Architect Drawings : A Selection of Sketches by World Famous Architects Through History
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
architecture and, in particular, urban renewal efforts. Buildings were viewed as isolated entities and<br />
were identified with their architects, becoming objects <strong>of</strong> personal ideology. The personalities (and<br />
egos) <strong>of</strong> many modern architects commanded headlines for their talents and their exploits. This<br />
changed the structure <strong>of</strong> architectural <strong>of</strong>fices since they required larger numbers <strong>of</strong> draughts-people.<br />
Many factors were affected including who controlled design, the methods <strong>of</strong> presentation for commissions<br />
and competitions, and how drawings were used for publicity. The combination <strong>of</strong> firms, acquiring<br />
engineering departments, consulting, and providing planning services, all contributed to<br />
restructuring the pr<strong>of</strong>ession. Most importantly, the changing role <strong>of</strong> architects in the design and construction<br />
process impacted both the amount and use <strong>of</strong> drawings and sketches.<br />
Modern architects required more drawings than their predecessors, despite the assumption that simpler,<br />
prefabricated, or non-ornamented buildings would require fewer drawings. 1 <strong>Through</strong> history,<br />
architects were present on the site to supervise a building’s assembly. They could immediately deal<br />
with problems and give counsel on material selection. By observing construction methods they could<br />
work with the craftsmen to achieve their intended effect. As ‘master craftsmen,’ these historic architects<br />
required fewer two-dimensional explanations since they could personally and verbally communicate<br />
design strategies. Modern architecture changed all that. Reasons for the architect’s loss <strong>of</strong> control<br />
over the total process included a litigious society (‘working drawings’ changed to ‘contract documents’),<br />
balancing many projects at the same time, and the division <strong>of</strong> responsibility in the stages <strong>of</strong><br />
construction. As a result, drawings needed to be more thoroughly explanatory, describing connections<br />
and assemblies to insure the building was built as conceived. The traditions <strong>of</strong> construction had<br />
changed, and new materials, with their appropriate details, were unfamiliar to construction teams.<br />
The absence <strong>of</strong> the architect on site made communication that much more difficult; drawings became<br />
necessary as the primary mode <strong>of</strong> communication.<br />
These more plentiful drawings <strong>of</strong> the modern age may have, in fact, been less informative.<br />
Comparatively speaking, sketches commanded more attention as the instruments to resolve construction<br />
details and their connections prior to construction drawings. They needed to be more clear<br />
and precise to imagine and anticipate the three-dimensional construction in two dimensions. Thus,<br />
these architects required more imagination to conceive <strong>of</strong> the entire project in abstraction before its<br />
manifestation. <strong>Sketches</strong> were a medium to explore the totality <strong>of</strong> the building, a method to understand<br />
proportions and regulating lines, a place to manipulate joints and material connections, and a<br />
way to calculate new structural systems. They also communicated information in an intra-<strong>of</strong>fice<br />
manner, conveying intent to those draughting the contract documents or to consultants outside the<br />
firm. Most importantly, drawings and sketches were vital to explaining and exploring the theoretical<br />
approaches <strong>of</strong> their creators.<br />
The architects <strong>of</strong> the modern movements were very conscious <strong>of</strong> the revolutionary nature <strong>of</strong> their<br />
theories. They composed manifestos heralding a ‘new’ architecture, and with this change in attitudes,<br />
philosophies about the design process also changed. Often perceived as rejecting history, they did not,<br />
in fact, eliminate historical reference but interpreted it through a new idealism. These ‘famous’ architects<br />
were also concerned with their legacies: they retained sketches and drawings for posterity to<br />
make sure that future generations understood their philosophies and intentions. Their scientific and<br />
rational idiom was manifest in the quest for sincerity, order, logic, and clarity in their architecture<br />
(Richards, Pevsner and Sharp, 2000). These ideological goals showed in the forms <strong>of</strong> modern architecture,<br />
as it did in their two-dimensional representations. Often, this meant utilizing traditional drawing<br />
techniques but with new intention.<br />
It was not necessary for these buildings to appear logical and rational, but they needed to be conceived<br />
through justifiable methods. Design processes were important to the architects <strong>of</strong> the modern<br />
movements. ‘Universal space’ was flexible space, used for various functions, conceived with rulers and<br />
right angles (Richards, Pevsner and Sharp, 2000). Partially emerging from post and beam construction,<br />
the ‘squareness’ <strong>of</strong> these spaces provided a direct relationship to grids and proportional geometries.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the most significant changes in drawing involved the use <strong>of</strong> orthographic projection to<br />
achieve these rational buildings. Still using plan, section, and elevation, these architects also employed<br />
165