Our teacher made the comment that architects don’t make buildings, we make drawings. It is hard not to accept the reality of that statement. On the other hand, I would argue that drawings are not architecture, buildings are architecture. There is an oddity here in that architects do not make the thing that is the object of their efforts. The architect of today is no longer the builder. Was this ever really the case, though?
To contemplate the architect further we must again consider the professor’s statement. What is the drawing? The term drawing must be considered loosely here. It should be understood as a means of representation. That is, it may be drafted or digital, abstract or “real,” 2-D or 3-D, or…etc.—it is simply a means of contemplation or communication by which a glimpse of the idea can be seen.
In this week’s reading Alberto Perez-Gomes, et al, “Prelude: Mapping the Question – The Perspective Hinge,” discuss the history of the perspective drawing in architecture. They explain that “prior to the Renaissance, architectural drawings were rare...” and that “in the Middle Ages, architects did not conceive of a whole building…” They continue by explaining that Gothic buildings were built as a process initiated from a footprint. The end result was unknown until the building was completed. The architect, in this case, served to help set the foundation and guide the process and the craftsmen. It wasn’t until much later that developments in geometry and math, and finally an understanding of accurate perspective drawing would lead to the ability to draw the entire building before it was built.
Today, architects generally conceive of and communicate a fully designed building before construction has begun. Of course, there may still be many details that are worked out through the construction process but the overall design of the building is done.
In “Roller-Coaster Construction,” Contemporary Techniques in Architecture, Alejandro Zaera-Polo discusses the design process with Foreign Office Architects. According to Zaera-Polo, the buildings evolve out of a digital design process that is based on many variables that are manipulated to produce unexpected or unimagined results. This, for me, marks a return to the ideas of Gothic construction in which the architect guides the process. This transformation of the architect’s role opens the door to a new age of architecture—an age that may actually be able to realize the modern architectural agenda. It may allow for new forms, styles, and space that is not dominated by history.
Our professor did have a valid argument that we do, in fact, only construct documents. I believe as we step closer to the BIM technology and modeling with programs utilized more regularly in other disciplines, we can perhaps begin to virtually construct buildings.
ReplyDeleteVery good observation.
I do not think the act of virtually constructing buildings would allow the architect to once again become a master builder. I think it is a tool for constructing the landscape. Practice can surely evolve to reflect this knowledge and control. Design/Build firms I feel seem to have the closest resemblance to Architect - chief builder or carpenter or a master builder, director of works (etymology).
ReplyDeleteI agree with TME, a great observation that perhaps flies under the radar.