to finalize the formation of a mental image as a method to visualize an undefined direction.
Most architects draw to see and understand, whether it is an observation of perceptual stim-
ulus or from a mental impression conjured up by imagination. The Italian architect Carlo
Scarpa expresses this concept well: ‘I want to see things, that’s all I really trust. I want to see,
and that’s why I draw. I can see an image only if I draw it’ (Dal Co, 1984 , p. 242 ).
Since perception has little resemblance to a drawn image, it may be possible to ask if a
drawn illusion can promote understanding. This suggests how sketching equates with the
cognitive act of seeing. The sketch can portray a mode of comprehension as the philosopher
Maurice Merleau-Ponty expresses when discussing Paul Klee and Henri Matisse: ‘The line
no longer imitates the visible; it “renders visible”; it is the blueprint of a genesis of things’
( 1964 , p. 183 ). ‘Rendering visible’ implies an understanding deeper than an illusion. This
may be a distinct feature of sketches that are often incomplete and vague. Again, this is evi-
dence of the sketch’s role in ‘seeing’ as understanding. The architect’s mind must be able to
immerse itself in the making (Gibson, 1982 ). The sketch facilitates a form of visualization;
specifically making physical a conceptual impression. It cannot be denied that sketches are
affected by the memories and imagination of each architect, as experiences and individual
traits color the techniques and products of these actions.
The sketch, for an architect, may allow for the discovery of a concept at the beginning of
a project; however, they can be employed in all stages of the design process, even as an obser-
vational recording long after the building is constructed. In early stages, an architect’s imag-
ination is open to many possibilities; no potentiality is ruled out (Casey, 1976 ). These options
might be fragmented and vague, but they begin a thinking process, as this first sketch often
must be drawn with great speed to capture the rapid flashes of mental stimulation. Werner
Oechslin feels the sketch is the appropriate medium for design: ‘The sketch is ideally suited
for capturing the fleetingness of an idea’ ( 1982 , p. 103 ). If the sketch itself is a brief outline,
then it may, in fact, reflect the brief thoughts of the mind.
Artists’ and architects’ sketches maintain some similarities but are intentionally very differ-
ent. Displaying the physical qualities that convey observational likeness, artists use sketches as
artistic expression, where they act as preliminary to two-dimensional finished drawings or
paintings or represent a completed entity. Sculptors employ sketches as preliminary thoughts
for three-dimensional artifacts. Conversely, architects very seldom consider sketches as a final
product. They are primarily intended to envision a future building. Robin Evans succinctly
states this function of architectural drawings when he writes that images ‘precede the act of
building’ (Blau and Kaufman, 1989 , p. 21 ). Like artists’ sketches, they may function to sway
public opinion or promote theoretical argument. In most cases, sketches are a personal
exploration unlike the conventions of construction drawings, without precise meaning and
often destroyed upon the completion of the building.
This study makes use of, but is not based in, iconology since architectural sketching is
not strictly a symbolic art. The meanings acquired with combinations of lines often are dis-
tinctly personal to the architect. Although they may contain a few conventions of architec-
tural communication, these sketches cannot be ‘read’ for specific universal meaning (Evans,
1986 ). They are not visual ‘shorthand’ and do not directly equate the visual with the verbal.
Shorthand suggests a foundation in symbols that have acquired known and culturally accepted
meanings. It is not necessary that these sketches be comprehended by anyone except theH5719-Introduction 7/15/05 3:06 PM Page 4