architecture and, in particular, urban renewal efforts. Buildings were viewed as isolated entities and
were identified with their architects, becoming objects of personal ideology. The personalities (and
egos) of many modern architects commanded headlines for their talents and their exploits. This
changed the structure of architectural offices since they required larger numbers of draughts-people.
Many factors were affected including who controlled design, the methods of presentation for commis-
sions and competitions, and how drawings were used for publicity. The combination of firms, acquir-
ing engineering departments, consulting, and providing planning services, all contributed to
restructuring the profession. Most importantly, the changing role of architects in the design and con-
struction process impacted both the amount and use of drawings and sketches.
Modern architects required more drawings than their predecessors, despite the assumption that sim-
pler, prefabricated, or non-ornamented buildings would require fewer drawings.^1 Through history,
architects were present on the site to supervise a building’s assembly. They could immediately deal
with problems and give counsel on material selection. By observing construction methods they could
work with the craftsmen to achieve their intended effect. As ‘master craftsmen,’ these historic archi-
tects required fewer two-dimensional explanations since they could personally and verbally communi-
cate design strategies. Modern architecture changed all that. Reasons for the architect’s loss of control
over the total process included a litigious society (‘working drawings’ changed to ‘contract docu-
ments’), balancing many projects at the same time, and the division of responsibility in the stages of
construction. As a result, drawings needed to be more thoroughly explanatory, describing connections
and assemblies to insure the building was built as conceived. The traditions of construction had
changed, and new materials, with their appropriate details, were unfamiliar to construction teams.
The absence of the architect on site made communication that much more difficult; drawings became
necessary as the primary mode of communication.
These more plentiful drawings of the modern age may have, in fact, been less informative.
Comparatively speaking, sketches commanded more attention as the instruments to resolve con-
struction details and their connections prior to construction drawings. They needed to be more clear
and precise to imagine and anticipate the three-dimensional construction in two dimensions. Thus,
these architects required more imagination to conceive of the entire project in abstraction before its
manifestation. Sketches were a medium to explore the totality of the building, a method to under-
stand proportions and regulating lines, a place to manipulate joints and material connections, and a
way to calculate new structural systems. They also communicated information in an intra-office
manner, conveying intent to those draughting the contract documents or to consultants outside the
firm. Most importantly, drawings and sketches were vital to explaining and exploring the theoretical
approaches of their creators.
The architects of the modern movements were very conscious of the revolutionary nature of their
theories. They composed manifestos heralding a ‘new’ architecture, and with this change in attitudes,
philosophies about the design process also changed. Often perceived as rejecting history, they did not,
in fact, eliminate historical reference but interpreted it through a new idealism. These ‘famous’ archi-
tects were also concerned with their legacies: they retained sketches and drawings for posterity to
make sure that future generations understood their philosophies and intentions. Their scientific and
rational idiom was manifest in the quest for sincerity, order, logic, and clarity in their architecture
(Richards, Pevsner and Sharp, 2000 ). These ideological goals showed in the forms of modern architec-
ture, as it did in their two-dimensional representations. Often, this meant utilizing traditional drawing
techniques but with new intention.
It was not necessary for these buildings to appear logical and rational, but they needed to be con-
ceived through justifiable methods. Design processes wereimportant to the architects of the modern
movements. ‘Universal space’ was flexible space, used for various functions, conceived with rulers and
right angles (Richards, Pevsner and Sharp, 2000 ). Partially emerging from post and beam construction,
the ‘squareness’ of these spaces provided a direct relationship to grids and proportional geometries.
One of the most significant changes in drawing involved the use of orthographic projection to
achieve these rational buildings. Still using plan, section, and elevation, these architects also employedH5719-Ch07.qxd 7/15/05 3:44 PM Page 165