Architecture in practice has always been an odd mix of arts and sciences. The architect, designer and coordinator, needs to sell a vision with confidence to deliver. A core communication skill of architects is the rendering of ‘possible’ real world outcomes in drawn representation.
Representation has a long architectural history and conversations can become a snoozefest. However, it is fundamental to the abstract world that new buildings come to be, and when we talk about architecture as a communication of building ideas, the area in which a digital evolution will most impact the practice.
Representation is different from a drawing in that it has an inherent attachment to either something physical or a pictograph of an idea. Early architecture education usually consists of drawing ‘imaginary’ slices through increasingly complex objects and buildings. Through these exercises, we first practice the ability to perceive objects through drawing, revealing unseen relationships between components, assemblies, and spaces.
On the first approach, representation is about seeing. In representation, drawing becomes a medium of perception.
The real to imaginary flow of representation is more commonly used in reverse. Designs of physical objects are usually rendered first drawing of rough shape and concept and then drawings of increasing detail and realness as the design is put to production with the help of other experts. Representation in this direction is communicative and utilitarian. Unlike words, representation is less burdened by the author’s perspective. Conceptual drawings give room for the interpretation by other viewers.
In a collaborative design environment, the ability of the team to communicate and innovate through representation defines the team’s ability to align on complex ideas to produce a coherent end result.
Drafting consists of layering, copying, and projecting, all things CAD does very well. CAD spoke the language of drafting, and layers as a digital analog works too well for the architecture process. Digital vellum vaulted architecture into the digital age, but allowed us to bring the baggage of archaic processes. One can argue that the structure and nature of architecture, its processes and relationships, have not changed for decades. Despite our ever increasing repertoire of form-making, the ‘making’ of buildings itself has stayed very much the same.
We’ve seen digital tools and skillsets fundamentally change the interactions of many types of work. Design and building work is no different. However, the profession as a whole, due to being held far far away from the engineering department at our respective schools, is not guided by a majority well versed in modern technologies. Architecture’s foray into digital practice is in its infancy. Our digital focus remains set on reproducing the representative style of pen on paper (which is in turn, representative of a real object), led largely by companies versed in software rather than architectural design.
For architecture to take that necessary digital leap, the profession needs to find its digital language. Beyond detailed models and as-if-it-is-real photoshop images, the truly digital architecture practice is just finding its words.