the discipline of drawing it would be difficult to employ in
the architecture the imagined life implicit in the brief’. This
is an argument also explored by Robin Evans, who posits
the opinion that the key power of drawing in architecture
is to act as a bridge between the imagined and real worlds
(Evans 1997 pp153–94). Similarly, according to the
architect Richard MacCormac, different frames of mind
require different instruments for producing and
representing what you are doing as a designer (Lawson
1994 p142). What this suggests is not only that different
types of drawing allow design problems to be solved from
different perspectives, but more importantly, the choice
of drawing type (or painting in Gehry, Hadid and Alsop’s
case) help mediate across the various cognitive phases of
design production. Put simply, the ‘drawing is the frame
of mind’.
The limitations of drawing have, however, been
highlighted, amongst others by Henri Lefebvre who
claims that drawing restricts architectural speculation (Hill
2003 p173). Lefebvre is particularly critical of plans and
elevations which in their geometric bias objectify
drawings to the point where communication is lost with
users and often other designers (Lefebvre 1991 p361).
Hill further argues that conventional architectural drawing
limits rather than expands design speculation through its
mechanistic origins. A slightly different criticism of
architectural drawing is made by Bob Sheils, who claims
that since the drawing has to visualise both the real and
virtual worlds at the same time, it is not capable of testing
the information without translation into physical form
(Sheils 2003 p204). The answer, he suggests, is to rely
more upon CAD/CAM as a means of operating in multiple
modes at the design stage rather than rely upon the
architectural sketch.
Four main criticisms of drawing are often cited: first,
that the mechanistic tendencies in traditional architectural
drawing limit creativity; second, that greater attention
should be paid to the modernist ‘diagram’ rather than the
traditional sketch design; third, that to be most useful
drawings need to interact with other modes of spatial
exploration; fourth, that different frames of mind require
different types of drawing at different points in the
creative process, and this has the tendency to exclude
non-designers in the process of architectural generation.
These criticisms and speculations beg the question
whether the type of drawing influences the content of
architecture. Or put another way, in order to develop a
new architecture we need to evolve, as Gehry and others
suggest, a new language of drawing. At a more practical
level most architects adjust the choice of drawing types in
order to mediate across the various cognitive phases of
design production.
Two opposing positions have been outlined so far.
First, the more theoretical view that drawing is part of a
wider discourse grounded in art practice and how
architects use drawing should be seen in cultural rather
than purely technical terms. Second, since drawing is the
main begetter of built form, its central role should be as
the practical generator of architectural form free of
philosophical dogma. However, since architects employ
drawing in a fashion distinct to their discipline (there are
few parallels with engineering drawing) one should not
perhaps expect non-architects to fully appreciate the
significance in generative terms of the architectural
drawing, especially the freehand sketch and associated
design diagram.
Until recently, it was assumed that the processes of
drawing inspired by contemporary art practice had limited
relevance to the architectural profession. However, one
can see in the drawings and paintings of Frank Gehry,
Zaha Hadid and Will Alsop the emergence of a wider
engagement with abstract spatial concerns that challenge
the more functionalist view of drawing. Gehry’s approach
to drawing, for example the linear adaptations of the236 Understanding architecture through drawing