making. But when later changes are required, the
freehand sketch retains its prime position as the first tool
employed in testing options.
The argument outlined in this chapter is in contrast to
the more theoretical perspectives on the nature of the
architectural drawing that have been the primary concern
of scholars over the past decade. The drawing has tended
to become an object of interest in its own right rather than
a vehicle to develop ideas and engage in design dialogue.
Few have sought to investigate the changing role of
drawing as a design tool under the impact of ever more
sophisticated computer-aided design software and
modern methods of model-making such as CAD/CAM.
What these final two chapters seek is an understanding
of how an architectural idea is born, and how it is
represented, tested and articulated through drawing,
either manually or digitally generated.PERSPECTIVES ON ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING
The literature on drawing highlights a number of
important characteristics of the architectural drawing.
Whereas Paul Klee describes drawing as ‘taking a line for
a walk’, the architectural drawing has an important role to
play in the conceptualising process we call design (Stern
1977 p382). In architecture, the line is taken for a walk
with purpose – i.e. design. The renewal of interest today
in drawing is part of a more general discourse surrounding
visual culture embracing themes such as ‘ways of seeing’
and ‘ways of imagining’ (Bowers 1999 pp13–15).
Although it is recognised that there is a link between24.3
This sketch by the engineer Ove Arup
of the structural arrangement at the
nave of Coventry Cathedral designed
by Basil Spence displays the
difference in how engineers and
architects draw. (Ove Arup/ Bruce
Yoell)
Designing through drawing 229