important in graphic connotation of architecture’s expression. It includes at large scale the art of line debarkation and out-of-line framing as the best strategy for comparing light and darkness through shading. Most architectural drawings are complete when inclusive of tonal and color variation to express the mode and forecasted outlook of the actual structure (Evans 154). Thus, discrete drawing is not only an active representation member, but also a strict definition of the metamorphosis of architectural science over the last jaunty years. In the words of a renowned architecture Albwerto Gomez, drawing is a privileged representation of an object before its actualization (Pérez-Gómez 124). Each drawing is very specific to the mood and visualization aim. Unfortunately, the modern architectural design has lost this component due to the inconsistencies of blueprint, presentation and different confusing jargon assumed to be the best tools of imagined transformation (Hays 234). Reflectively, there are numerous conflicting ways of representing a transformation model depending on the magnitude and actualization facets. Specifically, the world is just a coalition of experiences and preciosity in drawing and architectural construction. In fact, the imagined object, as desired by its creator, is more than what is taken as a pictorial detour (Wigley 279).
As related to the arguments of Robin Evans, architectural conceptualization operates best in the communicant elaboration and not perception (Evans 25). The subject of discussion in this case, which is drawing science, is vital in the description and determination of inner mode and texture (Hill 197). Reflectively, to perfect the art of transformational drawing, the architecture must actualize years of experience and creativity and not mere mediocre. As a matter of fact, this re-articulation may accelerate process recycling, especially when pictorial enrichment is the primary aim. To move a complex project from one level to another, the artist should be careful in looking for any compromising scenario. As technology constantly improves, familial and parallel mediums of representation should surround any analogous operation (Elderfield 235). For instance, a connection between a primary and a secondary medium may trigger convention anchoring. Comprehensive knowledge of a medium like painting presents a complete realm of color combination and layout. Understanding these color techniques may ease the usage and modification of brightness and saturation. Color theory as an image tool of drawing interpretation processing is essential in creating rhythm, connections, contrast, and drawing dynamics of transformation architecture.
In learning the major principles of architectural representation, critical thinking and informed argumentation composition influence the nature and base from which a transformational drawing can be derived. In my opinion, flexibility in thinking and ability to make quality and non-discriminative assumptions may facilitate mental organization. To deliver an idea in a blueprint, persuasive presentational augmentation emulates structural persuasion. From the point of view of a listener, a sketcher, and a builder, decency, and accuracy are universally embraced as the means of expressing polemical synchronic. Choice on the media and form depends on the artist’s own impression and preference. However, it is wrong to distance drawing from actual structure transformation. Modern architecture has lost this part of its own expression but rather depend on a machine to express their creativity.
Though Evans thought this transformation was impossible, in my opinion, this is an inverted assumption based on generalization. The intensive application of these techniques is what makes the difference in architectural drawing transformation projects. This transformation relies on specialty, environmental issues and desires of the immediate needs for the structure. Technology has made visualization and modal transformation much easier.
Works Cited
PĂ©rez-GĂłmez, Alberto. “Architecture as Drawing.” Journal of Architectural Education 36 (2): 1982. Print.
Brown, G. “Modes of Understanding” in G. Brown et al. (ed.), Language and Understanding. London: Oxford University Press. 1994. Print.
Byron, S., L. Goldstein, D. Murphy and E. Roberts. “Interdisciplinary Dimensions of Debate” in Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching. 16 (1993), ISSN 1015-2059. 1993. Print.
Cheng, N.Y. “Linking the Virtual to Reality: CAD & Physical Modeling” in M. Tan (ed.), CAAD Futures ’95, Singapore: National University of Singapore 1995. Print.
Cheng, N.Y., T. Kvan, and J. Wojtowicz. “Place, Time and the Virtual Design Studio” in D. Van Bakergem (ed.), Re-connecting, ACADIA ’94, St. Louis. 1994. Print.
Etienne, Louis. “Architecture, Essai SĂ»r L’art,” in BoullĂ©e & Visionary Architecture: Including BoullĂ©e’s Architecture, Essay on Art, ed. Helen Rosenau, New York: Academy Editions; Harmony Books, 1976. Print.
Evans, R. “Translations from Drawing to Building”, in AA Files 12, London: Architectural Association, Summer. 1986. Print.
Goodman, N. Languages of Art, London: Oxford University Press. 1969. Print.
Smith, James. The Panorama of Science and Art: Embracing the Principal Sciences and Arts, the Methods of Working in Wood and Metal, and a Miscellaneous Selection of Useful and Interesting Processes and Experiments, 13th ed., 2 vols., vol. 2, London: H. Fisher, Son, & co, 1832. Print.
Elderfield, John. The Modern Drawing: 100 Works on Paper from the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1983. Print.
Hill, Jonathan. Immaterial architecture, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print
Wigley, Mark. “Paper, Scissors, Blur,” in The Activist Drawing: Retracing Situationist Architectures from Constant’s New Babylon to Beyond, ed. Constant, et al, Cambridge, MA: Drawing Center, MIT Press, 2001. Print.
Hays, Michael. Architecture Theory since 1968, Cambridge, Mass; London: The MIT Press, 1998. Print.
McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company. 1964. Print.
Evans, Robin. “In Front of Lines That Leave Nothing Behind,” AA FIles 6 (1984): 482. In Hays, K. Michael. Architecture Theory since 1968, Cambridge, Mass; London: The MIT Press, 1998. Print.
Evans, Robin. Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, AA Documents; 2, London: Architectural Association, 1997. Print.
Swaffield, Simon. Theory in landscape architecture: a reader, Alabama: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Print.
Palladino, Susan. Tools of the imagination: drawing tools and technologies from the eighteenth century to the present, Cambridge: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007. Print.
Walter, Benjamin and Thomas Y. Levin. “Rigorous Study of Art,” 1988. Print.
Wojtowicz, J. (ed.) Virtual Design Studio, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University. 1995. Print.