ESSAY: HAND DRAWN or DIGITAL?
During the last 30 years, digital technology significantly influenced architectural representation in such a way that now it is almost impossible to find an architect who does not use computers for his/her architectural drawing. This situation raises key questions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of employing digital tools in comparison to hand-drawing. What is the purpose of architectural drawing, and does new technology enhance architectural representation, or is it a virus which reduces the architect’s skills and imagination? Your task here is to formulate an argument and response to the given dilemma.
Word count: 2943
The new age has brought us new options. An overwhelming number of new tools whose usage is mostly dictated by the industry. Nevertheless, it is still in individual’s power to decide which extent they are willing to adapt to these standards. Furthermore, having a stance on this is an extremely tricky decision-making process since we are spoilt for choice. “We are constantly catching up latest definitions of designing standards given by the field” (Martin, 2008, p. 6) or even by the mainstream audience and users of our architecture. It is our job to find the middle ground and find the simplest solution for the problem given by the client. Yet, make no mistake, the maximum effort is required in order to achieve the most sophisticated product which looks effortless. As our compass, we use visual means of communication to appropriately present our ideas to the wide public. How important is expression of understanding in the final presentation, and what are the limits of the tools we are using on a daily basis? This essay will cover the question of the place of the digital techniques in today’s architecture opposing to the centuries – old traditional techniques of presentation.
Figure 1: Tidal Terrains (Denam, 2013)
Digital Overtake?
In today’s society we can find a raising number of self-called “digital designers”, whose designs are driven by new tools provided by digitalism. Arguably ruling the artistic side of internet, why did we decide to accept this new reality where we admire completely digital work? Is it really the quality of the work with incorporating an idea behind it, or do we have a high regard of the technique used for making it? Perhaps we are really admiring the contemporary, new, still unexplored means of art composed in software’s such as Adobe or Clipart Studio accompanied by drawing tablets (Wacom). These techniques are still considered as enigma to the wide public, hence it quickly becomes a topic of interest.
“In contemporary architectural design, digital media is increasingly being used not as a representational tool for visualization but as a generative tool for derivation of form and its transformation – the digital morphogenesis” (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 13). This issue is the reason why the topic of this essay is even brought to existence. We are facing an immense step aside from the centuries – old traditions and norms of the architectural design. Whereas the new, digitally generated forms are popping up in our cities, the without considerations of the
conventional understanding of architectural terms. As an alternative they are instead calculated by the provided generative computational method. Are we brought into this situation because of our capitalistic surrounding where time really is the money, or is it crucial to bring the control of the design back to the author?
Figure 2: Phaeno Science Centre Sketch (Hadid, 2005)
Figure 3: Phaeno Science Centre (Bartz, 2013)
Nevertheless, a number of examples where digitalism was used appropriately can be seen in a recent history. However, the work of Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman and Zaha Hadid can be easily differentiated from work exhibited in modern magazines such as Arch daily, and so on. That distinction is noticeable after questioning the reason for using digital tools. The most intricate buildings made in 90s and early 2000s have mostly still been designed by hand, even though they often get mistaken as digitally produced forms, such as Phaeno Science Centre designed by Zaha Hadid. On one side there is a presence of digital tools designed to help us make great architecture, while on the other hand of the spectrum there is architecture showcasing the tools behind it.
Sir Peter Cook discussed the way struggle brings understanding into the design, while dismissing everything that doesn’t include constant failing as a part of the process. Conversely, people in general avoid the struggle by keeping away from it. Applying this directly to hand drawing, a number of designers claim that they don’t have a desirable knowledge and skill of hand drawing. A conclusion that follows is that if individual doesn’t know how to draw, he/she should go digital. However, it is widely experienced that general public usually gets more charmed by the work produced by hand. Recollection the author’s process, reflection of his\her thoughts and interests might be the unconscious trigger of viewer’s mind where digital art falls blank. (Cook, 2012)
La Sagrada Familia Case Study
By looking at the precedented cases of architecture throughout the history, it is easy to realise that the most complex designs are not the product of algorithm behind it. Such an example is La Sagrada Familia where all the decisions after Gaudi’s death were a direct product of carefully constructed 1:25 plaster model made by his successor. The team finalising the façade and the nave in the 90s even went as far as moulding an 1:10 nave model which proved crucial in order to recognize and apply techniques used by Gaudi. (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 158)
In spite of this, due to the time period taken by finalising La Sagrada Familia and the background variety of designers working on it, recent work on the building has been digitalized. Yet it is important to reflect that the knowledge already has foundations of its in depth understanding. This rational approach is now reasoned by using new technology simply as a tool for completing such an intricate structure. Several factors influenced this outcome, with flexibility in mid-construction while and acceleration of both design and construction being the leading ones. (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 162)
“I don’t know how to.”
With previously mentioned argument of lacking hand drawing skill and knowledge I would like to expand exploring of the power of drawing. Visualisation by hand drawing should be discussed as tool of communicating the idea to another person rather than something connected with beauty or representation. People usually take technical aspect of drawing too strictly. Nevertheless, the architectural vocabulary should be exhibited through pre-representation as in sketching and diagramming, which is more than enough to “do the job”. (Cook, 2012)
That being said, the importance of final representation is questioned. It can be argued that final design is not the moment architecture crucially needs, all the more since final drawings are often leaving behind its own sense of design (Cook, 2012).
In most cases of final hand drawing representation, it is the case of carefully crafted compound of all its previous decisions. Yet again final digital representations are usually calculations of the judgements previously made resulting in the author not being able to comprehend issues of his\her own final design.
“In recent years, good buildings are in generally nothing more than Happy Accidents”. (Eisenman, 2013) Designers are using the tools without coherent reason behind it, distancing themselves from their own work by the tool’s limitations. Computer gives author a facility, without providing the idea. Considering that,
Peter Eisenman is stating how 90% of the people using computers have no idea what exactly they should be doing with it. (Eisenman, 2013) One of the best claims he gave in his talk (2013) is that “Form making should be done instead of Form Finding” (Eisenman, 2013) while using digital platform should be critical in every sense.
Control is another important aspect already mentioned here. While working by hand, we are giving ourselves complete control over the design with only limitation being the ideas our brain is providing. Communication between our brain and the paper is key for every decision and calculation being made properly with the good outcome for the design. Whereas if computers are not used carefully or critically, they take over our calculations and control quite shamelessly, thus the creator can lose sight of what they truly wanted to portray. Once the judgements and control get back to the author consciously, digital designing will not be such an issue anymore. (Eisenman, 2013)
In the other hand, new times brought new answers to old problems of drawing and designing. Ability to rewind, change and replay or so-called Procedural Operations (Lynn, 2013) is one the most positive claims technology has.
“Good architecture is one from the authors that can see space, time, surfaces, etc.” (Eisenman, 2013) However, it is nowhere stated that tools for producing the architecture have to be done manually. Nevertheless, it has to be done carefully as one would not take a pencil and start painting. The decision of tools used for architecture must be done rationally and based on the needs of the design, not the knowledge, skill or author’s desire.
However, the fact that “Digital Architects start out a project by quickly generating ideas with the incredibly precise outcome.” (Cook, 2014, p 214) is a non-questioned argument going in favour of digital art. It does not only clarify the place of digitalism in the area of architectures role in today’s continuously evolving capitalistic context in which everything that is not cost and time effective is eventually going to be set aside, maybe even including analogue architecture.
The Digital Curve
By expanding the research of this issue into other areas of art I have realised that architecture is somewhat behind the curve of digitalism from the other art forms.
Acknowledged composer Junkie XL whose work is synonymous with number of soundtracks for movies such as Mad Max and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice explained how he was one of the first digital composers in the industry and the way his career eventually changed its direction. Digitalism opened a number of new options for music production, such as discovering new sounds and being able to produce music without presence of instruments. However, a number of features digital sound can never replace has been shortly discovered. Naturality of the sound, the process of the sound being brought together, and the overall artificial feel became embodiment of digitally composed scores.
It was only after he achieved the peak of the digital curve, continued by going back to implementing analogue basics into his music that the musician felt complete satisfaction with work he has produced. The art of mixing sounds together, alongside with effortless unexpected sounds instruments can produce was what brought Junkie XL back the world of most recognisable composers, standing right next legendary Hans Zimmer and Thomas Newman.
Movies are the area where digitalism is currently at its peak. It came to the point where shooting a with traditional equipment comes out 10 times more expensive than with the digital camera. The movie legend Quentin Tarantino explained how he is one of the rare examples of completely analogue directors. The reason behind is that digital film is currently more acceptable in industry and it is hard to find resources to fund analogue film movie shoot. Yet, a number of directors refuse to move from the naturality of the film camera. Quentin explained digital camera as losing the core of having movie as a continuity of the photos instead of digitally put together video. Digital form provides the opportunity for the endless reshoots, making the effort behind the work somewhat worthless. Whereas analogue technique puts the artist in the position where he\she has to make every shot count, since every roll is composed out of only 36 attempts, making every single one of them meaningful. This stance on digitalism complements the praise of Tarantino’s timeless work. Although constantly contradicting cinema standards, people can appreciate the ‘naked’ art of cinematography in his work, without any knowledge in that particular area of art.
Understanding Digitalism
The term digital is actually not recent, it comes from the 15th century when Alberti started the movement of overcoming the metaphysical relationship between subject and the object (Carpo, 2011, p. 54). By measuring, surveying and drawing the scaled plan of Rome, he realised that manual copying would hardly preserve the measurements of the original work hence he put the plan into numbers and coordinates marking the birth of technology. Later he went a step further by applying these principles on the statue (De Statua). He accomplished a possibility of different parts of the same statue being simultaneously manufactured in different workshops and when pieces would be assembled, they would fit perfectly. (Carpo, 2011, p. 55) The only difference between our and Alberti’s approach is the speed, which explains why no one used or even tried to make sense of Alberti’s digital tools until recent years.
In spite of this, “at the broader cultural level, quite often architecture gets criticised for being connected with AI, Robotics, Big Data or social media.” (Carpo, 2018) Yet “when mainstream architectural world is invited to theory-led field of literature, a disconnection kicks in. When architecture appears like a dark side of the moon to the mainstream public.” (Carpo, 2018) which makes it architects’ responsibility to produce work influenced by great masters, in addition to being widely appreciated by people. This issue is usually resolved by final visuals which can bring the complicated design straight in front of the user’s eyes.
Perks and Weaknesses
“The graphics tablet allows you to both apply and revise your layers without the risk of tearing, smudging, or ruining your paper.” (Peters, 2014) It makes the reversibility in digital drawn art crucial part of its existence. The idea of modification without of certain aspect of the drawing opens up a never seen before number of possibilities. The option to resize, control objects within the piece and even add ready-made filters (B&W, glare, etc.) has given extensive creative freedom to the artists, without having any destructive consequence.(Peters, 2014) However, this technique excluding the struggle Cook frankly pointed out, or is all of this designed to make the artist’s life a bit easier?
It is widely argued how no computer screen can replace the sensibility and connection with the object that can be held in our hands. The weight, texture and even smell add on the phenomenological side of the art piece. (Your Art Path, n.d.) “Moreover, the strokes you didn’t intend, and those little imperfections are what make traditional art so beautiful and unique.” (DeHart, 2014.)
Figure 5: Concept Sketch (Piano, n.d.)
Figure 4: La Segrada Familia Nave Model, (Kolarevic, 2013.)
Figure 6: A comparison (Vetyr, 2017)
Yet the reason traditional art gets so praise might be because its cons require the excessive proficiency in order to overcome them. In most cases, traditional medium is unforgiving. For example, the line done with markers is usually going to be the part of the final work. Some techniques are more forgiving, such as acrylic paint, but even they have a limitation.
Furthermore, digitalised work is easier to be kept safe. A number of factors can ruin the physical copy of the work, while some work even gets lost or ripped. Whereas digital work can be stored in a number of physical and online back-up disks.
In the other hand, while flexibility is one of the biggest perks of digital art, it is also its biggest downside. Whilst traditional art requires thrilling carefulness while applying medium, digital artists tend to be reckless while putting in the strokes without thinking and usually resulting in the artwork which is not the best version of itself. (Your Art Path, n.d.)
Where is the middle Ground?
After we recognise and accept the statement that final drawings are a concept shaped by the industry in order to sell the idea, a dialog between digital and traditional can be discussed in that matter. Everything other than final work does not have a reason to exist in the digital form, yet. All the more because drawing’s capacity should be nothing more but communication of the idea. “For drawing is, like the English language, a great absorber of change, of inconsistency, of variability, of whim, of perverseness, of dogmatism and of waywardness.” (Cook, 2012, p. 228) There is, after all, no such thing as a ‘correct’ drawing which depicts the fact that not knowing how to draw is idea or a statement rather than an issue because “We only need the drawing that gets it done!” (Cook, 2012) in terms of communicating the idea.
If we move towards ways of representing the final visuals of the projects, in order to show the full understanding of the project, the hand drawing is exhibited as the more luxurious and respected process. Yet, “The key is to know when to use each drawing type to see insights at important stages, and to also use the drawing types to allow for discovery during those same drawing stages.” (Lehman, n.d.)
Although importance of traditional basis is non questionable, the later evolvement of presentation is rationally evolving into digital grounds. The increasing development and creativity digital software’s provide is an empowering fact driving the new designers towards new grounds of design. Increased access and shareability in terms of seconds is something modern artist craves. (Schukei, 2020)
The reality is that we are climbing towards the peak of digitalism in architecture where completely digital projects are widely accepted. At the same time, in the other areas of art such as movies, completely digital work is often recognised as dull, shallow and sluggish.
Verdict
The answer about what is right wrong is non-existent. The final visuals are indeed needed in order to commercialise architecture nowadays. Big names in architecture are going extinct, and our work becomes yet another article “available on the shelves” to the costumers which is making our presentation crucial.
To which extent are we willing to accept this reality is completely due to the individual. But there is no arguing that hand drawing is widely more appreciated due to its increased understanding of the subject. The only question we should ask ourselves is who we put in the control of the presentation, ourselves or the tool. Peter Eisenman would say: “Do we have digital because we can’t do some things by hand or do we have digital and then we try to invent the things to do with it” (Eisenman, 2013)
Bibliography:
Kolarevic, B., 2003, Architecture in the Digital Age – Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press, Spain (pp. 13, 158, 162)
Sheil, B., 2008, Protoarchitecture: Analogue and Digital Hybrids, John Wiley & Sons, London (pp. 6, 30)
Sir Peter Cook, 2012, Is Drawing Dead?, Yale university, 2012 Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpw3Lm8ZKOY&list=PL79A5264A0ADED746 [Digital source]
Eisenman, P., 2013, The Foundation of Digital Architecture, Archaeology of Digital, N.L., Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKCrepgOix4&t=46s [Digital source]
Carpo, M, 2011, The Alphabet and the Algorithm, MIT Press, Cambridge (pp. 54 – 56)
Carpo, M, 2018, The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence, GlobalDataPLC, N.L.
Lehman, M. L., n.d., Hand-Drawing Vs Digital-Drawing: How To See Your Design More Deeply, Available at: https://marialorenalehman.com/post/hand-drawing-vs-digital-drawing-how-to-see-your-design-more-deeply [Accessed 10/04/2020]
Peters, J., Prezi, 2014, Manual Drawing versus Digital Drawing, Available at: https://prezi.com/ebmoyxygwupq/manual-drawing-versus-digital-drawing/ [Accessed 10/04/2020]
DeHart, B, 2018, Should you do Digital Art of traditional Art, 17/04/2018, Available at: https://blake-dehart.com/blog/2018/3/14/should-you-do-traditional-art-or-digital-art [Accessed 10/04/2020]
Schukei, A., 2019, Digital Vs. Traditional Art: Is One Better than the Other?, The Art of Education University, Available at: https://theartofeducation.edu/2019/05/29/digital-vs-traditional-art-is-one-better-than-the-other/
[Accessed 10/04/2020]
Anon, n.d., Your Art Path Digital Art VS Traditional Art Battle: Are They Both Valid Mediums?, Available at: https://yourartpath.com/digital-art-vs-traditional-art [Accessed 10/04/2020]
Quentin Tarantino comments on Digital vs Film, Comprovision, 2011, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI [Accessed 10/04/2020]
Analog vs Digital Synthesizers, Junkie XL, 19/12/2016, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifOGG5st0a0 [Accessed 10/04/2020]
Figure List:
Figure 1: Denam, M., 2013, Tidal terrains, Available at:
Figure 2: Hadid, Z., 2005, Phaeno Science Centre Sketch, Available at:
https://www.archdaily.com/868315/the-creative-energy-of-zahas-sketches/58de67e1e58ece48a3000165-the-creative-energy-of-zahas-sketches-image [Digital photograph]
Figure 3: Bartz, Z., 2013, Phaeno Science Centre, Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeno_Science_Center#/media/File:Phaeno_Suedseite_RB.jpg [Digital photograph]
Figure 4: Kolarevic, 2003, La Sagrada Familia Nave Model, Spain, Available at: Kolarevic, B., 2003, Architecture in the Digital Age – Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press, Spain
Figure 5: Piano, n.d., Concept Sketch, Available at:
https://conceptsketch.tumblr.com/post/21429372412 [Digital photograph]
Figure 6: Vetyr, 2017, A comparison, Available at:
https://www.deviantart.com/vetyr/art/Digital-vs-Traditional-pencil-688700350 [Digital photograph]