(In) Complete Reboot

The following is based on an essay I wrote with Jamie Vanucchi for Nadia Amoroso’s collection of essays “Representing Landscapes: A Visual Collection of Landscape Architectural Drawings.” For my part, it was the start of two conversations for the future. Firstly, the essay reflects a discomfort I had (and still have) with the reliance on two-dimensional media to represent highly complex spatial relationships along with the process of internalizing them. Secondly, this is when I started articulating the significance of process versus byproduct and artifacts.

I’m taking the opportunity to come back and reconsider some of the statements made in the original version and it has turned out to be a rebuild. One of the primary reasons for this that

The creation of a drawing or model is an important process for an individual in order to engage the site and problem. While this process of is arguably the most valuable part of making these recordings, they also create proprioceptive relationships and parallel opportunities for self-discovery within the context of the design problem. In many respects, the act of making could be described as multivalent. It serves as a means to investigate the immediate project, allowing the designer to delve into to conditions and problems of the project using a synthetic process. But it also enables the designer to interrogate her or himself, creating a ground for an internal discourse regarding process and intent. In the context of this brief essay I explore the notion the act of making and discovery in an analog operating environment considering the relationship between drawings and models. This is not to suggest that digital methods do not lead to discoveries. However, they are cognitively different methods, requiring different considerations (in addition, digital work flows were not central to my considerations the original essay).

Drawings and models are often thought as sequential pieces versus being iterative elements in a process. A more active description for the relationship between drawing and model is a synthetic construction. This allows representation to be engaged as a form of persuasive argument. In this scenario, the image or model is crafted to describe a problem with the intention of proposing a potential solution, within the context of investigating the problem. This mode of thinking also enable the designer to leverage the two modes of thinking against one another, taking advantage of their strengths and weaknesses as representational mediums.

Drawing is an act central to the process of recording process and as a convention is inherently linked to its historical reliance on the page, or paper, as a driving medium. In fact, paper plays more than a passive role, being one of the first agents of making for the architect. The limitations of a sheet of paper sets up a number of conditions that continue to define how it is used as a medium for representation. The page is primarily thought of as a flat surface, requiring a need to explore means of projection to create an image. Binocular vision must be emulated through the use of tricks of perspective. As something that only emulates space, paper has the ability to suppress or distort three-dimensional space is highly prized. Orthographic projection is one of the most frequently used methods of projection. What is important to note is the limitations of the surface, its lack of depth, is what is leveraged in the process of making of a drawing.  Drawing, or more specifically projection is not just an act of creating an image, but is also the construction of a gaze. Controlling the content on the page and using compositional arrangement to make the viewer aware of the physical limitations of the sheet accomplish this. In some instances, this is further supported by the use of drawing conventions to create an image that is capable of being shared and discussed by multiple persons- the gaze is the ground for discourse.

In contrast, the analog model creates a different set of cues and relationships. Whereas the drawing creates a series of highly specified lines and projections the model creates scenarios with the aim of inventing potential, models illuminate scenarios. This is based on the multivalent conditions that can be revealed in three-dimensional space.  This plays itself out in a number of ways ranging from access to the model from all directions to highly controlled views from a single standpoint in a manner similar to the page. However, it differs from the page in that a range of possibilities is hinted at given that it is a three-dimensional construction.  Adjacencies that cannot be explored in the drawing are reveals and drive how the model is constructed. In some respects where the rigor of the page is its strength, it is the potential for spatial ambiguity that activates the model. In addition, the inherent physical presence of a model makes it a fertile ground to explore issues related to materiality. This is not so much a direct expression of the materials as it is an exploration of those material qualities that you are interested in. Again, this level of specificity while working to emulate the intentions actually creates potentials. Control in some respects is lost, and requires additional investigation using different rules (materials, tools, scale, modes).

The ambiguity built into the model is a limitation given that it does not engender the same level of conceptual control that can be demonstrated in a drawing. This is not a reflection of craft, but a condition of materiality. To regain a precise level of specificity, one must return to a page, where absolute control of the problem is expressed through line and projection.  Therefore, it is incumbent on the designer to leverage the two modes of working against one another in a iterative fashion. Working in parallel creates gaps and inconsistencies, incomplete readings translations of an idea.