Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge

Translation vs. Transcription

This was an interesting section starting to describe the, again, raging debate arising within the architectural profession concerning means of representation. We, as architects, have tended to produce orthographic drawings, detail drawings, and any other type of drawing to specifically describe how a building should be built (even though it is impossible for contractors to build these buildings exactly as described), so we can assume no liability if problems arise. The architectural ‘idea’ within these drawings is somehow supposed to translate perfectly clear because of the accurateness of these drawings. Why do we take it upon ourselves to separate from the world of diagrammatic design, and delve into a type of representation that can take away the original gestalt and intent of our design? Our current means of architectural translation needs to be a completely clear, black and white representation of the buildings we are aiming to construct. Why can’t we just make sure our diagrams and ideas are so clear, that someone who specializes in building can just figure it out? This might just provide the final excuse for changing the norm of architectural representation. I like the last line of this section and I feel that it sums up the meaning of this passage…‘our ultimate aim is to explore the possibilities of building architecture as a poetic translation, not a prosaic transcription of its representation.

Architectural Meaning and the Tools of the Architect

Since the beginning of time there were not as many architectural drawings presented for the design of buildings as we know them today. Gothic cathedrals were amassed by laying out a footprint, but then it was up to the craftsman, in collaboration with the architect to get the elevations to rise out of the ground. The idea was always in place, but it took even more correspondence between trades to get a building complete. Nowadays no one wants to take responsibility incase something might go wrong. Architects have to draw every detail so precise so it will be the builders fault if they don’t build it as drawn. The builders want to build it just like the architect told them to so if something does go wrong, it is not there fault. This type of world is becoming a big bummer. The skilled labor that existed millennia ago has been lost, and the world seeks to build things as cheaply and as quickly as possible. It is hard to have a great architectural idea and see it to completion if everything keeps getting value engineered out of the project!

Theories of Vision and the Reciprocity between Seeing and Being Seen

The early studies on the properties of light brought about some interesting conclusions. Who really knows if these wavelengths of visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum are actually what we know now them to be? Either way, the mystical and magical transparent properties of light can affect us in ways that nothing else can still today. Whether pouring through upper clerestory windows of a gothic cathedral, or simply refracting through a prism and cascading a surface with a rainbow of color, light can and will continue to be a catalyst to many things, but especially an interesting design parameter that will continually be considered.

From Natural Perspective to Artificial Construction

Isn’t it interesting that Renaissance constructed perspectives in art were the subject of criticism because art was supposed to show the ‘truth’ of the world, not simply a manifested representation of what ‘should’ be. Another fascinating phenomenon that occurred in architecture around the early first century BC was the introduction of optical correction. Facades were slightly canted outwards, columns were tilted, entasis was employed in the steps of the Parthenon later still. This was established so we could perceive architecture in, the way it is meant to be perceived, its purest and proportionally accurate embodiment. This still fascinates me that people could come up with these so building lines and edges would appear to be parallel even when approached on an oblique, etc. The early use of mirrors in art to then draw on top of, as a way of understanding this perspective construction in a two dimensional environment was a very creative method for learning about this aspect of optics. The further advent of using perspective drawings to further explain architectural intentions was a great step in the field. However, the different methods for producing perspectives still were being developed and tested. These lead to differing practices for producing ideas about architectural space and the intentions of the designer were clearly individualized by using these different techniques for representation.

Conclusions

This reading brings up interesting points for consideration with regards to representation in architectural design process. We should go back to our ancestors and use things like a conceptual mirror to diagram and understand existing space, to then recreate and further design new space. This mirror could become a very interesting conceptual idea to further translate into the newer means of conceptual architectural representation such as 3d modeling and digital animation. Quite possibly for the next project, we could use these views that we are given through unique uses of camera angles to then reverse project from the focal or vanishing point of the view, to recreate the space and further explore from there. We shall see how the rest of the semester unfolds, or is discovered. Either way, it would be interesting if in the field of architecture, we could rely on collaboration with a series of new, elite, craftsman to simply build and carry out our ideas, which we could further define and design if we didn’t have to spend so much time on construction documents.