The first set of questions tried to tease out the cerebral
role of drawing not just in terms of organising and solving
abstract problems but also in relaying something of the
thought processes of the designer. In this there was an
attempt to discover the architects’ inner thoughts and
how they interfaced with traditional and electronic graphic
tools. The second group of questions aimed to discover
the specific nature of drawing in the more practical arenas
posed by design problems, the type of drawings used at
different points in the design process (using the RIBA
Plan of Work as a guide), and the interrelationship
between drawing, CAD and model-making. The third
group sought to investigate the tools and techniques
employed, particularly how and when the drawing
becomes a shared design tool. The questions posed dealt
only with the early stages of a design project: the
research had no interest in the perspective drawing
prepared to simulate a final design nor with drawing as
part of the ‘information package’ aimed at the
construction process. As such the investigation examined
drawing in the context of visual thinking and sought in
particular to discover whether drawing remains a critical
part of the architect’s armoury of spatial and technical
problem solving techniques.
THE FINDINGS: DRAWING AND ABSTRACT
THOUGHT PROCESSES
Without exception all of the architects questioned
acknowledge the symbiotic relationship between
thinking, drawing and designing. However, not all thought
that drawing was a prerequisite for design: many
architects, including Cullinan, Grimshaw, Alsop and
Foster, often arrived at an initial design idea in their head
before they committed a line to paper. These early design
ideas were generated spontaneously, perhaps whilst
jogging in Foster’s case, cutting logs in Cullinan’s or
painting in Alsop’s. The subsequent drawings prepared,
often the merest diagram or sketch, gave physical form to
cognitive processes already undertaken. As Cullinan puts
it, ‘drawing allows me to express what is already in my
mind’s eye’. Likewise, Grimshaw admits that he not only
generally draws an idea already partially formed in his
head but he uses drawings to clarify spatial structures
lodged in the imagination. Similarly Alsop states that
‘drawing tests an idea which is already in my head’, but
to make sure he is thinking conceptually (rather than
just problem solving) he prefers not to draw too soon.
This view is shared by Farrell, who states that design is
a mental process that remains more fluid in your head,
and although line is fluid it is not as fluid as the first
design idea.
Many architects reported that at the conceptual stage
drawings per se can be limiting and they prefer to
represent their thoughts with diagrams. A useful
distinction exists here between the sketch and the
diagram: the latter is the germ of an idea drawn with the
minimum of lines but containing the potential genetic
code of a project. All ten architects interviewed are
admittedly experienced designers but they share the
facility to construct images in their mind, which they then
commit to paper in sketch form. One could go further and
suggest that they deliberately avoid drawing too soon in
an attempt to keep the creative options open. In this they
are like composers who hum out a tune before they
commit notes to paper.
If a design idea pre-exists its representation in drawn
form, all of the architects acknowledge the power of
sketching to test and develop the initial design concept.
Murphy thinks it ‘absurd to think you can design without
drawing’ and Foster states that ‘design is about ordering
and this is expressed and explored through drawing’. To
Foster a distinction can be made between thinking and
designing, and although he engages in both as an
architect, ‘drawing is essential to the latter but not theDrawing in architectural practice 239