many examples as possible. Most sketches were chosen because they displayed a theory or
reasoning inherently expressed in their form or technique. This meant attempting to locate
a revelation or understanding of what that architect was thinking as manifest in the sketches.
Also important was the uniqueness of the use, a direct link to a specific building or a connec-
tion to a feature in the architect’s repertoire evident in the handling, such as smudges, pin-
pricks, erasures, circling of the sketches, eliminating by crossing out unwanted images or the
drawing over specific areas for emphasis. With many of the sketches, this process began with
observing the original sketches in an archival setting. Viewing the artifact firsthand revealed
unique elements of process such as marks showing through from the reverse side of the
paper, distinctive texture of the paper or fine guidelines difficult to view in photographs.
Some sketches have been previously published and invariably represent the best examples of
that architect’s work available.
One of the major factors in choosing which sketches to include involved the availability of
the collections. Some sketches obviously were chosen because all others had been destroyed
for various reasons, such as the limited collection of sketches by Antonio Gaudi and the few
ornament sketches saved by Louis Sullivan. Other architects such as Le Corbusier and Erich
Mendelsohn meticulously reserved evidence of their beginning conceptual thoughts, and in
these instances the selection was daunting because of the great number of existing sketches.
These examples may reflect an attitude toward sketches. Some architects viewed the rem-
nants of the process as valueless or, conversely, as a valuable artifact embodying their creative
inspiration.
Another concern when selecting the sketches was the consideration for those that would
reproduce well in publication. Numerous sketches that were considered exhibited brief
beginnings, with only a few lines on a page, where the architect presumably rejected them
for a fresh start. Comprising personal dialogue, the architects did not consider the images’
beauty or communication qualities to anyone but themselves. Thus many of these sketches
defy interpretation because of their briefness. An attempt was made to balance the number
of sketches within the periods but also increase the number of examples in periods where
sketches were more accessible. The techniques of the sketches by architects from within
architectural movements are not necessarily visually consistent, because they each represent
individual styles, commissions, themes and functions.
All of the sketches published in this collection are ‘attributed to’ the specific architect
named by the various archives, unless otherwise mentioned. Authorship of the work has been
reasonably determined from a combination of art dealers, collection donators and researchers.
Although many of the sketches chosen for this collection have never been referenced in pub-
lication, it was possible to view numerous examples of an architect’s technique and style of
drawing to feel confident in the attributions of authorship. Sketches were avoided where
authorship appeared doubtful specifically those that may have been rendered by a partner or
apprentice. In archives around the world, there are many sketches ‘in the school of ’ which may
never divulge the hand that made them. In the case of Renaissance artist’s sketches there is always
the possibility that the images were drawn by an assistant in the workshop, as apprentices were
regularly encouraged to copy the work of the master. However, with architectural sketches
there may be less mistaken identification than with completed drawings. This may be partially
because a less prominent architect could copy or render a famous professional’s architecturalH5719-Introduction 7/15/05 3:06 PM Page 15