it makes the difference between a 3D software “user” and an architect. Hand drafting is the only way to really understand how projected drawings (axons, perspectives) work. Hand drafting is the quickest way to learn about line-weight and its implications.ģ. The computer screen can’t yet provide this level of shared, quasi-public accessibility to the work in progress.Ģ. In other words, the hand drawing is a site of shared learning the drafting table acts something like a miniature surgical theater. Trace paper becomes a site for negotiation between instructor and student. Mistakes can be fixed, and be seen to be fixed, almost immediately. Hand drafting makes it very easy to teach and critique work in a studio setting, because it’s all right there on the desk in front of you and the student. Here are a few thoughts from an old blog post, where I tried to list out some reasons why I thought that teaching hand drafting was still the best way to introduce students to architecture (this was in response to NJIT's move at the time away from hand drafting):ġ. And I've taught 3D and rendering for seven years now as well. I've taught hand drafting at Pratt and am now teaching the first year studio, which includes a bit of drafting. Nice to see this issue come up in the Times. Just as the pencil, or quill, or paintbrush. The computer is a tool that can be mastered. I would like to here from someone at a school were analog is completely out. Schools are not completely throwing out analog design technique as some of the NYT letter writers have everyone think. With that said there are still young designers that choose analog. (I don't mean first grade spelling class) The computer becomes an extension of the user at a much earlier age then the pencil ever has.
Think if Architects of the past had been working with pencil from the time they were 4. They will, and many are already, creating digital work that has all of the honesty, emotion, meaning, blah blah blah that any hand drawing might have. Most undergrad students where born in the 90s, as in they have worked with computers their entire education. Ones ability to manifest "creative" thought into visual or physical form is completely dependent on the skills of the creator.
This guy is more brilliant than all others when it comes to making money. I thought it was really smart in the age of mechanical production with robot graduates and all. What was fascinating though, he taught them to draw just like he would.
Architecture lost to time serial#
His office was serial producing small hand drawn drawings before they were serial producing Target teapots in the factory. I suppose they were two grand a piece at Max Protetch Gallery at the time. When we visited his office in Princeton in 1980, he wasn't there but about 4-5 people in the office were pumping out drawings on yellow tracing paper using prismacolor pencils. I’m personally fascinated not just by what architects choose to draw but also by what they choose not to draw. Each one is part of a process and not an end in itself. I have a real purpose in making each drawing, either to remember something or to study something. I have had several one-man shows in galleries and museums in New York and elsewhere, and my drawings can be found in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art and the Cooper-Hewitt.īut can the value of drawings be simply that of a collector’s artifact or a pretty picture? No. Of course, in some sense drawing can’t be dead: there is a vast market for the original work of respected architects.
0 kommentar(er)
