Interview with Peter Eiseman, Grand Tour Perspecta 41
Ticket #1: Post 500 word entry due before class on January 31st
Topics to include what types of drawings are there, what types of drawings do you make,
what do these drawings teach you? Reflect and refer to the above readings in your ticket.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are many different types of drawing that one could make while travelling to learn more about their surroundings. Floor plans, sections, and elevations of a building that you are within can help you truly understand your surroundings down to the smallest detail. However, I found “Interview with Peter Eisenman” to be very particularly interesting in discussing the way that these drawings actually help one understand a building.
ReplyDelete“Sit in front of that façade until you can tell me something you can’t see…I want you to tell me something that is implied in the façade.” This quote has so much meaning to me. To talk about the symmetry and spacing and other obvious characteristics of a building can be done by the untrained eye. However, to know what the architect was trying to convey through his façade or his urban planning techniques is what an architect truly is. A colonnade with an odd number of bays is not only about the symmetry of the building. By creating a center bay, the designer may be creating a main entrance or focal point.
The simple sketches of these design decisions tell us so much about the drawing. For example, standing on the 4th story of 1111, a quick sketch of the floor plan of Lincoln road tells me so much about the space. The floor paving pattern is reminiscent of Lapidus’ painted stripes in the older section of Lincoln Road. The oxymoronic meeting of vehicular traffic on Alton Road and the pedestrian filled Lincoln Road Mall created such a large energy. People talking and sitting at restaurants easily battled the noise from honking vehicles passing by. A quick sketch of a view from atop 1111 gives Lincoln Road an interesting context. Surrounded by a myriad of glass towers, many of the stores lining the road do not reach past 5 stories. Because Lincoln Road is such a unique and special place, the area has held its ground though much of the area around it has succumbed to the modern cityscape.
The area that a building is located within can tell you just as much about it as any other drawing you may make while visiting the site. A sketch of a person can tell you what age group does the place attract (families, elderly, young adults), their clothing can tell you what type of temperature the place is in (coats, shorts, hats), and their activity can tell you the atmosphere the place has (restaurants, shopping, etc). The success of architecture does not only lie in the design of the building; how and if people make good use of the space designed decides that. The most beautifully designed building means nothing if its design doesn’t attract the crowd to enjoy and admire it: a well-designed home wouldn’t function as a shopping mall and vice versa.
It would seem inherently simple enough to determine that drawing a building would allow for a greater understanding of the intended design. Until the typical reality of procrastination and comparison to the effortlessness of snapping and iPhone photo is pushed aside, the true benefit of sitting down and producing sketches is not revealed. Many of the greats practiced this form of study. A question arises, however. Would the greats have taken the easy route had they had the same resources we do today? There is a quick assumption that a superficial (negative connotations pushed aside) analysis of anything is a bad thing. Although there is validity to this assumption, the phrase jack-of-all-trades, master of none comes to mind. Using the analysis of the built environment as an example of this phrase, a quick study of the building would determine the majority of information one would process drawing and furthermore allow you to study a much larger quantity of works at the same time. In todays world that would seem ideal. Actually sitting down and drawing however has opened my eyes to a few of the many benefits of this form of architectural study. Time to process the information is allotted, time to think about the conclusions and further investigate others that would only result from the previous. No matter what resolution photo is taken, the moment is gone, relatively speaking, and those deeper connections would never be established. Time to reflect on previous design decisions and how they could have been further developed as a comparison to what is being analyzed. Drawing ability is improved from mere practice. The enjoyment from sitting and drawing is captured. Many benefits come from the process despite the current available resources that would intuitively make drawing seemingly obsolete.
ReplyDeleteThese questions that one should continue to ask as the analysis is developed serve as a useful tool to not get caught up in less important details or process and focus directly on the design intention and what is wished to get out of it. Where do you go? How do you document or draw? What do these drawings teach you? Going to the 1111 Lincoln Parking Garage was a learning experience on this process. Although the first question, of where do you go, was answered by the simple requirement of the course location for that day, previous interest in the iconic garage had been established - its bold form, its open platforms, its eccentric location of program throughout the floors. Establishing itself as a dominant role, the buildings form projecting into the sky as seen in perspective was worth further exploration. As a response to this the varying heights of each floor as the building towered was explored in section. Lighting details and pragmatic functions such as railings and how they were dealt with were analyzed in elevation. How the building addresses the ground level pedestrian passage and storefront was also discussed as a group. All lessons learned in an hour or two.
There are several types of drawings, and each type teaches the sketcher something different. The most common type of drawing for architecture students is obviously architectural drawings. Plans, sections, and elevations teach us about the relationships between parts and of parts to the whole. Detail drawings often teach us about ornament or construction methods. Taken together, architectural drawings can also emphasize spatial connections and proportion.
ReplyDeleteStudents can learn from architectural drawings just by examining them, but it is preferable to have students visit buildings and create these drawings themselves so that they have first-hand experience of a building or place. Peter Eisenman touches on the importance of this experience in his interview. Even though he was not drawing, he was able to see architectural details and nuances much more clearly when he was experiencing architecture firsthand. Measuring and documenting aspects of a building, especially by drawing, allows students to recall the architectural lessons learned from the building much better than photography or reading. Drawing forces students to see and pay attention to details in order to record them properly.
Architectural drawings are certainly not the only way to learn. Perspectival drawings are just as important. Perspectives often convey a greater sense of spatial relationships and experiences than architectural drawings. Drawing perspectives, like architectural drawing, also teaches students about proportion. In perspectival drawings, there is a greater emphasis on composition and self-editing. It is up to the sketcher to properly frame the view and decide what should be left out.
Drawing does not always have to be about architecture. Students can also learn from drawing the landscape and other aspects of the surroundings, whether concrete or intangible. What was the weather like while sketching? Was there any other activity around you as you worked? These questions help convey a sense of place to the sketch and help students develop the ability to draw other things besides architecture.
These three types of drawings can teach us many important aspects of architecture and drawing in general. Deciding what to draw and how to draw it is a personal decision that will vary according to the building and an individual’s personal interests. Buildings in less developed areas would teach us more about the relationship with landscape than an urban building would, for example.
While practicing sketching is important for the development of drawing skills, architecture students must also be more selective in what they draw. Eisenman points out that most architects today do not know what or how to see when they travel, and are unable to build on the ideas of past architects because of this lack of knowledge. As students, we should strive to incorporate the knowledge we gained from drawing a particular building into our own designs.
Elizabeth Fleischhauer
ReplyDeleteThere are several types of drawings, and each type teaches the sketcher something different. The most common type of drawing for architecture students is obviously architectural drawings. Plans, sections, and elevations teach us about the relationships between parts and of parts to the whole. Detail drawings often teach us about ornament or construction methods. Taken together, architectural drawings can also emphasize spatial connections and proportion.
Students can learn from architectural drawings just by examining them, but it is preferable to have students visit buildings and create these drawings themselves so that they have first-hand experience of a building or place. Peter Eisenman touches on the importance of this experience in his interview. Even though he was not drawing, he was able to see architectural details and nuances much more clearly when he was experiencing architecture firsthand. Measuring and documenting aspects of a building, especially by drawing, allows students to recall the architectural lessons learned from the building much better than photography or reading. Drawing forces students to see and pay attention to details in order to record them properly.
Architectural drawings are certainly not the only way to learn. Perspectival drawings are just as important. Perspectives often convey a greater sense of spatial relationships and experiences than architectural drawings. Drawing perspectives, like architectural drawing, also teaches students about proportion. In perspectival drawings, there is a greater emphasis on composition and self-editing. It is up to the sketcher to properly frame the view and decide what should be left out.
Drawing does not always have to be about architecture. Students can also learn from drawing the landscape and other aspects of the surroundings, whether concrete or intangible. What was the weather like while sketching? Was there any other activity around you as you worked? These questions help convey a sense of place to the sketch and help students develop the ability to draw other things besides architecture.
These three types of drawings can teach us many important aspects of architecture and drawing in general. Deciding what to draw and how to draw it is a personal decision that will vary according to the building and an individual’s personal interests. Buildings in less developed areas would teach us more about the relationship with landscape than an urban building would, for example.
While practicing sketching is important for the development of drawing skills, architecture students must also be more selective in what they draw. Eisenman points out that most architects today do not know what or how to see when they travel, and are unable to build on the ideas of past architects because of this lack of knowledge. As students, we should strive to incorporate the knowledge we gained from drawing a particular building into our own designs.
*KT-Intro
ReplyDeleteAbout 5 ½ years ago, when I was in the process of applying to colleges and picking a career to follow for the rest of my life, I wanted to be an archeologist. I honestly thought that being profoundly involved in the histories of civilizations was an adventurous way to live, and I had been using all of my free time to read about ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome of course, and even ancient Oriental civilizations. But the first time I decided to study some of the Egyptian temples in one of the books I rented at my hometown library, I tried to compare a photograph of the hypostyle hall in the temple at Karnak on one page with the main floor plan on another page. For the first time I realized that what interested me most about the ancient buildings were the spatial relationships found in the plans, and the simple geometrical arrangements of spaces.
A long list of questions began to accumulate in my mind about the reasons why people built certain places in such particular ways, and I was starting to see the numerous combinations of building arrangements in civic centers, religious complexes, burial sites, down to the scale of rooms in houses. Until the time I had chosen a college, I had only referred to places as evidence of culture, sophisticated arts, and past events. On the other hand, in thinking about those old places as though I was living in them hundreds or thousands of years ago, I realized that they could influence people, and in turn people had influenced their formation and importance. I quickly changed my major from History/Archeological Studies to Architecture, and started to think in the present. And I started to draw more. It was starting to become more important to me to understand how building design could influence people today.
*Why do you draw?
I would just say that it’s for educational purposes at this point in my life … But thank goodness for architecture schools! There is way too much on Earth now to draw and understand it all! On a more personal note, my sketches help me remember things the way I would like to understand them, and my other drawings all come from the mixture of ingredients I get from seeing a design from the original architect’s perspective and from my own perspective. When I draw something, the item never stays exactly as it might be “photographed”, so to speak. There must be a little of myself in the lines on the paper.
More than any other reason, I draw because it’s fun to compare my thoughts with another architect’s thoughts. Freehand sketching is not supposed to be like copying or recording. For example, I could draw a Palladio building in an entirely different way than Palladio might have conveyed it. Or maybe I would have to comprehend a Louis Kahn museum as though I were a detective trying to find his squares and circles hidden behind the perfect framework of his heavy structures. Or maybe I would even have to figure out how to draw a Frank Ghery building because I might hate it so much.
Interestingly enough, the more I draw, the more committed I become to designing and creating better projects. (I guess it could be the practicality in the amount of knowledge I subconciously retain or even in the mistakes I’ve seen other designers make in the past.) It’s probably possible to find a direct influence from a famous piece of architecture in every single one of my projects.
*KT-Part2
ReplyDelete*What do you draw?
In my opinion, it’s more educationally effective to sketch about buildings that are decreed as the most complete, or rather famous. However, with the mind of a designer, I’m sure that everything I draw is determined by what I like and what I honestly hate. A lot of my drawings are of large or monumental objects. For example, I enjoyed sketching the dome of St. Peter’s as it appeared over the tree line, rather than the beautiful courtyard below the Vatican museum terrace on which I was standing. But I bet that my 6 classmates each drew something different, and that we could have a great discussion about the Vatican over some wine at lunch.
Specifically in travel sketching, I draw a perspective first, which is usually my worst drawing. But I think that’s a good thing because it helps me to shake away all of my primary assumptions. The second drawing (sometimes two or more) is the more analytical that helps me correct my first one. That “body” drawing shows that I’m trying to get a grip on some characteristic or idiosyncrasy I can use as a core idea to stretch the place out and around. Sometimes it’s like a partí that shows an idea that I identify as one driving force of the project at hand. The last drawing I make tends to be of the entire place, unless it’s too big for me to capture it from a reasonable distance. In that rare case, I make do with what I can infer and the other information I have drawn.
Mostly I have perspectives with some axonometric-like drawings. My sketchbook also shows my interest in sections, but a lot of them are partly empty or only composed of outlines because they take more time. I like my full page on-point perspectives the most because I really remember a lot from the hours I have spent on those.
*What do these drawings teach you?
Since I move onto the campus here at UM I have been going to the same places in Miami/Coral Gables, and never truly understood them for their unique ideas. With drawings like “napkin” sketches, a building can be made into a little object. So my sketch book could really be a collection of little objects or models of large full scale spaces. I learn about design from those, and sometimes I learn from fine details because the ideas are in the smaller subjects too.
I have never really re-used and idea directly from another designer’s work. I can’t. It has to be reproduced through my own thought process for me to record it. So something new is always generated from (anyone’s) drawings.
In order to be successful, it’s important to know what’s “in” and what’s “out”, or old news. But it’s even more important to give thanks to the fundamentals that every building must follow in order to work for people. The hard part of producing knew designs is knowing how close you can get to the border of functionality without crossing into the realm of “awfully good”, meaning pretty but not functional. A lot of experienced architects can solve problems and make the solution seem very simple. Great architects can solve them and make them seem very complex on purpose. That’s probably why I don’t like sketching the overly modern, sinuous buildings. Classical/neo-classical architecture is what I focus on for maybe 50% of a sketch book, and the other 50% might include modern buildings and some analysis of modern ideas.
*KT-Part3
ReplyDelete*What types of drawings are there?
It’s probably a never-ending list, but to start: plans, sections, elevations, and other schematic types, 3-dimensional drawings, like axonometrics and isometrics, and perspectives (whose numbers of points could go on forever along a very lengthy sheet of paper), which could be interior or exterior, of landscape or cityscape, and analytical drawings like natural light diagrams or site maps. Smaller drawings could be of details or construction elements, or like a small partí that shows a BIG idea.
Really anything could be drawn about a place. And I’ll be able to pick my favorite methods of comprehending architecture as I continue my career. With the time I have already spent drawing and traveling, I have concluded that there is really nothing new to discover (as an archeologist) but that there is a lot more to create (as a potential architect).
-Kaitlin C Thomas-
1/31/2012
When studying architecture, the built environment, and landscape, there are many types of drawings which can be created for a variety of purposes and goals. One distinguishing aspect of a drawing in my mind is the divide between a drawing expressing ideas versus a drawing of pure documentation.
ReplyDeleteThe latter is rather straightforward in character, in which a subject is drawn using common methods of architectural representation such as the plan, section and elevations of a subject. These drawings might then be analyzed at face value, using tangible characteristics of design, such as proportion and symmetries to discuss the success and/or failure of the subject’s aesthetics.
The former explores what Eisenman discusses in his interview when he states “Anyone can look at window-to-wall relationships, but can anyone see edge stress, the fact that the Venetian windows are moved outboard from the center to create a blank space – a void between the windows – which acts as a negative energy?”. These are drawings that try to capture the underlying voice of the subject, and how the way in which an object is designed expresses an idea beyond technical beauty that are discovered through straightforward documentation.
While a drawing may be purely an exploration of documenting a particular building detail, or one which tries to express an architect’s underlying idea of space through perspective, oftentimes the line between drawing types and objectives are mixed and blurred. For example, a documentation of a building’s elevation split into a section may be both an exercise in documenting proportion, while revealing an idea which the designer was trying to express about the relationship between the interior and exterior.
For me, capturing ideas that are found within deeper, implied elements of design tend to be more easily achieved through a combination of verbal and graphical expression. The use of diagrammatic sketches augmented with text becomes a quick and useful tool for recalling important aspects of a documented subject. I find the inclusion of information via text and labelling an extremely valuable part of drawing and documentation which guides one’s eyes and can help an individual see what is implied in drawing.
When drawing and documenting the 1111 Garage, a combination of orthographic, diagrammatic and perspective drawings helped me begin to understand the ideas expressed through design aspects of the building. After drawing characteristics of the building that I found particularly interesting and taking time to digest the experience, I understand the 1111 Garage to be a building expressing change and contrast. The primary expression of open, light, slabs contrast heavily with the adjacent connecting building, which has a heavy reading through its façade and material treatment. As you progress through the floors of the building, you experience a sequence and compression and expansion in floor heights, giving the user a contrast in spatial experience which further amplifies the openness and views of the surrounding city when they are reached. All of this is achieved using concrete, an inherently heavy material. However, the idea of heaviness is combatted through the use of architectural elements such as the fins which were poured around each of the floor slabs. From the exterior, the expression of thick, concrete floor-slabs are thereby eliminated, achieving an almost impossibly light appearance.
Before reading the interview with Peter Eisenman, a peer of mine who had read it gave me an idea of what it was about. He had told me that Peter Eisenman went on a grand tour in Europe with a mentor, Collin Rowe, and that Eisenman believes that such mentoring is no longer possible today. The first three words to leave my mouth after hearing that were “That is absurd!” However, after going through the interview myself, I began to understand where Eisenman was coming from when he made that remark, and I was convinced that his statement was accurate.
ReplyDeleteCollin Rowe was very dedicated to his profession. Eisenman said that in several occasions Rowe pointed out buildings by famous architects that were not documented in any books. Not only did he know buildings, but also the history of the era the buildings were built in. “He [Collin] said we could not go to Florence until we had seen Rome, because I [Eisenman] needed to understand the influence of Rome on Florentine and Bolognese painting.” However, when it came to the method of teaching his student, I disagree with Rowe.
Eisenman was told my Rowe to “sit in front of a façade until you can tell me something you can’t see.” While that is beneficial to a certain degree, it is by no means a replacement to drawing what one is looking at, and Eisenman has admitted not drawing what he was observing throughout the tour.
Drawing has always been an essential part of an architect’s education and career. The connection between the mind, the hand, and the pencil can never be replaced by simply analyzing the building visually.
When drawing something, one breaks it down to basic lines, slowly adding more lines, and then some more, until there is a reconstruction of the building on a sheet of paper.
Whether it is a plan, elevation, section, perspective, or a detail, when one draws it he/she is getting a deep understanding of the structure. Even if the person already has some kind of idea of it, documenting the building enhances that understanding.
Documenting buildings on paper also creates a record of what one has seen throughout his/her travels. While snapping pictures is also a method of documentation, drawing opens up the opportunity of diagramming the building based on the understanding of what one sees, or what one is trying to understand, without necessarily drawing the building exactly how it looks like.
I understand that as one’s career develops, and the amount of experience gained throughout the years increases substantially, the architect can understand what a building is trying to convey without drawing it. But before reaching that stage, I do not believe mentors should instill that method to their pupils yet. After all, a student needs to lay the foundations for a career in architecture. Drawing does that.
Today (Monday) I walked out to the balcony of my apartment. Where I live wind normally blows at the edge of my balcony. Sometimes there is amazingly strong wind. So today it was a nice sunny day with a lot of wind coming from the ocean into the rivers. One day I though on buying a kite and hang it in there due to the strong winds. Sometimes I even play a game with myself where I close my eyes and pretend that I am jumping from a plane with a parachute and believe that I am falling by feeling the wind hitting on me. The point is that there is a lot of wind that can be use. So today i though on putting a homemade wind turbine to transform wind energy into electricity. So I was bored and I though on maybe making one, so I look it up in Internet and there are well-explained instructions on how to it. This device would power up my house with a renewable and clean resource made by nature. However it would be inefficient for individuals to get their own small turbines to put somewhere in their homes that it will use enough wind energy and do not disturb the well being of the individual. There might be a better-designated spot to put a wind turbine in the whole bldg with bigger fans that would provide energy to the whole bldg for the good of everyone like a garbage disposal or water pumps. The bldg can even be designed to achieve more energy. In a zone where most bldgs are power by their independent wind turbines, less energy will be demanded from fossil fuels thus dispersing wealth and cheering for the earth.
ReplyDeleteSo that was my experience. I was just enjoying the day when I got an idea not directly associated with architecture. I decided to draw it. By drawing it, I put my thought into paper making it easier to see, organizing the information and making more ideas to flow. (first I drew a section of my balcony with the home made wind turbine. then I decided to incorporated in a bldg design so I looked online for precedents and drew the precedent. Then I decided to draw a turbine in the roof of my bldg)
I believe what you draw is directly associated with the intentions that you have with that drawing. If I want to draw a shape that I am not looking at and I am struggling because I don’t understand it, maybe I draw it in plan or section to see a better picture. If I want to record the landscape because I like it, I draw it the way I see it. Or for example at the trip of Peter Eiseman with Colin they drew what they liked. I think their intentions on those trips where to see physically architecture they admire and record it to learn from it. If I want to learn about a bldg I draw what I want to learn or understand. And that’s amazing, because it works, once you draw it you have a better understanding of it plus its more efficient in your memory, its not just like a description that you can vaguely do about it but a drawing that you can redraw again because you drew each line that you consider to be drawn.
The types of drawings one can do are elevations, sections, perspectives, details and various others. You can draw plans and footings of the building too. Each drawing allows the viewer an opportunity to see the object in many ways. I like to draw elevations and specific details that I find interesting about the object or building. I do not like drawing perspectives because it is slightly more challenging for me. I have a tendency to draw as though I am looking down on the building therefore it takes more concentration and time in order for me to draw a building in the correct perspective. I enjoy using pencil and pen sometimes I’ll use watercolors to enhance the picture. These drawings provide me with important information about the building and surroundings. It allows me to either look at specific areas in the building or to look in a wide view and see all that is around and makes the environment.
ReplyDeleteTuesday, January 24, I was at 1111 Lincoln Rd. This is a one of a kind parking structure in Miami, Florida it is iconic. It is so unique to the area that I absolutely love it! It is spectacular and such an interesting and intriguing parking garage. The architect really stepped out the box in created an environment unlike any other parking structure. The thin lines and open areas are so contrasting to other parking places that it truly stands out. The funky colonnades and thin concrete floors allow it to be one of the “coolest” parking garages. The garage is located in a very hip and happening area. The contemporary open strip mall goes well with this type of garage. The surrounding space that is created by this is wonderful. It is open and allows for lots of movement. The shops and cafes allow for anyone to easily window shop as they go down the street. There is nice seating around landscaping and public art along the street. The nice breeze from the water and sun evenly shaded by the trees provide a cool and calming environment. There are nice water features that are not over powering but welcoming to the people who are enjoying the space. It is a nice and unique area that is inviting and engaging. As I was observing the surroundings the people were coming through and in and out of stores and café. People seemed at peace as they came through that space. The environment reminded me of Paris, France because of the European way where people took their time to enjoy a coffee or sit and relax in the sun its was though this space embodies that lifestyle.
After reading Peter Eisenman’s Grand Tour, I could relate considering I had had a similar experience this past summer as I was in the Summer Abroad Grand European Tour with Professor Gottardi. Although mine was not as intense and laboring I was able to have a hands on experience and truly experience classical architecture. I loved the trip and I am eager to go back and explore some more. However I do wish more student architects were able to take a trip like his and truly engage the architecture like his experience. The trip definitely enhances one knowledge in the field they wish to make a profession.
Majority of people think of architects as they make only technical drawings. Even many of the architects themselves do not see themselves making any other types. They think about plans, elevations, and sections. Yet, those are just tiny parts of multitude of drawings architects draw.
ReplyDeleteI still remembered that since our second year design studio, we have to design artist studios in Monhegan Island, we started out with a parti, or a diagram, or a quick sketch. And at that time it dawned on me that there are other types of drawings. We draw these quick, schematic drawings as a way to express, convey, or communicate. Then in design development, we draw things to scale. This other type of drawing that we draw as a thinking process. Then in the end we draw those aforementioned technical drawings as recording tools.
When we go out and sketch, at first, I thought of it as an exercise to use drawings as recording tools. I just drew what I saw, and focused on rendering it to my satisfaction. At the end of the day, I had just one single watercolor that taught me naught but how many layers of watercolor you need in order to create depth in a painting. After looking through Errol’s sketches and reflecting back, I realized I just focused at the end of the process to the exception of everything that should come before. In his book, Errol did draw what he saw, yet he did draw so much beyond. Not only that he used drawings as recording tools, he also used them as thinking process, and as a way to express. An overall perspective view might be just a recording drawing, but an elevation required a thinking of how it will look like flattened. Human figure and dimension might just record the information but a floor plan or a section definitely required a thought process, since it was not what he simply saw.
A particular quote from the interview, “Sit in front of that façade until you can tell me something that you can’t see.”, illustrated the point exactly. It is that moment of “I see” that you do not really see – you feel, you comprehend, and you understand – that Eisenman was explaining. During that grand tour, he actually did “see” buildings. The fact that he did not draw at all, however, is contrary to my belief. Especially, with the instantaneous nature of digital camera these days, people prefer to take photographs of places. I admit that it is a superior tool to record at what you are looking, yet why settle for that when drawings could do much more.
Travel drawing is a daily discipline that I have always wanted to obtain, but could never quite figure out how to properly practice it. The primary questions that I have been struggling with are what to draw and how to draw it. I am pretty good at drawing what I see, but analyzing what I see simultaneously is a different skill all together. I find it is fairly easy to draw what you see because it is concrete with no room for misguided thoughts and possible connection to something that might be irrelevant. For example, in my mind two plus two equals four, but to others two plus two might equal two ones with a negative space between two more ones of equal size. In short, it is completely different and far more difficult to draw what is implied or to draw an alternate view.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about Peter Eisemen's travels through Europe the gap of my ignorance has lessened. I was intrigued with the section about how he learned to think and see like an architect based on the simple question 'tell me what is implied.' I, again, have no idea how to practice these thoughts but it is very interesting in theory. What did the architect do to design this? Where did his ideas come from? Who was his/her influence? And how will this affect the future works of future architects? Some of my previous professors have preached this to me but I have never seen or read it first hand. After this reading, I am starting to see the connection between everything 'art' and the great works of architecture. As the cliché goes, “If you want to be the best, you must learn from the best.”
So what do I draw? How do I draw it? What do I learn from these drawings? And how do I properly record what I see? These questions I hope to master by the end of this semester primarily through drawing, A LOT, and reading up on how the past great architects and artists obtained and maintained their traveling eyes. Errol Barron’s book ‘Observations’ establishes the precedents on what types of drawings should be produced while travel drawing. Some of the types of images displayed in the book are schematic plans, building and street sections, elevations, perspectives, analytical diagrams, people, flowers, streetscapes, etc. The overall lessen learned from looking through this book/guide is that everything that creates the environment, or moment, should be drawn and observed. Everything you see and feel should be illustrated. So far I have started with drawing what I see, but I hope to soon open my eyes and draw what I should see.
To conclude, I feel that the practices of travel drawing are expansive, but more importantly it is getting these disciplines to become daily exercises that is the difficult part. In my opinion, analyzing the obvious is very difficult to someone who has never done such visual exercises and who has only stuck to what they saw.