RTD2015 27 Architectural drawing as premise for PhD project
As an architect I have been drawing a lot in my education. Now, in my ongoing PhD project about architectural drawing I use drawing as a way to drive and shape the project, not unlike how I have used drawing when I studied. I try to draw the PhD project forth as both drawing and theory and see drawing and theory as practices that inflict upon and develop each other, but try to avoid that one practice is subjugated to the other.
When describing this way of working as the project’s method, it resonates with how I think architectural drawing works; how it becomes producing in a design process. So, peculiarly, the method of the project and the way architectural drawing can be producing have similarities. Both a research process and a drawing process are epistemic environments (Rheinberger, 2010, Bovelet, 2010) in the way that they are used to produce something new, new knowledge or new architectural drawing. But despite this similarity there are important differences between them; differences that have to do with what we aim at. Drawing can take place in processes of becoming of a work, as an animated process, where the goal of the process is not necessarily defined in advance. A research process should have a goal defined in advance, but also be open enough for this goal to be redefined as you go. The outcome of the research process in my project, the theoretical part of it, is the construction of terms and arguments, which are different from the construction of a drawing.
In this paper I present my PhD project, where I approach architectural drawing, especially orthogonal drawing, as a collection of double conditions, such as analogue and digital notation, the hand and the computer, projections and notations, figures and scores, icons and codes, indeterminacy and determination. To see drawing as double condition is a way to show how opposing trajectories co-exist and can be producing for each other.