Analysing architecture through drawing

Unwin, S (2007) Analysing architecture through drawing. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 101-110. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

This paper reflects on drawing as a medium for acquiring knowledge and understanding of the possibilities and workings of architecture by analysing examples. Drawing has been much discussed as a medium for design and of communication in architecture, but the potential of its role as a medium for analysis, though recognized, has not enjoyed the same attention. The paper begins with a review of drawing's use as a medium of communication and as a medium for the generation, development and refinement of design; it then focuses on drawing's use as a medium for analysing examples. The paper discusses the relationship between drawing and architecture and uses some of the author's own photographs and drawings as illustrations. It argues that rather than being a distinct mediator between architecture (the contribution of the mind) and building (the physical realization of architecture), drawing involves both. Drawing, therefore, can be seen as a surrogate replication on paper of the intellectual (architecture) and constructional (building). In conclusion, the paper argues that drawing constitutes not merely an instrument of architectural production (design and communication), but, as the envelope of both architecture and building, is the arena of architectural power.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: analytical tools; architecture; artefacts; design practices; design process; drawing; representation; visualization
Index terms: drawing, design process, mediator, design practice, visualization, artefact
Subjects: dispute resolution, design methods, technical documentation, design process, design practice, sociology
Topics: Research Practice, Legal Issues, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here