New Developments in drawing are twice as likely to occur in Architecture or Design than in the fine arts. But, why is this? At first glance one might say it is because architecture and design are linked to industry and that consequently, money power and politics are involved at a scale not conceivable in the fine arts. One might argue, also, that independently of their individual artistic or aesthetic merit, such vast numbers of these drawings are being produced every year in architecture, for example, that it is safe to assume that technical developments and/or theoretical discussions of the medium are more likely to occur in that field than in the fine arts.
There is, also, the fact that in the fine arts themselves the (traditional) status of drawing is uncertain due to a widespread presence of mixed media and digital work. Time-saving imaging technologies also explain the huge numbers of drawings produced in the course of the design and construction of, for example, a project for a building in China by Zaha Hadid or Norman Foster’s landmark Bank of China project in Hong Kong, not to mention in recent computer animation and cinematography. More to the point here the drawings produced in fields such as architecture have a qualitative impact on the development of drawing that derives of the extensive interdisciplinary discussion and interaction between practitioners in associated fields in order to resolve new problems and their solutions in connection with such building projects or technological applications. This discussion also produces massive amounts of new and common terminology.
In Architecture, for example, social and professional interaction is essential. Interpersonal discussion is part and parcel of the process of designing and constructing a building and covers all aspects of a construction project, ranging from materials to local building regulations and environmental issues. This dialogue necessarily involves a common language shared by associated disciplines and which defines the topics and areas of interest of groups of professionals in any given field. Such professional interaction has practical terminological consequences, such as for example the Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: city, technology and society in the information age[i] and also field-specific terminology guides such as Archispeak,[ii] published in the United States.
Crossovers between fields of knowledge and intercommunications between sectors of one same field generate terminological residues, a common jargon that serves to build up and define the identity of new, autonomous fields of knowledge. Initially lacking a specific identity or terminological critical mass, the theoretical and professional discussion of emerging ideas and technologies generates an increasingly complex and coherent linguistic environment and through it, an identity. By defining (or re-defining) the terminology used to discuss a subject, you also determine the form, mechanics of operation and hierarchies of a space of discussion and therefore the boundaries and identity of that particular field of knowledge and its evolution into a discipline.
This new space serves to explain not only what there is or there has been in the past, but also to create the conditions that will allow for a hypothetical discussion of what might be, the realm of the possible in which to develop the future potential of that field. If one were to use, for example, architectural terms to describe the genesis and development of a fine arts drawing, such words would provide the conceptual margins and the means for a formal and even material development of that drawing. Conversely, terms from the field of hydraulics, for example, or words used to describe the human circulatory system might provide a suitable analogy for phenomena linked to the fluidity of transit in urban planning. Also, a deeper knowledge of the phenomena and basic principles of such other fields could give rise to original transit planning solutions.
The recurrence of contacts between fields of knowledge produces hybrid accumulations of terminological sediments, residues of conversations, words and terms that will define the conceptual platform from where new disciplines will emerge. Other times, a common terminological platform is adopted by the agreement of a sufficient number of practitioners. In June of 2000, for example, in the context of MET 2.0: Trailer de ideas para una Arquitectura Avanzada a group of fifty teams of Spanish architects met in Barcelona precisely to formulate a joint position with respect to the future of the habitat, the city and the environment. The initial outcome of this gathering was a publication in a format whose stated objective was to permit “crossing, overlapping and associating projects, themes and potentials beyond individual conceptions and hermetic compartments.” An international edition, in dictionary format, followed this initial document-manifesto, expanding these objectives to a global dimension.
Similarly, in the United States, focusing on usage rather than officially accepted definitions of terms, Tom Porter, a practicing architect and college professor, together with a group of 23 collaborators from academic backgrounds and some of the main architectural firms in the world produced Archispeak, a list of terms commonly used in the field of Architecture.[iii] With a different structure and ideological underpinnings, these are two examples of collaborations within the field of Architecture that aim to deal with the linguistic issues involved in the general problem of “translating architectural design concepts into spoken and written commentary.”[iv]
In the arts, there has been no such collective experience, perhaps because the idea of individual authorship still prevails and also because artists’ collectives and partnerships are still rare enough to be considered the exception rather than the rule. Also, in the arts, efforts in taking on issues of terminology and communication have dealt creatively with the impossibility of defining certain things, with the unspeakable and the un-nameable as subject matter, using images as substitute for words in the definition of terms. This is the case of, for example, Roni Horn’s Dictionary of Water, a book of photographs of the surface of the River Thames taken under different conditions of weather, tide and light. A different example is Sam Winston’s A Dictionary Story, in which he deals with what he calls ‘reading environments’ or the spaces that are created when people become ‘lost’ inside a book. In his dictionary, terminology is endowed with a personality, and he envisions encounters between “anger” and “apathy”, between “law” and “trouble,” with terms taking on their own personality. There are, also, many traditional dictionaries of the arts in general. Most of them have the familiar structure of an alphabetically ordered list of terms. Others go a bit beyond, like the dictionary written by Noah Webster, which includes an explanation of the principles based on which languages are formed.[v]
Another cause for the imbalance there is in the extent and depth of theoretical research in drawing in the fine arts as opposed to architecture and design is a phenomenon that has to do with both language and the conventions of technical drawing and, also, with the increasing use of computer-generated visual graphics in certain drawing-rich fields, particularly in Architecture and Design.
Computer generated or otherwise, technical drawings in general and architectural and design drawings in particular are the means to convey specific professional knowledge and information and are therefore highly conventional. In such drawings, subjective readings are limited and governed by the conventions of the field and therefore they provide broad areas for objective discussion and development. If the drawings are computer generated, moreover, the software used further determines their formal and development possibilities. Even the simplest drawing software requires some knowledge of imaging terminology and the instructions for the user to operate it effectively. As a result, graphic functions, many of which are identified on the interface through icons rather than words, have already been defined in some handbook, help-desk function, troubleshooting website, etc. and consequently, to a certain extent they have already been assimilated by an ever-increasing number of computer users. The fact that these computer instructions are abstract concepts offers a possible clue as to the characteristics of the kind of terminology that is required to define drawing today: abstract concepts defined in visually exciting terms.
Take, for example, two definitions from Archispeak, the book by Tom Porter et al. The term sketch is defined as “lines that resulting from the immediacy or directness of thought and purpose appear to trace the essential dynamics of an idea.” (Archispeak, page 6A) No reference is made to any material or to any physical or symbolic form or content, focusing instead on establishing a clear and direct link with the thoughts and purpose of the maker, whatever these may be. The term axis, on the other hand, is defined as “…the invisible principle that connects and unifies mind and matter. When functioning as a pathway, the axis is associated with the ceremonial, the processional, formality and power.” (Archispeak, page11A). Again the emphasis is on an invisible geometry and the establishment of spatial hierarchies, directions and sense of order rather than focusing on any historical, material or thematic aspect or function. These terms, moreover, have the sufficient ductility to provide a flexible bridge between the fields of architecture (origin of the term) and the field of fine arts drawing, for example.
Unlike free hand and traditional fine arts drawing, the vocabulary that serves to discuss the formal development of computer-generated drawings is already in place before the drawings have been made. As a result, upon creating a drawing with the computer you not only define form, you provide the vocabulary to explain the genesis of that form, at least from the point of view of the technical aspects involved in its making. A gesture in the process of making a freehand drawing has no name because unless one were to apply languages conventions such as the Laban notation system, mentioned above, there are no conventions governing such gestures.
Many times unique and unrepeatable there seems to be no practical reason to define each and every one of them. Moreover, bodily posture and the idea of style it involves, may make aesthetic sense in connection with dance and choreography or the rules of sports such as golf or tennis, for example, but the way you sit or stand when you draw is hardly an issue in drawing unless you make it one (as part of a performance for example). As a result, theoretical discussion of the free-hand drawing has tended to deduce and identify whenever possible the motivations of the artist, the thoughts that govern the movements of that arm and the forms such movement begets. If Wittgenstein is right and in order to discuss things we must name them first, the entire act of free-hand drawing is more difficult to theorize and therefore becomes invisible and un-nameable save through what is left behind on the paper, that is, through the traces of human gestures from which content and purpose must be inferred.
It appears then, that because they produce both visual form and the terminology to explain it at the same time, computer-generated drawings have the upper hand in relation to traditional drawing in the field of theory at least. They have, in a sense, control over the discourse of (computer generated) drawing as well as a specific identity, which allows them to interact and to form alliances with other disciplines on an equal footing and also to define new forms and new disciplines.
[i] Gausa, Manuel, et al. The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: city, technology and society in the information age, ACTAR, Institute for Advanced Architecture, Metapolis, Barcelona, 2003“The Metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture was conceived in its Spanish version in June 200, as a document-manifesto of action at MET 2.0: trailer de ideas para una arquitectura avanzada. On that occasion, fifty teams of Spanish architects met in Barcelona for the purpose of formulating a joint approach to strategic themes of the future regarding habitat, the city and the environment. The material gathered there led to the idea of creating a publication in a format that would permit crossing, overlapping and associating projects, themes and potentials, beyond individual conceptions and hermetic compartments.” (Presentation).
[ii] Porter, Tom et al. Archispeak: an illustrated guide to architectural terms, Spoon Press, London, 2004. Archispeak responds to the need to translate architectural design concepts into spoken and written commentary—each word in use embodying a precise and universally accepted architectural meaning. If we explore the vocabulary of this language we gain insight to good design practice and to a collaborative understanding of what constitutes a refined architecture.” (introduction)
[iii] These collaborators included Foster and partners, Alsop Architects, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, Gehry Partners and institutions such as RIBA in London and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States.
[iv] Porter, Tom, op cit. introduction.
[v] Webster, Noah, revised and enlarged by Chauncey A. Goodrich, London, A Dictionary of the English language., David Bogue, MDCCCLII
In the arts, there has been no such collective experience, perhaps because the idea of individual authorship still prevails and also because artists’ collectives and partnerships are still rare enough to be considered the exception rather than the rule. Also, in the arts, efforts in taking on issues of terminology and communication have dealt creatively with the impossibility of defining certain things, with the unspeakable and the un-nameable as subject matter, using images as substitute for words in the definition of terms. This is the case of, for example, Roni Horn’s Dictionary of Water, a book of photographs of the surface of the River Thames taken under different conditions of weather, tide and light. A different example is Sam Winston’s A Dictionary Story, in which he deals with what he calls ‘reading environments’ or the spaces that are created when people become ‘lost’ inside a book. In his dictionary, terminology is endowed with a personality, and he envisions encounters between “anger” and “apathy”, between “law” and “trouble,” with terms taking on their own personality. There are, also, many traditional dictionaries of the arts in general. Most of them have the familiar structure of an alphabetically ordered list of terms. Others go a bit beyond, like the dictionary written by Noah Webster, which includes an explanation of the principles based on which languages are formed.[v]
Another cause for the imbalance there is in the extent and depth of theoretical research in drawing in the fine arts as opposed to architecture and design is a phenomenon that has to do with both language and the conventions of technical drawing and, also, with the increasing use of computer-generated visual graphics in certain drawing-rich fields, particularly in Architecture and Design.
Computer generated or otherwise, technical drawings in general and architectural and design drawings in particular are the means to convey specific professional knowledge and information and are therefore highly conventional. In such drawings, subjective readings are limited and governed by the conventions of the field and therefore they provide broad areas for objective discussion and development. If the drawings are computer generated, moreover, the software used further determines their formal and development possibilities. Even the simplest drawing software requires some knowledge of imaging terminology and the instructions for the user to operate it effectively. As a result, graphic functions, many of which are identified on the interface through icons rather than words, have already been defined in some handbook, help-desk function, troubleshooting website, etc. and consequently, to a certain extent they have already been assimilated by an ever-increasing number of computer users. The fact that these computer instructions are abstract concepts offers a possible clue as to the characteristics of the kind of terminology that is required to define drawing today: abstract concepts defined in visually exciting terms.
Take, for example, two definitions from Archispeak, the book by Tom Porter et al. The term sketch is defined as “lines that resulting from the immediacy or directness of thought and purpose appear to trace the essential dynamics of an idea.” (Archispeak, page 6A) No reference is made to any material or to any physical or symbolic form or content, focusing instead on establishing a clear and direct link with the thoughts and purpose of the maker, whatever these may be. The term axis, on the other hand, is defined as “…the invisible principle that connects and unifies mind and matter. When functioning as a pathway, the axis is associated with the ceremonial, the processional, formality and power.” (Archispeak, page11A). Again the emphasis is on an invisible geometry and the establishment of spatial hierarchies, directions and sense of order rather than focusing on any historical, material or thematic aspect or function. These terms, moreover, have the sufficient ductility to provide a flexible bridge between the fields of architecture (origin of the term) and the field of fine arts drawing, for example.
Unlike free hand and traditional fine arts drawing, the vocabulary that serves to discuss the formal development of computer-generated drawings is already in place before the drawings have been made. As a result, upon creating a drawing with the computer you not only define form, you provide the vocabulary to explain the genesis of that form, at least from the point of view of the technical aspects involved in its making. A gesture in the process of making a freehand drawing has no name because unless one were to apply languages conventions such as the Laban notation system, mentioned above, there are no conventions governing such gestures.
Many times unique and unrepeatable there seems to be no practical reason to define each and every one of them. Moreover, bodily posture and the idea of style it involves, may make aesthetic sense in connection with dance and choreography or the rules of sports such as golf or tennis, for example, but the way you sit or stand when you draw is hardly an issue in drawing unless you make it one (as part of a performance for example). As a result, theoretical discussion of the free-hand drawing has tended to deduce and identify whenever possible the motivations of the artist, the thoughts that govern the movements of that arm and the forms such movement begets. If Wittgenstein is right and in order to discuss things we must name them first, the entire act of free-hand drawing is more difficult to theorize and therefore becomes invisible and un-nameable save through what is left behind on the paper, that is, through the traces of human gestures from which content and purpose must be inferred.
It appears then, that because they produce both visual form and the terminology to explain it at the same time, computer-generated drawings have the upper hand in relation to traditional drawing in the field of theory at least. They have, in a sense, control over the discourse of (computer generated) drawing as well as a specific identity, which allows them to interact and to form alliances with other disciplines on an equal footing and also to define new forms and new disciplines.
[i] Gausa, Manuel, et al. The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: city, technology and society in the information age, ACTAR, Institute for Advanced Architecture, Metapolis, Barcelona, 2003“The Metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture was conceived in its Spanish version in June 200, as a document-manifesto of action at MET 2.0: trailer de ideas para una arquitectura avanzada. On that occasion, fifty teams of Spanish architects met in Barcelona for the purpose of formulating a joint approach to strategic themes of the future regarding habitat, the city and the environment. The material gathered there led to the idea of creating a publication in a format that would permit crossing, overlapping and associating projects, themes and potentials, beyond individual conceptions and hermetic compartments.” (Presentation).
[ii] Porter, Tom et al. Archispeak: an illustrated guide to architectural terms, Spoon Press, London, 2004. Archispeak responds to the need to translate architectural design concepts into spoken and written commentary—each word in use embodying a precise and universally accepted architectural meaning. If we explore the vocabulary of this language we gain insight to good design practice and to a collaborative understanding of what constitutes a refined architecture.” (introduction)
[iii] These collaborators included Foster and partners, Alsop Architects, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, Gehry Partners and institutions such as RIBA in London and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States.
[iv] Porter, Tom, op cit. introduction.
[v] Webster, Noah, revised and enlarged by Chauncey A. Goodrich, London, A Dictionary of the English language., David Bogue, MDCCCLII
View Paul Beuchat's profile
No comments:
Post a Comment