you mean hand drafting right?

i don't think i have heard of any architecture school that eschews hand drawing.

assuming that is what you are talking about, what was the consensus? would it be bad thing?

I think it will be about how a student is taught about line weights, presentation, legibility, etc. I found learning to draft by hand a challenge at first - I was far too much a perfectionist and would spend far too much time getting it how I wanted. Now awdays, I could do it in a few clicks.

Drawing by hand is another thing. For the purposes of architecture, I think it is more about communicating quickly than being a good artist.

i am actually talking about hand-drawing altogether - including drafting. in the mid-80s entering students at my undergrad had a very thorough graphics class during which we covered drafting, constructed perspectives, sketching techniques, choice of media relative to what is meant to be communicated, lettering, orthographic projection, etc.

when i taught in undergrad '03 thru '05, there was no explicit education in most of these areas, meaning that 4th and 5th year students had only the hand-drawing skills that they had developed on their own. in many cases this was not much.

so, by extension, now there are probably faculty that have finished undergrad with no drawing instruction except computer drawing. they probably didn't get any more in grad school. so are there faculty who would be hard-pressed to be visually expressive through hand drawing?

we didn't come to consensus, only suspected that it's probably true in some places these days.

i dropped by the local repro house yesterday to make some copies of plan/elevation/section sketches (hand drawn in ink on yellow trace).

the guy there said, "wow - you really do this stuff by hand? cool!"

pride? sure.
approaching anachronism? apparently.

My undergraduate program still gives a solid foundation in hand drawing (and fabrication) during the first year.

In a computer drawing you can churn out multiple copies really quickly, without really thinking about the composition. Learning drafting forces you to think of those aspects of the drawing often lost in the computer, and all my presentation material has been much better because of it.

Computer drafting is definitely less expensive than drafting by hand, from a materials standpoint -- all those rapidograph pens, mylar, etc cost too much.

The world is not ending, people. Every school I know of still teaches hand sketching.

I've been seeing students that get seduced by the "glossiness" and cool factor of digital representation to a point where the information that they present suffers. My partner and I would hear the excuses: "it looks better on screen", or "I didn't have my penweights with me," or "I didn't realize it was going to print this dark. . ."

As if they were less responsible for the way the drawings looked when printed because they were plotted by a machine.

It's just laziness and not taking the time to develop the skills necessary to appropriately implement the tools they choose to use.

"It's not my fault my drawings don't look good; the printer sucks."

We decided to ban all digital output this semester, forcing all presented material to be manipulated by hand in some way. It's been working well so far and hopefully the skills they gain from having to think about their presentation more will translate to their digital output.

Either an image conveys idea and intent, or it doesn't. Period. If kids in school are making images that don't read, then they should be called out on that.

I love to draw and take my sketchbook with me everywhere. But getting all sentimental about scraping carbon on paper is just silly.

It's all 'hand drawing', or are you working the mouse with your elbows?

Doesn't everybody learn to hand draft anyways? Even if we do digital and stay digital in the second or third year, aren't they still teaching hand drafting to the freshies?

i'm with 765; it's all representation; either it works or it doesn't whatever the medium.

i like rehiggens take that there is no excuse for bad digital production, but i don't think you need to go to the extreme of banning digital tools; instead i think it would be beneficial for students to be taught how to use digital production to create physical representation as they intend it, i.e. to avoid the whole "it looked different on my computer screen." no use in getting nostalgic about tools we rarely ever need to us; instead let's learn how to use the tools we have properly.

I agree--it's just not the focus of the studio this semester. Also, we haven't banned digital tools--just digital output.

most interns i've faced these days dont know d*ck about lineweights - since most of them have not actually drafted by hand, used different pens for different thicknesses etc.

"It's just laziness and not taking the time to develop the skills necessary to appropriately implement the tools they choose to use"

Well this is only partly true, it takes literally thousands of hours to become proficient at computer programs, and how they may or may not plot with what type of machine. Much harder now than hand drafting days ( of which I was a part ) the curiculums need to change, because the method isnt going to. Too many people think students and young architects just press the magic button and the box spits out a rendering. Who's really the ones lacking an understanding of the graphical process?

many old timers have no idea what a ctb file is. isn't this equally problematic?

I could not agree more with Jack and ja. Sentimentality and cluelessness go hand in hand.

Something Else: what with laser cutters getting cheaper and all, we're going to be hearing this exact same conversation about models any minute now:

'Nobody does it by hand anymore!' 'Don't you just push a button?'

Lauf, I like that drawing!

This issue isn't about the tool--it's about how the tool is used. "Oldtimers" tend to focus on "hand" techniques because that's what they're familiar with. Whether you're using a pencil or a mouse you still need to consider composition, lineweight, content, audience, etc. I've found that most people (re: principals, managers) who have gone through design education prior to the heavy implementation of computers think that a computer is doing the work for you and have difficulty comprehending how much time/work/energy (or blood, sweat and cursing) can go into digitally produced drawings/images/models; in some instances it's more work than "by hand."

Our studio has taken a sometimes difficult problem (plotting/printing) out of the equation so that we can help the students focus on what's important first: content and effective representation of that content.

That's really what we're talking about here, right??

If you've got interns working for you that don't understand lineweights--teach them.

it wasn't what i was talking about, since i'm as involved with computer applications as i am with hand drawing.

but there is something lost, i think. romantic or no, much of the ability to communicate through a hand-drawn line, not just to use line weight but to VARY lineweight and punctuate a line, are hard to match in any computer application with which i'm familiar.

there is power in photo-realistic rendering, there is power in fast modeling, but there is no less power in the ability to communicate quickly and effectively with very simple tools.

For me, there is a parallel between the physical act of putting charcoal on paper (or ink on mylar, or watercolor on cotton, or...) and the physical act of building. Personally, I think architects need to have a deep understanding of physical properties of materials, and I always found drawing to be one path to that understanding, along with model building, full scale mockups, and other "old fashioned" ways of making.

At the same time, I'm interested in computer drawings that can lead directly to physical output - laser cutters, CNC machines, etc., as 765 mentioned above - as it seems to me the only logical conclusion of computer generation of form. Actually computers doing the construction, cutting out carpenters entirely, is the true logical conclusion of the process, and this exists in small ways now (furniture-scaled pieces, for example, though not yet entire buildings).

I tend to agree that for most drawn representation, presentation drawings, for example, the medium is unimportant as long as the viewer "sees" what they are intended to see by the architect.

In a somewhat related anecdote, I recently saw a cool Mid-Century Modern design, from the 1950s, rendered in Sketch up and it looked like shit. I mean the building looked terrible - the resonances of SU were totally overwhelming the simplicity of the design. It was odd and made me feel like that vintage of design really needs to be softened by the hand drawing to look pretty. Or rendered in a much better program than SU, to be sure!

As to the original topic: there are certainly archtiecture students being taught how to draw by people who never learned to draw. I guarantee it. As to whether that's good or bad for the profession and society, I guess we'll be able to judge in 40 years.

that's what i thought was interesting about the question, lb.

we've HAD the hand vs computer discussion before and it's not one that has any answer because all answers are potentially right.

but the question of where new fresh faculty are coming from, what there experience/background might be, seemed to me to be a new wrinkle.

even sketchup can produce images with a wide spectrum of quality (kind of like the old hand drawings, right?...more effort&skill tends to equal better images)

It also amuses me that people will refer to the use of computers as "drawing" when what the computer operator is really doing is to program the computer to print an image (rather than draw the image).

i suspect that at this point in time we are still in an awkward stage of computer usage. the graphic user interface of most computers provides enough visual info to allow the user to think he is drawing...when in fact he is still just input data (don't you find it odd that both architects and accountants rely on the same keyboard & mouse method of data entry?)

Sooner or later, it's possible that computer technology will have the ability to adapt to humans as much as humans have adapted to using basic desktop pc's

think of it...even in 2008 the basic interface of autocad is colored lines on a black background...but why can't the technology more accurately depict the finished drawing on the display? i could easily see a future in which the current flat screen display is enlarged and turned horizontal (similar to old drafting table) and lines are drawn using a combination of old tools (parallel edge, trianles, etc.) but with technology infused in a manner that allows attributes such as "line weight" to translate directly onscreen.

Suddenly "old fashioned" drawing skills will have value again...and this will probably happen as soon as the last hand drafting instructor is buried.

i can't believe that I just typed all of that on a blackberry while drinking mojitos at a beachside bar...fuck the tech revolution!...where's my sketchbook?

I guess I do see drawing in the larger sense. Any image that's a few steps away from a photograph is a drawing. Any image that is at least partly abstracted.

To abstract, in latin: abstrahere, abs - from trahere - to pull, to abstract is to pull from. The interesting thing is that trahere is the same root word for draw. Think about a draught in a pub, also a pull, now think about pulling your leadpointer across some nice cold press paper (rotating the point, of course). We (like bartenders) are Draughtsmen, and Draughtswomen. Any image that lies between reality and representation is a drawing, because it is an abstraction.

And on the faculty tip: if they can't draw, they don't deserve the job. Greg Lynn carries a sketchbook everywhere, and he can draw.

I've been using Revit almost exclusively in the office, but there was a moment where I realized that Revit really means the final end of drawing in one sense: no more lines.

In Revit, every line is a thing, an edge, a line can no longer be just a line. The great thing about lines, whether in Autocad or whatever, was that they could be anything. too much specificity in Revit. That's my moment of sentimentality.

although i agree that the essence of good architecture lies above drawing, and any other arch. representation in general, the craft of tech. hand drafting, and the art of representational drafting have always been considered integral to an architect's skill set...

i also think that the physical connection of drawing, and the time it takes to produce such drawings helped make a personal connection with your work...i hope that a shift towards a purely digital discipline won't make architecture digital.

it's worth noting, that the presentations which used my hand sketches got me my last two jobs...it's becoming increasingly desirable by prospective employers (and some clients, even)

Lastly, getting back to the original question, i think some schools are embracing new technology to the point that no drafting/drawing is a focus in their program, but overall, most schools still encourage sketches in the development of the design, and focus basic drafting and drawing on basic "visual communication" curriculum...i would imagine teaching staff today still have the skill set, whether or not it is used...

etc...etc...etc...

From what I've seen as a designer and architecture student: If you DESIGN with CAD, your stuff ends up looking like it, and more importantly, feeling like it.

In other words, you're at risk of becoming Neil Denari. Take that as you may.

CAD's a great tool. TOOL being the operative word. Humans are analog, not digital.

Nobody says that they're going to do some CAD for fun in their spare time. But people sketch and draw all the time. With CAD, you're restricted as to what you can do and how you can show it, no matter if it's Revit or Rhino. It frees up the imagination sometimes, and stifles it at others.

Slick renderings are a dime a dozen today, meanwhile hand drawing is going out of style. At least for a little while, until people wake up and realize that CAD doesn't design anything, anymore than a pencil does.

sorry, but this is bullshit:

'From what I've seen as a designer and architecture student: If you DESIGN with CAD, your stuff ends up looking like it, and more importantly, feeling like it.'

You can design with anything you want, you can design with a stick in the dirt. I know people who do amazing stuff designing in just sketchup and photoshop, I know people who do all their drafting in illustrator. The medium pushes back no matter what it is, but it doesn't determine everything.

But then I think Neil Denari is a great designer, and I don't think slick renderings are a dime a dozen. So I pretty much disagreed with everything you said just there. ;D

I was gonna say, too, that I also draw in CAD for fun in my spare time.

Steven Ward, I think your initial post may have started a more focused conversation if you had limited it to 'hand drafting' instead of the more broad 'drawing'.

garbage in ...
garbage out ...

How many of you were taught to use a slide rule?

I wasn't, but I still learned math.


I have a feeling that "digital" is going to become less disconnected from our process. Think about what touch screens may mean to "drafting." How many of you would like to model using something like surface? Add in some haptic controls and digital will be just as "connected" as physical modeling, maybe more so.

I've been playing around with a cintiq and it's more than possible to control lineweights expressively, by hand, just by adjusting the pressure applied by the stylus. Does this bit of tech make my digital drawings analog? Does this now count as "hand drawing" or is it something else?

The tool and the medium don't make the drawing (or the design), as dsc_arch says above: garbage in…garbage out

CAD is a general terms for a number of different programs, each with its own logic and interface. therefore, you can't say: "If you DESIGN with CAD, your stuff ends up looking like it, and more importantly, feeling like it..." without specifying--- looking like what?

"Humans are analog, not digital." this is the funniest thing i have heard in a long time. do you understand what "analog" means? if means something is representing something else by a very different form or action. an analog watch - the one with the sweep hands, that go around and move pass the numbers - is an "analog" because it uses this circular motion to represent time. the watch ISN'T time. so exactly what in the world would it mean that "humans are analog"? that we are representative of some other "real" existence? if that's what you really meant, that is a pretty serious idea. nothing to do with CAD, but pretty interesting.

another definition of "digital" (other than the one that represents a form of decision making based on 0 and 1) is that it means the finger. your fingers are your digits. therefore digital is certainly closer to the hand than analog.

What I mean to say is that humans are messy and not perfect. With any CAD (autocad, sketchup, rhino, anything at all), there's no room messiness, which to me, means that you're less likely to discover something by the process.

On the other hand, there's room for messiness in hand drawing and sketching. There are no perfect lines - just like in real life. There's room for something ambiguous in hand drawing that just doesn't exist with any computer program, because with the computer, every single move is calculated and prescribed.

I think where we're headed is what rehiggins is talking about - something between 'analog' and digital..... and I think that's where things get interesting.

In the end, we're talking about representation. None of us inhabit represented space, we inhabit real space... and that probably opens up another discussiona altogether.

Oh, and to clarify analog vs digital: digital is "on" or "off". Binary. No room for anything other than those two. Analog refers to a sliding scale, where there are no 'increments,' just parts of a continuum - like your heart beating, your hand moving, and your eyes seeing. I'm not sure how this point can really be argued, but I'm listening.

from wikipedia:

"A digital system uses discrete (that is, discontinuous) values to represent information for input, processing, transmission, storage, etc. By contrast, non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information. Although digital representations are discrete, the information represented can be either discrete, such as numbers, letters or icons, or continuous, such as sounds, images, and other measurements of continuous systems."

as such, a digital system offers more possibilities than an analog system. looks like a "win-win" situation with digital.

...and email has destroyed the craft of letter-writing and calligraphy

there was an article (I think in Wired) a while back that illustrated the recurring theme of technology destroying society. It traced the lamentations of the adult generation; worrying about how a new technology was destroying their values and how the younger generation will be hurt because of it. (I'm still searching for it, and will post it once I find it). Slates were going to be the downfall of mankind because students were no longer forced to make their own ink and quills…

It's a question of skill and access. Technology is putting more tools into more hands. With more hands using more and new tools there will be more people using them with less apparent skill because it doesn't take much skill to "push a button." But, there will still be people that can take these new tools and do things with them that no one else can or even thought possible. It's almost like evolution--the more people that have access to the same tool, the better the best have to be in order to thrive in the environment.

not exactly what I was looking for: Wired14.04