On the Human Figure in Architectural Representation

Alex T. Anderson, University of Washington

This essay argues for the more thoughtful use of human gures in architectural drawing. In most contemporary architectural drawings, human gures help to provide simple and clear indications of scale or a proper sense of depth. These scale gures need not be merely metric, however. They can also help to project some of the immeasurable qualities of architecture. If they are well conceived and rendered, human gures in architectural drawings can help to show how projected buildings might be perceived and inhabited. They can also be used to understand how architecture can be shaped to accommodate human experiences and actions.

Human gures help to provide simple and clear indications of dimension in scaled orthographic drawings; in perspectives they contribute to the depiction of a proper sense of depth. These are the most basic purposes of scale gures in architectural drawing, but their potential extends well beyond these limited functions. Even as indicators of scale, human gures illustrate qualities of scale that are otherwise dif cult to depict. Whereas other means such as graphic or numerical keys indicate the projected dimensions of a building more precisely than do scale gures, human gures seem to promote an intuitive understanding of scale. Scale gures are particularly effective because one can very quickly associate the familiar shape and size of the human body with the dimensions of things that surround it. Because people naturally associate the dimensions of their own bodies with those of the gures depicted, they can also develop a sense for how big or small (which are relative dimensions) the objects depicted in the drawing appear. When gures are drawn in such a way that people can identify with them, they can help to exemplify an experience of scale: how imposing or diminutive a building might seem, how lofty or compressed its spaces would feel. Although human gures are conventionally used to express scale in architectural drawings, they need not be constrained to this. Human gures can also provide clients or potential users effective points of association through which to develop an understanding of how a building might affect them in other ways. If gures are drawn as inhabitants or occupants of a projected space, for example (rather than as stylized, metric gures placed in the drawing), they can help to express a range of possible actions and experiences. These might include projected patterns of occupation, use, and movement, anticipated lines of sight, points of physical contact with the building, and so on. Such gures can also help designers to speculate effectively about the actions and experiences of users and the elements that might be developed to accommodate them.
Journal of Architectural Education, pp. 238–246 Ó 2002 ACSA, Inc.

Marco Frascari argues that “in contemporary architectural drawing, the presence of the human gure, to give scale, is absolutely indispensable.”1 Although this assertion is not necessarily supported in the contemporary practice of architecture (many architects do not use scale gures in their drawings, relying instead on numerical and/or metric keys to “give scale” to them), it is nevertheless a point that demands careful consideration. Without necessarily contending that they are indispensable, this essay argues for the more thoughtful use of human gures in architectural representation. Scale gures need not be merely metric; they can also help to project some of the immeasurable qualities of architecture. If they are well conceived and rendered, human gures can help to show how projected buildings might be inhabited and experienced or how they might respond to human actions. To support the contention that human gures should be used more thoughtfully in architectural representation, this essay rst explains how they are typically used in contemporary practice. It then goes on to show, through a series of examples drawn from historical and contemporary sources, how they might be more effectively used. A secondary purpose of this essay is to recount the changing fate of human gures in architectural representation. The examples are arranged chronologically to describe a perceptible shift in the role that human gures have played in architectural drawing—from describing the radical anthropomorphism of classically inspired architecture to showing the increased emphasis on embodied experience in architecture during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Frascari suggests that human gures used by most contemporary architects “have lost any ontological dimension; they are simply a form of communication oriented to the common man and to the technician, or a formal representation to other architects of the possible problems of scale and dimension.” 2 The highly stylized gures that many architects place in their orthographic drawings are often stripped of features that are expressive of anything but a very general human shape. (Frascari refers to Robert Venturi’s scale gures as “biped balloons with pointed feet and oating heads.”3) This may be because, when its function is solely to indicate scale, a gure need not be realistic or expressive. These stylized scale gures work well as scale gures, but they do little else. In contemporary perspective drawings, by contrast, it has become common practice to use more fully articulated gures. However, although these may be accurate depictions of human beings, they rarely seem to have much to do with the buildings or spaces depicted, much less the narratives that might take place in them. They often appear to be merely pasted into the scene. This is literally the case in many

May 2002 JAE 55/4

238

it is the tness of corporeal arrangement and proportion that matter. In his drawings. (See Figure 2.6 Architecture was. its form. they seem hardly even to occupy the spaces of the drawing. spiritually. Throughout much of architectural history. they rarely do. considering the need for making a living. symbolically linked to the human body. association between body parts and building elements was commonplace in Renaissance architecture.4 One need only pick the gure that “looks right” in the scene. architecture. Filarete (Antonio Averlino) demonstrates that not only did practical. 7 Consequently. images of the human body provide order to city plans. he re ected and exercised himself to make himself some habitation to defend himself from these rains. (See Figure 1. Francesco di Giorgio emphasizes that properly designed buildings must demonstrate the divine order enshrined in the human body. and proportions. much less interact with them. to the arrangement of buildings and facades. attach it to. Vitruvio Adam. Filarete. and the elements of architecture were considered to be profoundly.”8 Although Filarete’s description of the origins of architecture is unusual for its direct incorporation of the human body into the design of the rst hut. at least. thoroughly intertwined with images of the human body. the need to argue for the incorporation of human gures into architectural representations is a relatively recent development. Filarete’s poignant drawing of Adam cast out from the Garden of Eden shows him with his hands raised in anguish to protect himself from the rain. 9 Francesco di Giorgio Martini. c.instances because architects often use gures from clip-art catalogues that depict people in a great variety of positions and modes of dress (a popular one. reduce or enlarge it to the appropriate size and trace it on. Frascari’s lamentation of a “lost ontological dimension” in the use of human gures implies that at one time.10 Anderson 239 . for a very long time. another Renaissance architect and theorist. In fact. as well as from the heat of the sun. Because they are pasted onto the drawing rather than conceived and integrated with it. shaping a roof over his head. 1461. 5 Although these gures could help to demonstrate the character of projected buildings. contains hundreds of such gures). Adam cast out from the Garden of Eden. architectural drawings were often replete with human gures.) Filarete asserts: “It must therefore be believed that Adam. and to the intricacies of build- 1. ing details. They often appear out of place and disengaged from their contexts. called Entourage. In his treatise on architecture. and for this reason their role is usually reduced almost entirely to that of demonstrating scale. but that the body itself provided a model for the rst architectural construction. human gures served to indicate more than scale and dimension in architectural drawings. having made himself a roof with his two hands. corporeal needs provide humankind with reasons to build. or digitally paste it into the drawing.) Human scale is of no particular concern in these drawings. illustrates this association at a great range of scales.

-F. as did J. The body in the facade of a church. prominent architects of the late eighteenth century could seriously maintain. May 2002 JAE 55/4 240 . MIT Press). (See Figure 3.” 12 Thus. John Shute. Architects of such buildings tuned them to proportions embodied in the human physique but dictated by universal natural law (these were the same proportions that ruled geometry. particularly among the academic architects of France. in part. shows that the proportions of the column correspond to the proportions of a brawny male gure.John Shute. in music. The Doric Order. but were turned into psychological phenomena originating and existing in the minds of the artists.) His drawing of the Doric order. 1492 ( The Dancing Column. c. 11 Shute’s drawings also demonstrate an important aspect of the relationship between buildings and bodies that is not as clearly evident in the earlier drawings of Francesco di Giorgio: that architectural character corresponds. for example. 1563. an English architect of the sixteenth century. The relationship between architectural character and human physiognomy played an increasingly important role during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. to variations in human physiognomy. 3.”13 In classically inspired architecture. harmony. Blondel. Francesco di Giorgio Martini. whereas the more slender and elegant Corinthian column re ects ner feminine proportions. “that the character of a building might be in uenced and modi ed by altering the size of the moldings to t the appropriate human pro le. illustrates this point in a series of drawings depicting the classical orders. human bodies and buildings relate in subtle and intricate ways at many scales. Rudolf Wittkower asserts that during the eighteenth century “beauty and proportion were no longer regarded as being universal. and the mo- 2.

when human gures are conceived to be integral to a drawing and are carefully composed.) When a building’s character is predicated primarily on the actions that take place in it. but also “sublime grandeur. RIBA drawings collection). Euge ` ne Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. An interior perspective of “A Project for a Metropolitan Ca´ tienne-Louis Boulle thedral” by E ´ e. nineteenth. were often considered to be incidental to the more fundamental problems of form. as well as the actions and emotions of human subjects. 16 (See Figure 7. although always important. which was invented during the Renaissance as a technique for constructing scenographic content in paintings. they rarely show objective scale relationships or attempt to indicate human occupancy in buildings. E ´e.”17 They indicate the immense scale of the building.) Several examples drawn from the eighteenth. these gures become indispensable for the proper expression of the designer’s intentions.” The insigni cance and antlike busyness of the gures contribute to an understanding of the awesome physical and spiritual forces gathered in the building. and proportion.) The often improbable simultaneity of events occurring in these drawings seems to heighten their descriptive value by showing not only what might happen in a building at a particular moment but what the building will become because of these events. These scale gures demonstrate not only how people might occupy the building. 5. however. but they also help to elucidate its functions and its character. 1864. for example. Human gures in their drawings serve to demonstrate these associations. “An edi ce for the worship of the Supreme being!” Boulle ´e declares of the project. 15 Not surprisingly. 1782 (British Architectural Library. Although generally neglected in orthographic drawings.”18 Yet the variety of activities and the care with which they are depicted in the drawing also indicate that this is very much a “metropolitan” cathedral.tions of the heavens. (See Figure 5.)14 They also used analogous relationships between the human physiognomy and elements of buildings to develop architectural character. as was the case with some modernist projects. is well suited for depicting human scale. John Martin Robinson remarks that these people are “dwarfed to insigni cance by the sublime grandeur of the architec- ´ tienne-Louis Boulle 4. It Anderson 241 . (See Figure 4. (See Figure 4. but their presence in the drawing also helps to express its character: not only immensity. A Venetian Palace. A metropolitan cathedral. ture. others gesticulate animatedly. These sorts of relationships.) Many of the people appear to be conversing quietly or strolling under the immense vaults of the cathedral. order. Linear perspective. Human presence is also deeply insinuated in perspective technique. depicts an immense edi ce occupied by the gures of more than 150 people and several dogs. “That is indeed a subject that calls for sublime ideas and to which architecture must give character. and still others rush to the left or to the right. these issues of scale and use were often illustrated in architectural perspectives. revealing itself as a point of view at the convergence of visual rays. they can convey information that a drawing would not be able to communicate otherwise. when architects used perspectives to illustrate design projects—a practice that became increasingly popular during the eighteenth century — they often included human gures to clarify issues of scale and dimension. and twentieth centuries demonstrate that. They also gave these gures realistic and sometimes exaggerated attitudes to represent the momentary dramas that might unfold in the buildings depicted.

The relative informality of the portico. appear to be consciously averted as if to avoid the gaze of anyone looking at the drawing. as if to emphasize a point to his interlocutor. they also serve to demonstrate other important qualities. (See Figure 6. Although these gures help to illustrate the scale of the building. The Doge’s Palace. the gure on the balcony in the robes of an aristocrat —each seems to remain aloof from the building. by a graphic scale drawn below the ground line (indicating that the gures are 1. evidently a porter. climbs the stairway to the second oor. but to the left. to the more secluded feel of the living spaces and bedrooms (indicated by the presence of the lady of the house on the second oor). The gure on the balcony.8 meters tall).” (See Figure 5. as his topographic elevation of the Doge’s Palace in Venice illustrates. A sixth gure. Why include both a scale gure and a graphic scale?20 This question seems even more pertinent when considering drawings in which Viollet-le-Duc por- 242 . this is no doubt the master of the household. one of them is animated. for example. head cocked to one side. however. One sits on a gondola in the canal fronting the building. which are seen in full pro le. stands back from the balustrade and looks not outward toward the view framed by the portico.6. Viollet-le-Duc used human gures in a remarkably different way for orthographic drawings. from the open commerce conducted at the canal level (which is illustrated by the casual meeting in the vestibule on the ground oor) to the restricted access at the main oor (accentuated by the stately pose of the gure in the great hall). a woman also in aristocratic dress. slouches on a bench in the canallevel portico. and the other stands in the shadows on the upper portico. both hands raised. Euge ` ne Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. Venice. face turned toward the viewer. not only in the architectural details. Euge `ne Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc uses human gures to help convey very different building characteristics in a drawing of “A May 2002 JAE 55/4 Venetian Palace. and contingency that would otherwise be dif cult to express—not only because they defy direct representation. down the length of the portico.”19 The gures play an essential role in this task. is not solely a place for ritual and solemnity but also for the contingency and bustle of quotidian life in the city. The faces. behind the balustrade. grandeur. The gures also express gradations of privacy in the building. but also because they are present only because of the interaction of people with the building. Although each is dressed in clothes appropriate to his position —the gure to the right in street clothes. as would seem natural. A gure dressed in aristocratic robes stands in the great hall on the main oor with hands outstretched. These gures are evidently placed in the drawing primarily to help indicate the dimensions of the palace. but in the postures and dress of the gures that occupy them. 1864.) The drawing contains two gures: one stands upright to the right of the palace on the hatched ground line. The gures in Boulle ´e’s drawing facilitate the expression of building characteristics such as immensity. Viollet-le-Duc uses this drawing to convey a sense that the typical Venetian palace “was perfectly accommodated to the requirements of a noble family in Venice.) The sectional perspective includes six gures. This function is served more precisely. Two gures converse in the large vestibule beyond this portico. is shown to contrast with the formality of the great hall. a second gure. for example.

to shield her eyes from the sun. the human gure is both the subject that produces the buildings sub specie corporis. and Boulle ´ e emphasize that buildings affect human sensibilities and accommodate human actions.”25 The human gures in the perspective drawings of Le Corbusier. that spaces shape themselves to affect sensations in particular ways. but they also demonstrate how the occupant of the pavilion in uences its design. a man exercises with a punching bag. and a third seated in pro le.) In these drawings. “to receive and welcome the human animal. 1928– 1929 (© 2002 Artists Rights Society (ARS).” and that “the small things of the body and its habits constantly regulate Scarpa’s planning. in what Frascari calls a “metonymic procedure” of design. New York / ADAGP. The seated gure seems to carve a space of contemplation for herself in which she feels the volume of the canopy resting protectively over her on slender pillars. in the drawings for massproduction houses. (See Figure 8. and balance upon elements of the architecture. however. monotonous. and that the human body is a direct agent of architectural composition. 22 (See Figure 7. These quickly drawn but expressive gures indicate the relative size of the pavilion.” Le Corbusier says. Le Corbusier. they motivate design decisions. where bodies (including Scarpa’s own body) touch. Paris). These preoccupations are abundantly evident in his drawings. appear to shape and sense the pavilion differently.trays a scale gure actually holding a graphic scale.23 Figures are shown engaged in a variety of activities among furnishings clearly not speci ed by the architect: a baby plays in a playpen. In this drawing. Scarpa indicates that the pavilion responds directly to the postures and movements of the people who will occupy it. expressed.21 Despite their evident redundancy. In his drawings.27 This procedure is clearly illustrated in a drawing for the private meditation pavilion in the Brion Cemetery at San Vito d’Altivole. peek through. Although the gures clearly indicate scale and suggest the sensations the pavilion might evoke. the gures help to show that “standardized” housing units develop character according to the tastes and activities of their inhabitants. Treviso.24 They show how individual apartment cells—which otherwise would be indistinguishable. and the worker is suf ciently cultivated to know how to make a healthy use of [his] hours of liberty. Frascari suggests that “in Scarpa’s architecture. a woman beats a rug over the balcony. They provide an intuitive “feel” for scale that supplements the mathematical determination of dimension contributed by the graphic scale. presumably representations of the same individual in various positions: one standing facing the viewer. the human gures in Viollet-le-Duc’s orthographic drawings contribute something that the graphic scale does not. Scarpa includes three gures.” 26 Even in orthographic projection. pass by. Le Corbusier also uses human gures to convey effects that are essential to architecture but that are not contained solely in the edi ce. rest on. the gures are integral and essential to the intentions being 7. which in turn shape themselves around these actions. on the other hand. but furnished and occupied in a unique way. the human gures contribute not only a feel for scale. lurk behind. observe. human gures do not merely help to explain the dimensions and effects of architectural compositions. Although his drawing style is very different from that of Boulle ´e or of Viollet-le-Duc. and to limit the view outward. they also demonstrate Scarpa’s design Anderson 243 . for example. “The lodging is there . These illustrations demonstrate how inhabitation gradually changes the edi ce by providing variety and softening hard edges. . For example. while the canopy hangs low over her bowed back and head. and potentially oppressive —become livable by allowing their inhabitants to do what they like and express themselves as they see t. Wanner Projects. The gures in his perspective drawings show how use and inhabitation serve to enhance the character of the buildings depicted. In his perspective drawings. and the object starting from which the building is made. steps up to accommodate the seated posture of the gure. The Suspended Garden of an Apartment. The concrete of the ground platform. Viollet-le-Duc. but also a sense of the building’s functions and character. each unit is identical in form and detail. one standing in pro le. Geneva. show that elements of architecture can respond actively to human gesture. dodge. and so on. The canopy lifts and deforms itself to make space for her head as she enters the pavilion. . The gures in the drawings of Carlo Scarpa. The standing gures.) In this cross section of the pavilion.

3. Frascari proposes that the metonymic procedure that Scarpa uses in his drawings can provide a means by which architects might reclaim the ontological dimension of human gures in architectural drawings. 124. In a famous photograph of the Vanna Venturi house. beneath the broken arch. and gestures if it is to be both physically satisfying and personally meaningful. intentions. Notes 1. Sloman). The cover text declares: “This invaluable design tool will not only help you establish scale and convey the function of your work. Venturi’s mother has been positioned outside of the house at the building’s centerline. Marco Frascari. [Bergson’s italics]” 28 According to Bergson. Venturi’s scale gures also seem to indicate. Because his projects themselves are highly demonstrative. the human gure should therefore play an important role in architectural drawings. p. . . they can be powerful tools for conceiving and representing architecture. Because architects tend to conceive and develop their ideas through representation. The inexpressive quality of Venturi’s scale gures is clearly intentional. describes a speci cally architectural manifestation of this understanding when he declares that the human body inhabits the world via “a complex dialectic wherein the world transforms my body. it breathes life into it May 2002 JAE 55/4 and sustains it inwardly. or human actions can help to elucidate the effects that buildings have on people. She is represented as an awkward. expressive gures could muddle the clarity of his drawings. Ibid. 4. an attitude that xes meaning in the physical structures of architecture rather than in a dialectical exchange with their inhabitants. Maurice Merleau-Ponty further elaborates this idea in much of his work. Henri Bergson declared that “the objects which surround my body re ect its possible action upon them. Pavilion. actions. By forming architectural elements in direct response to human gestures and actions.. even the real inhabitant of the house takes on these characteristics. or cramped indicate not how big or small a space is. use. gures that are expressive of occupation. and that dimensions cannot fully describe scale. . Objects in turn become meaningful because they seem to shape themselves to accommodate these capabilities. [T]he very house in which one dwells is both a reconstruction of the surrounding world to t the body and an enlargement of our own physical structure. for example. Carlo Scarpa. The gure and the project become complementary agents. For designers. people understand the world through the body’s ability to act on things. for example. even as my body transforms its world. a contemporary American philosopher. as well as the important roles that people play in shaping their environments. 1969– 1978 (Collection Archivio Carlo Scarpa. In The Phenomenology of Perception. This problem preoccupied a number of philosophers during much of the previous century.”30 This notion suggests that architecture should account for the human body..8.”29 Drew Leder.31 At the most basic level. 2. such as immense.” Res 14 (autumn 1987): 132. tight. Yet. however intentionally. Although human gures in architectural drawings might not be absolutely indispensable. but how big or small it feels. enigmatic scale gure who also happens to be the building’s inhabitant. it will quickly bring all 244 . Brion Cemetery at San Vito d’Altivole. and with it forms a system. p. Furthermore. Adjectives of scale. photographed by L. expansive. “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa. Early in the twentieth century. 124. and they are indispensable for communicating this aspect of scale to clients and potential users. he suggests that “our body is in the world as the heart is in the organism: it keeps the visible spectacle continuously alive. lofty. human gures demonstrate that people understand the scale of buildings in relation to their bodies. its capabilities. huge. Ibid. she is seated on a straight-backed chair with a book in her hands (not a good place for sitting or for reading). Treviso. human gures can help to facilitate thinking about the effects of size in buildings. mutually shaping each other in Scarpa’s hands. this procedure develops implicitly from an attempt to understand how human beings meaningfully inhabit the world.

Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science (Cambridge. p. Rykwert. 1983). who is occupying the jardin suspendu . 1991). The Dancing Column: On Order in Architecture (Cambridge. Digital drawing techniques have facilitated this increasingly common practice. 1994). J. . 123–124. 24. 2. 27–36. Lectures on Architecture. for example. Families. 12. 47. 2. Axonometry Refers to the Object. 1978). 137. Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture.. 1993). Casual. Masterpieces of Architectural Drawing (New York: Abbeville Press.’ the man ‘outside’. And in the drawing ‘Ferme radieuse. shows the excellence of the design. trans. Jane O. “By his skillful treatment of the angles—a delicate point—the architect has succeeded in giving an aspect of sturdy strength to the system of props that support a box of massive appearance. 7. . 25. 18. representing the angle. 296. The origins of this shift are generally credited to the assertions of Claude Perrault. Sports. 90–91. 26–95. Conn. Quoted in Powell and Leatherbarrow. the woman looks at the man. John Martin Robinson. 7. 117–119. Couples.” p. 1965). pp. 265. do but unfold any one of them and what astonishing beauty will arise to the most intelligent eye!” John Wood. 99.” See Le Corbusier. p. 73–75. Frederick Etchells. . Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns after the Method of the Ancients. The Origin of Building: or the Plagiarism of the Ancients Detected (Bath: 1741). Original source not cited. MA: The MIT Press.” Jacques-Franc ¸ois Blondel.: Yale University Press. cover. see especially Frascari. (Cambridge. 19. “The Changing Concept of Proportion. F. In 1741. Spencer. (Cambridge. Lectures on Architecture. See Rykwert. John R. French architects of the time sought to demonstrate “a measurable. Dunnett. 21. And of the in nite number of parts of which he is composed. Speaking of his family home. p. 16. John Shute.” Daidalos 15 (Sept. as some of his contemporaries argued. The Dancing Column.” pp. 11. pp. 15. p. Here’s just a sample of what’s included: Figures: Women. 47–53. Here again the woman is placed ‘inside. 1996).” Viollet-le-Duc. vol. p.” in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays 1897–1900. Christopher S.. Plate XXIX. MA: The MIT Press. See also Joseph Rykwert. Travelers. rather. The Decorative Art of Today. Newman and John H. for example. Known as Filarete. pp. including this aspect of them. Viollet-le-Duc.’” Beatriz Colomina. and crowned by the forehead of a man in his middle age. 77. Entourage: A Tracing File for Architects and Interior Design. The Dancing Column. nose. 13. see Erwin Panofsky. The First Moderns. John Wood the Elder declared that “Man is a complete gure and the perfection of order. The notion that the character of a building develops from the lives of its occupants is asserted with particular vehemence by Adolf Loos. vol. Masterpieces of Architectural Drawing.” He praises Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola for getting these relationships right: “here the three parts seem to present a more acceptable relation between forehead. p. 1987). to have been harmonized.” Adolf Loos. p. The Dancing Column. MA: The MIT Press. Le Corbusier. Benjamin Bucknall. we think about something—about art for example (for it is very comforting). Frascari also gives an account of this in “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa. which results in a uni ed prole.. “Interiors in the Rotunda. MA: The MIT Press. 23. 5. trans. Monsters of Architecture: Anthropomorphism in Architectural Theory (Savage. In characteristic fashion. Le Corbusier protested that standardization does not eliminate the possibility for individual expression. 27–29. “but there was one style that our home did have—the style of its occupants. and g.your client presentations to life! . See Rudolf Wittkower.’ the woman in the kitchen looks over the counter toward the man sitting at the dining room table. 71 f. see Alberto Pe ´rez-Go ´ mez. 8. Wittkower. The Dancing Column. vol. Burden. for example. 1995). Maryland: Rowman and Little eld. vol. 6. 36. (Cambridge. pp. . The First Moderns: The Architects of the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge. trans. 1981): 81– 95. pp. Towards a New Architecture. ed. 245 Anderson . the man looks at the ‘world. (New York: Dover Publications. commenting on this passage.” Ernest E. People and Pets. p. p. see Joseph Rykwert. 32–33. (New York: Zone Books. asserts that “to John Wood the human gure seemed the exemplary incarnation of that harmony which also dominated building through the various orders of architecture.” See Rykwert. James I. trans. whose de nitions of “positive” and “arbitrary” beauty had long-lasting implicationsbecause they helped to legitimize “arbitrary” issues of “taste” and “character” in architecture. 20. For a discussion of anthropomorphism in the drawings of Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” See Rykwert. (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1982). pp. Towards a New Architecture. see Bernard Schneider. Publishers. he declares. On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural History. ‘proof’ of the relation of passion to physiognomy. vol. He is reading the newspaper. pp. 99. For an explanation of the distinctive role of the observer in perspective drawings. MA: The MIT Press. Perspective as a Symbolic Form. 1931. it places the individual “on the highest level” because it “distance[s] us from the clutter that encumbers our life and threatens to kill it . which is echoed by other parallels between the body and buildings in general. the boxer. p. “The Changing Concept of Proportion. 1 (Paris: 1771– 1777). The Nose of a twelve year old [is] imposed on the chin of a man of eighty. in Helen Powell and David Leatherbarrow. is deeply ingrained in all recorded architectural thinking. 10. Viollet-le-Duc’s description of the drawing and the building it depicts indicates that he intended the drawing to show physical characteristics of the building. 1980). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge. Wood. 257. the style of our family. Men. See Claude Perrault. p. 258 ff. . . 1982). 1 (New Haven. Le Corbusier. 117. pp. p. Smith. Fashion. . . g. p. For an explanation of this passage in a broader discussion of the theoretical origins of architecture. Joseph Rykwert. 14. pp. . Groups. 23–53. 1–19. pp. . 2. For a discussion of Perrault’s role in shaping architectural theory. MA: The MIT Press. (Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities. Cours d’Architecture ou Traite ´ de la De ´coration. First and Chief Grounds of Architecture ([1563] 1964). 2nd ed. For an in-depth discussion of anthropomorphism in architecture. Rykwert discusses these drawings in Rykwert. 1987). the woman in the upper oor is leaning against the veranda. p. 18–47. and. 275. He looks at his punching bag. 10. 22. 1981). having won our freedom. 3rd ed. The drawings of Santiago Calatrava provide contemporary examples of these sorts of associations. trans. and chin. 24. 283. trans. see Marco Frascari. See. 1986). (New York: Dover Publications. 4. 9. and Joseph Rykwert. Blondel criticized an entablature designed by Andrea Palladio on the grounds that it appeared to be “like a human face whose parts do not seem . Distribution et Construction des Batiments. pp. p. “Perspective Refers to the Viewer. Beatriz Colomina argues that the gures in these drawings betray other agendas: “In a drawing of the Wanner project. 199. 1991).” He goes on to say that “such an analogy between the body and the orders. not how it is inhabited. Euge ` ne Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. Children. Monsters of Architecture. Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino. trans. MA: The MIT Press. For a more thorough treatment of the development and signi cance of perspectival representation.” in Idea and Image: Studies in the Italian Renaissance (London: Thames and Hudson. looking down to her hero. eds. pp. 109–123. . Lectures on Architecture. 63. Indra Kagis McEwen. Pierre Patte. 17. or at any rate a geometrical. .

29. (New York: Zone Books. “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa.M. 34. see Frascari. see also Michel Serres. trans. p. 1991). 1991): 88–91. “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa. rather than from a formal representation of the hand itself. Phenomenology of Perception. David Michael Levin discusses a similar notion in The Body’s Recollection of Being (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. 1962). 30. the drawing of a handle results from a mold in the form of a hand that grasps.” Frascari. May 2002 JAE 55/4 246 . p. For a full accounting of the range of Scarpa’s intentions with regard to the use of human gures in his drawings and the roles they play.26. Henri Bergson.” Daidalos 41 (Sept. (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. The Absent Body (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa. 28. 39/2 (winter 1985): 2–8. 21. 203. 31. Paul and W.” Frascari explains that “in a metonymic procedure. 1990). 125. Colin Smith. “Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the History of Architectural Drawing. N. Matter and Memory. 94: “I think we need to ask ourselves: of what are we capable? This question focuses attention on our capacity to develop the character of our primordial relationship to Being as a whole by virtue of our motility” (Levin’s italics). For a similar account of the relationship between the body and architecture.” p. For an account of the role that drawings play in the conception and representation of architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education. 1985). Palmer. trans. 125.S. Drew Leder.” pp. 27. p. Frascari. “Visit to a House. 15. see Mark Hewitt. Maurice Merleau-Ponty. 130.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful