AA D OCU MENT S 2

Translations from
Drawing to Buildin ·g
Robin Evans
~
i
i
I
I.
I

The MI T Pr ess
Ca mb ridge, Massac huselts

•
I Th, <:rurrSm, by
Jasp,·rJohn<, I 96 I .

198G

Tr anslations from Dra wing lo Buildin g 153

•
 To translate is to convey. IL is to move something without altering
it.' This is its original meaning and th is is what happens in trans-
latory motion. Such too , by analogy with translator y motion, the
tra nslation of languages. Yet the subs tratum across wh ich the sense
of words is transl ated from languag e to language does not appear
to have the requisit e evenness and continuity; things ca n get bent,
broken or lost on the way. The assumpt ion tha t there is a uniform
spa ce through which meaning may glide without m odulation is
more than just a naive delusion, however . Only by assuming its
pure and uncondit ional existence in the first place can any precise
knowledge of the pattern of deviations from th is ima ginary con-
dition be gained .
I would like to suggest that something· similar occurs in arc hi-
tectu re between the drawing and the building , and that a similar
suspen sion or crit ica l disbelief is necessary in order to enable ar-
chitects to perform the ir task at all. I wou ld like to suggest also that,
while such an enabling fiction may be made explicit, this has not
been don e in architecture, and that because of this inexplicitness a
curious situat ion has come to pas s in which, while on the one hand
the drawing might be vastly overva lued, on the othe r the properties
of drawing - its pecu liar powers in relation to its putative subject,
the building - are hard ly recognized at all. Recognition of the
drawing 's powe r as a medium turns out, unexpectedly, to be re-
cognition of the drawing's distinctness from and unlikeness to the
th ing that is represented, rat h er than its likeness to it, which is
neither as paradoxical no r as dissociative as it may seem .
Before embarking on the investigat ion of drawing' s role in archi-
tecture, a few mor e words might be spent on language; more
pa rticularly, on the comm on antilogy that would have arch itecture
be like lang uage but also ind epende nt of it. All things with con-
cept ual dimension are like langua ge, as all grey thin gs are like
151 elephant s. A great deal in architecture may be language- like with-
out being language. Some might say that the recent insistence that
arc hitectu re is a language is only the last wave of a persistent verb al
tide erod ing vision, bedevilling our ability Losee without lan guage
to guide our eyes (fig . l ). In the words of the poet Paul Valery, used
as th e title of a recent bio graphy of an Amerirnn artist, 'see ing is
forgetting the name of the thing one sees' .' Can ·we really be cer-
ta in' Might not this pur ism be in danger orbecom ing a ridiculous
piety? Having recognized tha t words effect vision, we are under no
moral ob ligatio n to expel tnem from it, even if' the expu lsion could
be achi eved. It is understandable that, in the interest of the inte g-
rity of our art, we should ima gine it contaminated by other forms
of communication, jus t as it is understan dabl e that, in the intere st
of its aggrandizement , we should imagine it comparabl e to lan-
guage. But this is only to offer excuses for the possession of incom -
patible ideas.
Fastidiousness about the purity of vision ari ses from a fear that
all d istinction will be lost as on e category forces itself into another .
We protect it because we think it in danger of being overwhelmed
by a more powerfu l agency. With our minds fixed on the pr e-
dominance of language we might even risk enclosing architecture
within its own compound, denying it com municat ion with any-
thing else to preserve its integrit y. Thi s would be possible, yet it
seems very unlike ly to occur because , for architecture, even in the
solitude of pretended autonomy, there is one unfailing communi-
cant, and that is the drawing .
Some English art historian s have been directing atten tion tO
the tran sac tions between lan guage and the visual ans: t.1ichae l
Baxand all with the ea rly It alian humanists,' T.J.Clark with
French nineteenth-century painting,' and No rm an Bryson with
seventeenth- and eighteenth-centu1·y Fren ch pa intin g.' Th eir
stud ies, which have advanced art hiswry into an area never
pr op erly investigated, show painters a nd comm enta tors trying to
ext rica te painting from langua ge or trying to acco mm odate to it, in 155
what was not so much a war be tween the verbal and the visible as
, )
 an eco nom y betwee n them, full of friction though the dea ls ba ck
and forth rnay have be en. I have found their work inva luab le a nd
stimulatin g. It seems to me, however, that this economy dominat ed
by the trad e be tween two pow ers ca nnot be tran sfe rred to th e stud y
of arc hit ecrure without adaption, for the architectural drawing
cons titut es a third force that may well equal tho se of the artwork
and its co mm ent ar ies.
My own susp icion of the enormou s ge nerat ive part played by
ar chitectural draw ing stems from a brief per iod of teaching in an
an co llege." Bringing with m e the conviction that arc hi tectur e and
the visual arts we re closely allied, I was soon stru ck by what seemed
at the tim e the pecu liar disa dvanta ge under whi ch archi tects
lab our, never work ing dir ectly with th e object of th eir thoug ht,
a lways workin g at it throu gh some _int erven ing med ium , almost
a lways the drawing, while painters and sculptor s, who mi ght spe nd
some tim e on pre limin ary sketche s and maqu ettes, all en ded up
wor king on th e thing itself which , na turall y, absorb ed most of the ir
attention and effort. I still cannot und ersta nd, in retrospect, why
the implica tion s of this simpl e observation ha d never bee n broug ht
home to me befo re. Th e sketch and maqu ette are mu ch closer to
paintin g and sculp tur e than a d_rawing is to a bu ildin g, and the
p rocess of development - the formulation - is ra rely brought to a
conclusion within these pr eliminar y studi es. Nea rly always the
mo st intense activity is th e co nstru ction and manipu lat ion of tfie
final artefact, th e purpo se of preliminary studies being to give suf-
ficient definition for final work to begin, no t to provid e a co mplete
d eterminati on in advance, as in archit ectural drawing. Th e result-
ing displacement of effort and ind irect ness of access still seem to
me to be distinguishin g fea tur es of co 11\'enti ona l arch itectu re co n-
sidered as a visual art , but wheth er alwa ys a nd necessa rily dis-
advan tageous is a nothe r question .
156 Two divergent defin itions of the possibiliti es for archit ectur e fol-
low from the recogniti on of thi s displacement. We m ay choose to
join arch itectu re to the ot her visual a rts more securel y by insisting
that on ly that which the architect m a nipulat es with his own hands
is his wo rk. It is all too clear that th is new intim acy wou ld first
requir e a divorce beca use, as we gained more direct access to the
work, we would be relinqui shin g claim to th e a rcl1itectu1·e that
now flourishe s within the pol itical, eco nomic and social order. If
ar chit ec tur e· were redefined in th is way, it might become mor e
scru pulous a nd less respon sible, small er an d less pr edictab le, worth
less but better , as the hope wo uld be, wou ld it not , that in giving up
grand iose pr ete nsion s to repre sent and define the social world in
both its ima ginati ve and active aspects (a project the unl ikelihood
of which is comparable to the unlikelihood of comp iling a lega l
code th at is also a goo d novel - an ambiti on that can on ly be
confound ed in pr act ice) a rchite cture may, by co ntr act ion and con-
cent ra tio n, co nstitute itself anew;, Well, thi s consol idation through
withdrawal is already under wa y, and the prob lem is that it ha s
become exac tly thi s: a consolidat ion , a restora tion , a simpl e reloc-
ation of invest ment withi n the region staked out long ago as
belonging to archit ect ur e.
What mi ght have occ urr ed in arc hit ectu re, but did not , occu rred
out side it, and ind eed outs ide pa intin g and sculpture , in so far as
these are categorica lly defined .' To insist on dire ct access to the
work may on ly be to d esignate th e drawi ng as the real repos itory of
archit ectura l art . It may also be to rejec t dr awin g ou t of hand.
Of th e wor ks be yond the pal e of a rchi tect.ur e - ea rth ar t, per-
formance , installations, construct ions - which neverthele ss dea l
with recogn izab ly ar chit ectural themes, severa l ar e remark ab le not
ju st for the fac t tha t th ey make little or no use of drawi ng, but for
th e impossibility
of th eir developrn enl through thi s m ed ium .
T he work of the Los A ngeles art ist .James T urrell may be used
as an instan ce.6 Th e mainsta y of Turre ll's wor k thr oug h the late
I 96 0s and 1970s was the artificia lly lit room (Fig. 2). M ost arc hi- 157
tectural of these were a ser ies of empt y spaces which , if drawn up

2. Installatio ns a1 Capp
Strc·cl Project
(left: Orea,right: J..
011
0),
San Francisco, byJames
Turn·II , I 984.
within curr ent arc hitectural co nvention s, could only construed as
indi cat ive of witles s simpl icity. Their effect as installations can
none the less be comp letely overwhel min g. Such directly appr e-
hensib le qualities as they possess have nothing to do with the
presenc e of th e art ist's hands, feelings or personality. Fabricated
as they are wit h tremendous precision and parsimony, there is
no more trace or Turrell in these rooms than of Mies in the most
sparse or Miesian interiors. Evoking gushes of transcendental mys-
tification from some criti cs,'' Turrell' s work is, all the same, quite
easy to und ers tand and appre ciate since it has to do with observers
not being able to believe th eir own eyes . You look into som ethin g
which you know is a not her rectangular room with batt eries of
Auoresccnt tub es on th e back of the partitio n through which you
pe er. You can see how it works. You ca n put your hands into it. You
can even see, sta ndin g out aga inst th e haze of illumin ation that
158 moves from m auve through to pink , evidence of some ea rlier
investiga tor who took it into his head to climb int o the illusion ,
leaving his footprints in the otherw ise spo tless, spa celess interior.
Even th en , on ly by d edu ction can you ma inta in eith er th e depth
of the room or the e mptin ess of it. for the light looks. if not solid,
th en incredibly den se, as if its lumin osity would not so much re,·ea l ·
the imag e of anyt hin g thrus t into it as devour it. Tak e a few steps
back and it is impossible to en"i sage irs depth even by a n an of
conscious will, a few m ore and th e screen -like aperture th rough
which you looked seems to be standin g out as a block of light in
blatant con travention of what you kn ow to be tru e.'" Th e most
remarkable properties of Turrell 's installations are local and not
transportable. The result of dir ect obse1'vation or the play of elec-
tric light on white-painted sUifaces and countless experiments in
situ, they cannot be adequately illustrated or photographed after
their cons tru ction, and there is no way that even the vaguest hint of
their effect could have originated through drawing. In thi s respe ct
Turr ell's illumin ate d spa ces of th e 1970s and 1980s - Orea,Raemar,
th e Wedgeworkseries, etc . - were furth er removed from drawing and
the drawable than the earli er works in which shapes of light were
proj ected onto walls through cut templates. Turrell mad e and pub-
lished (and sold) preliminar y drawings for some of th ese. One can-
not imagine such drawing s makin g any sense in the later works. By
continuin g in the same medium while eliminating the projector,
Turr ell wa s effect ively taking his work outside th e rang e of th e
drawing, for it was th eir proje cted shape that made works like
A.frumdrawable (Fig. 3).
Th e drawing has intrinsi c limitation s of reference. Not all things
architectura l (and Turr ell's room s are surely archi tectural ) ca n be
arrived at through drawing. Th ere must also be a penumbra of
qualiti es th at might on ly be seen dark ly and with great difficulty
throu gh it. If judgem e nt is that tl1esr qualities in and arou nd the
shadow lin e are more int eresting than thos e laid forth clearly in
drawing , then such draw ing should be abandoned, and anot her 159
way of workin g institut ed.
 1
Returning momentarily to the recently vaunted sta tus of archi-
lecrural drawing within the schools: to regard a drawing as a work
of art as we usually und erstand it is Lo regar d it as somet hin g to
be consumed by the viewer, so that his rapacious app etite for for-
mulated experience may be assuaged. Any furt her use attributable
/J,
Loit is incidental and detrimental in so far as it may redu ce its value ~.,
as food for conscious ness. We have witnessed, over the past fifteen
years, what we think of as a redi scovery of the architectu ral draw-
ing. Thi s rediscovery has mad e drawings mo re consumable, but
this consumability has most often been achieved by redefining their
11
representa tiona l role as similar to that of early twenti eth-century
paintings , in the sense of being less conce rned with their relation to 3. Preparatorydrawing
for Afrum, by Jam es
what they represent than with their own congitution. And so the Turre ll, 1967.
drawings themselves have b ecome the repositories of effects and
the focus of attention, while the transmuta tion that occurs between
drawing and build ing remain s to a large extent an enigma.
ceivab ly combine , in such a way as to enha nce both , the abs tract
Th e second possibility Rows directly from this. If one way of al-
and the corporeal aspects of their work. In stead, they stand next
tering the definition of arc hitectur e is to insist on the architect' s
to eac h other, in an unprop itious sort of way, as alternative candi-
d irect involvement , either calling the drawing 'art' or pushing it
dat es. Argumentative opposition is usually stifling. A tug of war
aside in favour of unmediated construc tion , the other would be to
works better between rugby teams than between opposed concepts
use the transitive, commutative properties of the drawing to bette r
or practi ces, yet this is the way we insist on playin g games. I would

I
_ effect. This latter option - which I call the unpopular option - I
like to avoid this partisanship, so much more effective in drowning
_ wish to discuss in this article.
out sense than articula ting it, but it should be said that in the
Th e two op tions, one emphasizi ng the corpor eal properties of
present climate the tendency is generall y to place the abs tract and
things made, the other con centratin g on the disembodied prop-

I
the instrumental with in the orb it of a suspect, culpab le profession-
ert ies in the drawing , are diametrically opposed: in the one corne r,
alism, allowing th e direct a nd exp eriential pr esence only within a
involvement , sub~tantiality, tangibility, presence, immediacy , direct
covert architec tur e wh ich can never be revealed fully in the former,
action; in. the oth er, disengagement, obliqueness, abstract ion, medi-
and whic h shows up as so many sporadic episodes of resistance. In
ation and act ion at a dista nce. They are oppose d but not neces-

I
consequen ce the dir ect an d experiential appea rs far mor e ethica l
sarily incompatibl e. IL may be that , just as somt: fifteenth -centur y
and far mor e int eresting, far mor e at risk and far more real than the
paint ers (Ma saccio, Piero, M antegn a, Pimuri cchio, Leonardo ) com-
indir ect and abstra ct approach. Th is can only be acknowledg ed as 16 1
160 bined the pithy irregularities of naturalism with the composit ional
tru e to the degree that the var ieties of indir ectness, abstr act ion and
regularities of perspective constru ction, so architects might con-
 instru m ent ality found in pra ctice a1·e pu erile, obstru clive and dull ,
whi ch on th e whol e th ey ar e, as also are th e arti stic pr etensions of
the school s. A con Lest betwee n two kind s of dullne ss c,111no l b<.>
ex-
pect ed to com e to mu ch, eve n if it do<.>s
ensure fairn ess.
·l. J,fomo/ H,U/1111~.
/ /,, ( h:
1,.,r1l: .\dd 11k
1l•. 11nn.

A distinc tion might be mad e betw een the object of d ra,ving as

pra ctised in arch itecture and drawing as pra ctised tradition ally in
\ \/estern art. A story of the origin of drawing, derived from Plin y
fl/fl1111t111,i:,
t. "Th,·0 1~!.!_m . b: the Elder" and recycled into the visual arts as subje ct-matte r in th e
Dm·irl :\11.m , I /i 't
eighteenth century (like all stories of origin s, far more revealing of
the time of its telling tha n of the time of whic h it tells), shows thi s
up nicely. The story is of Diboutad es tracing the shad ow of her
depart ing lover. If we compare vers ion s by two ne o-classical art ists,
one exclus ively a pai n ter, the other b etter known as an archite ct,
some indicative differences become apparent.
David Allan 's The OriginefPaintingof l 77 3 (Fig. 4) shows th e cou-
ple in an interior, th e dr essed stone wall of which prov ides a plan e
surfa ce upon which Diboutade s trace s the shadow mad e by an oil
lam p, placed at the same level as th e sitter 's head , on a ledge clo_sc
at hand. Karl F Schinkel's unu sual variati on on this th em e wa s
painted in 1830 (Fig. 5). Signifi cantl y, and in cont rast to most oth er
u-eatme nts (as well as departing from Pliny), th e ar chit ect cho se,
not an architectura l interior for his reconstruction of the event , bu t
a pastoral scen e with sheph erds and shepherd esses." I n place or
the work ed surfa ce of ston e, a natura lly expo sed face of rock. In
pla ce of the lamp , the light of the sun. Both pa intings , true Lo the
original story, show draw ing as a fun ction of proj ection , and both
show qu ite clearly th e combinati on of element s requir ed: a sour ce
of light , a subjec t upon wh ich it pla ys, a sur face behind th e subj ect,
and somethin g lo tra ce with. Schinkel, however, shows th e mini-
mum of mat erial artifice ne eded to accompli sh thi s. To jud ge from 163
his painting , th e first hum an mark put on natur e might well h ave
 been the line of charcoal on the rock, while in AJ!an's the accoutrr-
ments of civilization were already in plac e to provid e the necessar y
circumstances for this late , charming and reflective accessory. So
it is perhaps rqually prrt inent th at, while Dibouta des her self
perform s the task in Allan's pa inting, it has been delegated to a
muscu lar shepherd in Sch inkel's.
The art ifice shown by Schinke l is that of an already organi zed
social stru cture of deference in which is exp ressed also the dis-
tinction betwee n thought and labour, a distinction absent in the
more intimate sur roundings of Allan's pa inting. In Sch inke l's
version drawing precedes bui lding, in Allan's it follows from it. Of
the two, it was the arch itect who was ob liged to show th e first
drawing in a pre-arch itectural sett ing, beca use wit hout draw ing
there could be no archi tecture, at least no classical architectu re
constructed on the lines of geometrical defini tion. In Schinke l's
work , drawing is, from the beginn ing, a div ided activ ity, rss<:>lva
b~e _
into a p rior act of thoug h t and a co~se_q'-:1e
nt_!1)anuaJ undertaking
which the arr ival of architectu re would dup licate , on a much larger
scale, as the difference between des ign and construct ion. In th is
instance the man is servan t to the woman: she conceives; he do es.
At least as im portant in the symptoma tology is the ma nn er of
lighti ng. Allan uses a lamp, that is, a local, point source of illum i-
na tion from which issue divergent rays. Schin kel uses the sun, that
is, a source so remo te that its rays have to be regarded as travelling
parall el to one another past the ear th. The two kinds of light cor-
respond to the two types of projection , based on divergent pro-
jectors , which played a crucial part in painting th rough th e
development of perspective; and parallel projection, based on
parallel projectors, whi ch ha s played an equally crucial, though far
less well-recognized role in architectur e through the development
of orth ograp hic proje ction. The painter 's version less remote , mor e
16+ intim ate, less differentiated; the architect's mor e rem ote, public ,
insistent on differentiation. Ju st as we would expect, perhaps, bu t
the specific expression of th ese tendencies in Schinkel betray s a
professional p roclivity, giving drawin g a prior ity, potency and gen-
erality not evide nt in Allan 's rendition.
Th e mosL notable difference of all, however, is reg istered only
in an ob lique way in the two painti11gs. This has to do with the
subjec t-matt er of the ar tist's work . In painting, unt il well into
the twent ieth century, the subject was always, as in the story of
Diboutades , taken from natur e. It m ay have suffered vast ideal-
izat ion, distort ion or transmogri fica tion , but the subject , or som e-
thing like it, is held to exist prior to its representat ion . T his is not
true of arch itect ure, wh ich is brough t into existe nce throug h
drawing. The subject-matte r (the buildin g or space) will exist qfl,er
the drawing, not before it. I could list various riders and qua li- ·
' fications to this pr incip le, which may be called the princip le of
reverseddirectionalityin drawing, to show that it may occasiona lly be
comp licated, but these wou ld not alter the fact that , statistically
spea king, if I may p ut it th at way, it gives a good ac count. We might
su rm ise, th en, that the absence of an architectura l setting in
Sch inkel's painting is a recognition of this reversal, by which the
drawing m ust com e befo re the building, of so little consequence to
Allan the painter , who follows Pliny, inno ce ntly imagining that
arc hitecture deve loped to classical mat urity without its aid.
Draw ing in arch itecture is not don e after natur e, but prior to
construction; it is not so much prod uced by reflection on the reality
~utside the d rawing, as produc tive of a rea lity that will end up
outs ide the drawing. The logic of classical realism is stood on its
head and it is throucrh this invers ion that archit ectu ral drawing has
' b
obtai ned an enormous and largely 1.
,111a
(:knowl edged generative
_JJower: by stealth. For, when I say unacknowledged, l mean un-
acknow ledged in princ iples and theo ry. Drawing 's hegemony over
the architectural object ha s never really been (:h 1tllenged. All tl1at
has been understood is its distance from what it represents, hen ce 165
its periodic renunciat ion ever since Ph ilip Webb rejected the whims
 of pape r arc:hitecture - while co ntinuing to draw prodigiously. "'
T her e are all sorts of curious rem inder s as to th e subl iminal accep-
tanr e, beneath the level of words, of irs singular priority with in
the art 01· archi1ecturc, if art it be, such as in architectural ponrait s,
where, as a rule with but few except ions, and as in Willison's por-
trait of Robert Adam (f ig. 6), they are portrayed with their draw-
ings, as are sculptors with the ir sculptures and painters with their
canvases, estranged, for poste rity, from the results of their Jabour ,
the clients more usually retaining the pr ivilege of be ing portrayed
with the bui lding .11
lt would take much mo re than an article to revea l the full extent
of drawing 's intrusive role in the development of architectural
forms, or to investigate the way in which it creates a translatory 6. Robert Adam, by
medium of this or that consistency. Thre e insta nces must suffice to G . Willison, c. 1770 75.

give some idea of what we are dea ling with .

The importance of orthographic projection ha s already bee n al-
luded to. Although the geometric principle of para llel projection
was understood in late antiquity, Claudius Ptolemy having des-
cribed it in a work on sundia ls around AD300,'"'evidence of' its use
in architec tural drawing is no t found until the fourteent h century.
T he earl iest more or less cons istent orthogra phic projec tion of a
building to have survived is a larg e, detailed elevation of the
Campa nile of S. Maria del Fiore, preserved in the Opera de!
Duomo in Siena and thoug h t to be a copy of an original by Giotto,
prod uced after 1334 (Fig. 7).11; To say that thi s was the first instance
is not deny the existence of many drawing s of a si.rnilar sort -
plans, elevations and sections - going back to the second millen-
nium BC. But the Campanile drawing required two imaginativ e
steps never before taken together , as far as I know. First , a com~
11
plete!Y ab~lract co nception of proj ecto r lines; secondly, an abil ity
to con ceiye of th e th ing being represented (the surface of th e
166 building ) as not equivalent to the surfa ce of representation - not
quit e. The corner ba stions of the tower, with thei r chamfered sides,.
and the diagona l Goth ic window s above are drawn obliquely but
with no indica tion of perspcct ival recession. In other detailed
medieval drawings that have survi ved, ortho graphic relations are
held for all the parts of a facade th at are fron tal and close to being
coplanar, but not in surfaces reced ing at an angle from the picture
pla ne.'" In othe r words, the orthog raphy ap plied on ly if the bui ld-
ing itself was ident ified by the draught sman as sufficiently shee t-
like an d fronta l. To maintain effectively - as did the author of the
campan ile drawing · the relat ions between a n array of invisible
paral lel projector s, a plane onto which they ar e project ed at right
ang les, an d othe r su rfa ces at various angles to th e plan e of
projection required, at that time, insight of a different order; a
good reaso n , perhap s, for accepting, in the absencr of firmer docu-
memary evidence, G ioseffi's con tested ascription,"' since it is ac-
know ledged that as a painter Giotto gave to the presentation of
pictorial space far greater co herence than his prede cessors. 167
A com pari son of the Campanil e drawing with the highly devel-

• I• • 5
7. Eicv,nion or project
lor 1he CampaniJror
S. ~•!aria clcl fiorr. Flormrc,
Gio110copyist. arter 1334.
8. Egyptian drawi ng
board. Lcrt-h and area
inscribed aro un d 1400 BC.
oped proto-orthography of ancient Egypt , so well
p reserved on a drawing board of around 1400 BC
now in the British Mu seum (Fig. 8), reveals not
only great er relianc e on outline in the Egyptian
examp le and the compen satory flatten ing of the
figure across the shoulders, preparing it for re-
embodiment in the fossilized compressed form of
a bas-relief, but also reliance on a manual activity
- the sculptor's chisel cutting straight into the face
of the cubi c stone on which the profile was to be
inscribed - to make the projectors tangible. Prior
to the abstractions of ortho gra phi c projection,
projectors co uld be kep t in mind throu gh the
thorough ly physical realization given them in the
fabrication of reliefs and sculptu res.20
Another choice presents itself: two quite differ-
ent possibilities attendant on the use of architec-
rural drawing are discern ible in the Campani le drawing. It could
rest on the simpl e and primiti ve expedient of assumin g near equi-
valence betwee n the surface of the drawing and the mum] surface
it repre sent s. Throu gh the miracl e of the flat plane, lines transfer
with alacr ity from paper to stone and the wall becomes a petr ified
drawing, inscribed or embossed to lesser or greater degree. Mu ch
of chis ancient identity remain s with us to th is day, carri ed , throu gh
classicism, into the professional pastime we call impl ying depth. To
imply depth within a solid thr ee-d imensiona l body is to conceive of
it as being made up or flat surfaces modul ated within a thin layer
yet giving the impression of being mu ch deepe i: It is to attem pt to
make virtual space and real space at one and the same tim e and in
the same p lace - a soph isticated idea utilizing simple technical
means. In Pallad io's sketch or the S. Petro nio facade (Fig. 9) the
close alignment (but not qui te ident ity) bet-ween drawing and
building is at once obvious. This is the kind of architectu re that 169
so much fascinated Alberti: a ma ssive, monumental architecture
•
9. Facade drawing ror
S. Petronio, Bologna,
by Andre a Palladio ,
1Si2 9.

engende red from the etiolated , redu ced, bodiless elemen ts of 'lines
and ang les wh ich cornp rise and form th e face of the bui lding' / ' an
architecture made th rough draw ing and mad e of the same species
of illusion as is to be found in drawing. For into its patterns of lines
stopping and starting we proje ct, by a well-und erstood reflex of
overde termination," ' a deeper space. And in just the same way we
project into the solid buildings of Albert i, Braman te, Raphae l,
Giulio Romano and Pallad io, borne along by the same abso rbin g
reflex of overdetermination , the illusions of drawing .
I feel as uncomforta ble discussing imp lied depth , which ha s
become one of arc hitecture's mos t ha llowed shibboleths, as I do
when wearing som eone else's suit. l t is neYerthcl ess n ecessary to
do so, if only to point out how th e pu rsuit of this particular illusion
has retarded architec tural vision by keepi ng it restricted within
the confin es of particular conventions. Yet to assert that th ese con-
,,entions were h istor ically unint eresting or fruit less wou ld be to 171
adopt an easy and false post ure of disdain. In fact th ey were
 responsible-for r stablishin g the drawin g as a viable medium, allow-
ing th e architec t to sp ill his imagination onl o it, sur e in th e know-
ledge th at mu ch of th e efTe-crwould travel.
Onl y with this reass-ura nc:e-oT sufficient affinity betwee n paper
and wall could th e dr awing have become th e locus or the ar chi-
tect's activity, capabl e of absorbin g all h is att ention s and th en
tr ansportin g his ideas in to buildin gs with out undu e disfigurem ent.
Still, if iLs advanta ge vvas the ea se of transl~ti on, its disadvanta ge
stemm ed from the sam e sour ce : too close a likeness, too cautiou s a
li~ison , too much bo und up in the elab oration of frontalitie s.
It ma y seem obvious that onl y when fighting this tendenc y,
seeing outsid e the drawing technique , his imagin ation soaring
above the confin es of th e m edium , can an archit ec t create fully
embodied thr ee-dim ensional forms. Ob vious it mo st certainl y
seem s, becau se everyone believes it to be true. It is also demon-
strabl y false. I come now to th e second po ssibility at tendant on the
use of parallel proj ection . The assuran ce and relative pre cision
with which th e splayed surfa ces were proj ectively determin ed in
the Campanil e drawin g indicate s th at th e draught sman did not
need to imprison forms within orthography. Although the corr es-
pond ence of frontal surfa ce_and .sb.~_et was still dominant , th ere is
at least a hint that through th e rigour of th e techniqu e, no t despit e
it, the repr esent ed surfa ces might pri se them selves from th e surfa ce
of repre sentati on, floating free from their captivity in paper - no,
att empt s at vivid phra sing can do so mu ch dama ge. Ri gorous pr o-
j ection does not free anythin g, not in th e sense of eman cip ation .
Thing s ar e ju st mad e m ore manipul able within th e scop e of th e
dr awing. F?r any m aterial object to obt ain freedo m is for its
ha~ dJer to lose CQntr o l of it, and that doe~ not happ en.
Think of a sheet of p aper sproutin g tho usand s of imagin ary
orth ogo nals from its surfa ce. In conventi onal archit ectural dr aw-
172 ing, conserva tive and fea rful of losing conformi ty, th ey would not
need to be very long before m ee ting up with th e edges of the
•
imagina ry scaled-down surface be hind the paper 10 which the lines
of the dr awin g correspond. and . as in rhe Egyp tian sculpto r 's
elevational dr awing, th ey ar t' o ften identi fied with the dir ecLio n of
incisio n int o th e ston e or, more recently. with the d irectio n of
multipli ed laye ring in service of p henomenal tran sparency; in
eith er event , they act as guid e rails into the blindn ess of an as yet
unre alized dim ension - short ones securely attached at bo th ends.
What if th ey were longer and mor e abstra ct? Would it sLra in th e
archi tect's power of visualiz ation? Would it endan ger his contr ol?
Wou ld it je opardi ze tran slation?
The next exampl e I would hke to consider involves one detail of a
small building by Philib ert de !'Orm e. D e !'Orm e, a tru ly fascin-
ating subj ect, did mor e to wre st orth ographi c proj ection from
the pr edominantl y p aint erly usage of earlier p rac titioners (Piero ,
Rapha el, perh aps Giott o) than anyone, an d his work deserves bet-
ter elucidat ion than I am able to give it in this article. For the sake
of th e argum ent , howeve1~ this one incident will have to do.
In the dom e of the Ro yal Chap el at An et, a chatea u west of Pari s
enlarg ed for Dian e de Poitiers by de !'Orm e after 154 7, can be seen
a net of lines, not exactly ribs and not exactly coffers, neither sp iral
nor radial (Fig. I 0). Th ey are neverth eless laid out and carve d
with unusual pre cision. Mor eover, th eir prop erties, ha rd at first to
describe in stylistic, geomet ric or structural term s, are dir ectly
accessible to vision. M ost noticeabl e of all is the continu ous ex-
pan sion of lozen ges, rib thi ckne sses and an gles of in ter section as
they extend down from the oculu s towards the base of the dom e.
Th e effect is or a coherent diffusio n and enlargem ent o r, con-
versely, of con ce ntr ation , remo teness and rota ry acce lerat ion
towa rds th e lant ern . Ther e has never been anythin g qui te like it
and , alth ough there are similarl y pa ttern ed apse hea ds (as in th e 173
p orti co of Peruz zi's Palazzo !'11assimo, Rom e), Rom an coffers (as in

I 0. Royal Chapel, i\nel.
hy Philil>cn <lel'Orme,
1:J+i 52. Vi,,..,vinto dome.
the Temple of Venus in Rome outside the D0111us Aurea) and
pavements (as in Michelangelo's Campidog lio pavement, possibly
designed in l538, though not laid till mu ch later), which de !'Orme
could have known aboul, there is one cr ucial difference. While all
these others,were determined metrically, de l'Orm e's was deter-
_ mined projectively. We know th is because he tells us so:
Ccux qu i voudront prendrc la pc in e, cognoisLronl ce que ie dy par la voule
spherique, laquclle i'ay faict faire en la Chapelle du chastcau d'Annct.
avccques plusieurs sortes de branches rempant es au contrair c l'un de
l'auLre, & faisant par rnesme moyen leur s compartiments qui sonL a plomb
& perpendicule, dessus k plan & pave de ladi cte Chappe lle."
Thi s state m cnt suggests that the pattern in the paving is similar to
that in the dome, and since thi s is exactly what we find o n the floor
of Anet and since de !'Orme has specified perpendi cu lar lines that
17I proj ect imo each other, we might let the case rest. as indeed his
commentators hav e."
•
\'\lord s are such powerful things. and when they corre spo nd to
visual impress ions - the Ooo r looks like the dom<-" they may
reasonab ly stand as proof. Strangr to say, this was all an elaborate
hoax by de !'Orme, or at least I can not think of any other ex-
planation for why he should ha\'(' gone to such lengths to cover his
tracks _;'•More interesting than whether it was a hoax or not is why
no one noticed the differe nce. And far more interesting than either
is the method he did use to derive the criss-crossing curves under
the dome.
On e reason it was not recognized is that all the draw ings made of
the chape l from the sixteent h to the late nineteenth century are
manifestly incorrect, unable always to transfer the trace ry of the
dome , or even the pattern of the floor, without gross bung ling
(Fig. 11), though the rest of each of the drawings is quite com-
petent. "' Yet a look at the pat.terns in the dom e and on the floor of
the ac tu al building would be enough to convince anyo ne of the
impossibility of de l'Orme's claim. Simply count the number of
inter sections along one of the eighteen longitudina l lines of th e
dome, and then count the number of intersection s along a cor-
responding radius on the floor. In the dome th ere are eight , on the
floor six. This alone is co nclusive proof that no parall el projection
cou ld map the one into the other. De l'Orme's de ception was of a
peculiar and unc haracteristic so,-t, because he was do ing far more
than he owne d to, not less.
Ano ther aspect of the difficu lty of seeing through the claim is the
fugit ive character of our third term, the drawing , and its virtual ab-
sence from our account of the making of architecture. In voking it,
I shall now try to reconstruct the procedure adopted by de !'Orme
for making the tracery of curves."
Put out of mind, for the mom ent, the floor, and look only at the
dome. First, not ice how the curved ribs approach the oculus rin g,
glance across it, and return, making eighteen continuous loops 175
arou nd it (in fact the sto ne wreath around th e ocul us overlaps the
 12. Su~gcs11:dpli-rnfor
tlw tracery or 1hr donw
or 1hc Roya l C hapel.
J\11c1, drawn by dw
author

11. Plan and perspective

section or the Royal
Chapel, Anet. Engraving
)
by J. -A. du Cer ce au .

lines of tangency - see postscript at the end of this art icle). Then
notice how the returning ends of the same loops, as they descend ,
meer at points along the equator of the dome (obscured by the
cornic e in the photograph ). We may then think of the network as
made up of eighteen ident ical teardrop-shaped rings eccentrically
placed on the surface of the hemispheres as if spun round its ver-
tical axis. Th ese ar e obviously comp lex, three-dimensional curves,
neither circu lar no r elliptical. The mo st useful clue so far is in the
fact that they make closed loops. How could the se complex curves
be defined on the sph erical surface with such precision? It was
certainly not through the expedient of dividing the hemi sph ere
itself into rings of latitud e and lines of longit ud e and then
interp olat ing diagonal curves - the proc edure adop ted, as far as I
can tell, by every other arc hitect faced with a similar problem 2" - as
no h andy gradation of latitud es could have procured tangency
176 around the ocu lus. On th e other hand, d e !'Orme possessed an un-
hension of projective relations , as can be seen from the Premier Tome
de !'Architecturethat he publi sh ed in 1567,2" packed with abstruse
stereotomic diagrams involvin g projections of namele ss exot ic
curvatures. One of the remarkable feature s of these is tha t every
last one has its ori gin in a circle. But , as the circles are collapsed,
elongated, ramped then proje cted onto cones, cylind ers or spheres
at glancing angles, they metamorphose into thoroughly plasti c,
volatile shapes, commensurable only through the procedure of
projection itself. This is the other significant clue.
Is there, then, a format of circles on a plane surfac e that would,
through parallel proje ction ont o a hem isphere, transform into
a nest of teardrops with the requi site numb er of intersections?
Th e answer is yes, and it turn s out to be th e simpl est possible ar-
rangement: an annular envelope of circles (Fig. 12). Th is annu lar
envelope, I suggest, is the real plan of the dome. Eac h one of the
circles within the enve lope would produce , under projection, 177

usual and , withi n architecture, perhaps uniquely vivid compr e- anothe r closed curve , but of quite different shape. The easiest way
 to envisage this is to think of the circle as th e b ase of a cylind er (th e
sides uf th e cylind er bein g th e proj ector lines) which cuts through
the hemisph ere whilst touch ing its rim.
·fh e resultin g closed cur ve on th e hemisph ere, half o f what is
called a hipp opecle, '" looks nothing like th e circle from which it has
ari sen and , although th e numb er of intersections stays the sam e,
neither do th e original ensemble of circles resembl e their project ed
translation on th e dome. Th e envelope of circles on the plan e ca n
be seen to have an unfortunat e appearan ce, the middl e lozenges of
th e annular rin g limpl y slump ed in a distributi on th at ha s neither
the dynamic suggestiveness nor the qua si-stru ctural app earan ce
of th e dom e, and it fails co nspi cuou sly to register the acce lerat ing
co ntra ction toward s th e inner ring so prono u nced abo ve. So, rath er
th an dutifull y depo sit a piece of d ida ctic evidence on th e floor, de
!'O rm e tinkered with it, expand ed it and the n clipped off its outer
rim until it looked sufficientl y like the system of inters ections to
which it had given shap e (Fig. 13).'11 From thi s we may infer that , for
de !'Orm e, in th e end , the de sire for perc eptibl e likeness took
prece dence over the desire to demo nstrate th e rigorou s meth od
th ro ugh wh ich the visible differ ence had been achieved. Th e
choi ce to eclipse his own cleverness by marring th e projec tive I
,,
/
/)~
,;:,:::,
__
-~~-~:."-
'' r,;---
=~-
------
'
c-'
equi valen ce between th e two patt ern s is all the mo re poignant, ,/
v
given his in sufferabl e tend ency to bra g elsewh ere in th e Tome.
·'
This is an intere sting discovery, becau se it shows th e geometri c
original to b e com pletely expendable, and ind eed quite ugly in
comp arison with its mu ch more wond erful produ ct . Parall el pro- I

j ection in this exampl e en ge nd ered mor e potent form s from less, ' J :lA and B. Paving of'

,, thr Royal Clrnpcl,,\n et ,

and did it by an ingeni ous, reg ulated distorti on of a sh ape ~hO\\'ll (krt) ,\ S a poni0n
'\ or an l'~p:in<kd ,·cr,i on
reg ard ed , by comm on co nsent , and by de !'Orm e him self in h is
"-.,' o f figun' 12. Drn,, in~ hy
writings on ar chit ectur e, as p erfect to start with: the circle.'? H app y the-t1t11hor.

results do not of cour se occur und er guarant ee of the drawi ng

178 techniqu e, also requirin g, as th ey do , an inqui sitive mind , a very
strong p resentim ent of th e sense within form s, togeth er with a
 p enetrat ing ability to visua lize spatial relat ions. Thi s ab ility was
doubtless enhanced by the practice of projective geometry, but not
purc hased with it. Still, it would be as crud e to insist on the archi-
tect's unrette1·ed imagination as the true source of form s, as it
would to portray the drawing techniqu e alone as the fount or for-
mal inventio n . Th e point is that thca:imaginati on and the technique
worked well together, the one enlarging the oth er, and that the
forms in que stion - and there are man y more, not only in de
l'Orm e's work, bu t in French archit ecture throu gh to the end of
the eightee nth century - could not have arisen other than throu gh
projection. A study of de l'Orm e's use of_p_a
ra llel proj ection shows
dr awing expandin g beyond the reach of unaid ed imag ination.
This , then, was architectural dr awing in a n ew mod e, more
abstract in appearance, more pen etrating in effect, capabl e of a
mor e unsettling, less predi ctabl e intera ction with th e conventional
inventory of forms of which monumenta l buildin gs are norm ally
compose d, destru ctive also of metri c proportionality , the foun-
dation of classical archi tectur e (see below), and suggestive of a per-
verse ep istemo logy in which idea s are not put in th ings by art , but
released from th em. Acco rdingl y, to fabricate would be to make
thought possible, not to delim it it by maki ng thin gs rep resent ·their
own origin (as tiresome a restrict ion in art as in social life).
The pattern of the dome ribs at Anet does have a pro venan ce. A
somewhat dubi ous iconograph y may even be sketched out. Acker-
man , in his study of Mi chelang elo's Cam pid oglio pavement, found
a medieval astronomi cal cha rt in a similar pattern of twelve rings,
indicating lun ar revolutions du ring the cour se of a year. It is po ss-
ible, though by no means certa in, th at an investigat ion of sources
wou ld revea l links between the solar and lun ar charts, other
1
diagram s of this form, the Camp idoglio pavem ent and An et. It ~ orthog raphi c proj ection, disturbi ng the rigidly graded conc eptual
might even divu lge an informing symbo lism that wou ld exp lain the
180 increased numb er of rings at Anet. Although this has not yet been
done, let us assum e th at the quest for symbolic meaning would
yield persua sive results. \'\'here would this symb olism reside, if not
in the envelope of circles, which was really no mo re than a n
expen dable pie ce of form work for clie tran sfigur ed phenom enon of
the dome? VVould we not be forced to concede, in the circum-
stan ces, that the sym bolism was a mere ingredi ent. lost in fon11,no t
carri ed in it?
Wh at comes out is no t always the same as what goes in. Archi-
tecture ha s neverthe less been tho ught of as an attempt al maxi-
mum pr eserva tion in which l;oth meanin g and liken ess are
tr ansported from idea through drawing to building with min imum
loss. Th is is the doctr ine of essentiali sm . Such essentiaJism was
- .
he ld to be paradigm at ic throughout the classical per iod . It was
held to in arc hitectural _texts,but n ot always in architectur e. The
notabl e thing ab out th e working techni qu e used by de !'Orme ,
which could on ly be written about from within the limits of archi-
tectural theory as a way of moving truth from here to there , was in
the enchanting transfigurations it performed. C uriously, the plia-
bility of forms was made possible by a homogenizati on of space .
Orthog raphic pr oj ection is the language trans lato r's dream. _With-
in its axioms the most compl ex figure s may be moved at will into
perfectly congruent form at ions anywhere else, yet th is rigidly
defined homogeneity mad e distortion measurab le. It was this capa -
bility that de J'Orrne exploited.
Orthograp hic p rojection played its part as one of num erou s
techniques used by artists and arch itects to counte ract the rampant
.instrument ality of essentiali sm,3' which would have a rt be a form
of hau lage, tran sport ing incor por eal ideas into corporeal expre s-
sions. And there is an amu sing irony in the pro spect of the rigid
bun ch of spect ral paralle ls along which lines were pushed in
sp ace throug h which ideas were pushed into things.
T he_ theme of this articl e is tran slation , and T am now talking 18 1
about tran sportat ion. Th ere are all those other ide ntically prefixed
 nouns too: transfiguration, transformation, transition. transmi-
grat ion. transfer, transmission. transmogrification, transmutat ion,
transposition, transubstantiation, transcendence, any of which
would sit happily over the blind spot -between the drawing and its
object, because we can never be qu ite certain, before th e event,
how thing~ will travel and what will happen to them on the way. \A/e
may, though, like de !'Orm e, try to take advantage of the situation
by extending their journey, m aintain ing sufficient co ntrol in transit
so that more remote destinations may be reac hed. I retain this
inane parable, as it gives some idea of what I believe to be the
largely unrecognized possibility within drawing. One infidelity
does sta nd out, however: thes e destinat ions are not like exot ic, far-
away places wa iting to be discovered; they are merely potentia lities
that might be brought into existence thro ugh a given medium.
But always standing in the way are the pieties of essentia lism and
persist ence (the confusion of longevity with profundity ). W hatever
modernism 's much venti lated destructive ach ievements, it made no
mark on these. In the region of drawing they operate either
through insistence on a true and irreducib le exp ressiven ess, or in-
sistence on perspectival realism, or in the demand that on ly pure
geometr ic forms or ratios be employed.
As rega rds the last, numerous ana lyses have been published,
from the seventeeµth century to the present day, divulging th e
secrets of the world's greatest works of arch itecture in the presence
of underlying p roportions. Without denying either the presence of
or the need for proportionality in architecture, attention might be
dir ected to ce rtain mi ~concep tions. Not all proportionali ty is
reducible to ratio, yet it is <?
_nly as ratio th at it has been admitted
into architecturaJ theory. A ratio ·is a comparison betwee n two
numbers , as l :'172.
or' /.,. Since numbers , having no tangible reality
themselves, 111ustbe wilfully pushed into things, we ha ve to ask how
182 ratio can be made sensib le in arch itecture; the an swer leads back Lo
our point of departure, the drawing .
\lhik the simplest means
\ 1 orexpressing a rat io outside of n11111
-
ber is as the division of a line, th e second most simpk \"xpression i~
as an area, length to breadth. Tn this surface-makin g rorm, ratio
.!:esidcs in architecture. Ratio s thu s express\"d fill a sheet like l ,ord
North filled a chair: squa rely. And it has to be a sheet of paper with
no rucks or folds, and it ha s to LH'' viewed frontally. othe rwise the
proportiona lity degenerates. Th e less Eucl idean th e plane, or th e
more ob lique the point of view, th e mor e degenerate the form.
Neverthe less, as long as the surface of the bui lding maintains
sufficient identity with the sheet of pape r, proportional ratios ma y
be transferred with little loss. The very arc hit ects who used this
appr oximate identity to such advantage, from Alberti to Palladio
and later, were preoccupied with estab lishing a canon of pro-
,port ions. Th ey were also keenly aware of the danger s that lurked
in th e third dimension , ready to degrade the beauty cons tructed so
painstakingly in the flat: 1·, But, alt hough this was a perp lexing
difficulty, it was in accord with the entrop ic account of value given
in the docfrine of essentia lism. Things were supposed to degrad e
as they moved from idea to object. It was a d ifficulty easy to
art icu late in theory , whereas th e tran sfiguring capabi lity in the
dr aw ing was a potential advantage that was not.
To jud ge from the nostalgic and at th e same time dogmati c
characte r of much twentieth-century literature on architectural
proportion, all tha t has been well and truly 'lost' is any sense of the
intrin sic limitation of the idea, one remarkable demonstration of
this regained innocence being th e analysis supplied by Matila
Ghyka of H elen Wills's face to prove that her beauty was founded
in th e golden ratio. 36 The analysis is not of the rotund, undu lating,
folded, punctured surface we ca ll a face. but of qui te another sur -
face, onto which the face was flatte ned by the process of photo-
graphy (Fig. 14). I present this as an inverte d parody of de l'Orme's
procedu re at Anet. T he existing, alluring, comp lex curvature of 183
Wills's face is projected through a cam era len s onto a flat surface

14. Three stages or,he
proporlionalanalysisot·
H elen Wills's face, l'rom
L, Jlombred'or, by M atila
Chy ka, 193 1.
upon which is then inscrib ed an unprepossessing visor or lines
constructed from basic elements or plane geomett·y. Start from th e
end and work backwards, and you get the spun fretwork in th e
Anet chapel dome . In Ghyka ·s analysis. basic plane geome try
ended up as a foundation; al Anet it was just the beginning.
De l'O rme's was not the only way; there we1·e others, equa lly
efficacious. A study of other projects that ruptur ed the equ ivalence
between drawing and building ·· Borromini's S. Carlo alle Quattro
Fontane or Le Corbusier 's Ron champ - would show archite cts
work ing quite differently though perhaps, in both instances, more
in accord with our prejudi ce that architects of genius (the horse
tormented by its br idle , the caged lion, to use Borromini' s bestial
images of b imselfj37 must wrest themselves free from the restriction
of geometrical drawing rather than use it. While I have no argu·
ment with this point of view per se, it has left us insensitive to the
potency that has existed - still exists - in the precision of the draw-
ing, which is also capable of disengaging architecture from those
same stolid conformities of shap e, propriety and essence, but from
within the med ium normally used to enforce them.
Two curren t advertisements: a TV commerc ial for household
paint which shows the fren etic and messy antics of a barbarous
Glaswegian ar tist whose studio is all the while being painted spot-
less white by a meticu lous, imperturbable decorator ; a newspape r
ad for the Youth Opportunitie s Programme that shows a lout spray-
ing 'Spurs' onto a wall, later transfigured into a white-coated ap-
prent ice painting a tr im little namep late for the same football club.
Her e is the absurd public prejud ice in favour of neatness: neat ness
as a sign of civilization . Th ere is a counter -pr ejud ice, a rea ction, a
cultur ed expiation no less limitin g, really, which operates in favour
of the unpremeditated and unregulated as signs of art and feeling.
Neith er will do. Yet there is something about the way pe ople work.
It would be possible, I think, to write a history ofWestern archi- 185
tecture that would have little to do with either style or signification,

• • -
 II , I 1,.1111,11111,,'
1,, ( , 1.11 11111, 1~1.inc
h.
""' ' '11\ 1 I 1111\ 11 ' 111111 ~

15. Tl1t.·1t1"ml ,if /)~J•>.

h) William Blal.r.
Fro111i !ipiec,·Lo l~urope:
.'I l~vph,,,-, I ) !H .

co ncentrat ing instea d on the m a nn er of wo rking. A large part of

this history would be co ncer.ned with the gap between drawing and
building. In it the drawing ,vould be cons ider ed not so much a work
of art or a truck for p ushing ide as (1·om place to pl ace, but as the
loca le of subterfuges and evas ions th at one way or anothe r get
round the enormous weigh t of conventi on that has always bee n
arc hitecture's greatest securit y a nd at the same tim e its greates t
liability. This is one or my amb itions: th e history of Blake's ar-
ch iLect geomete r has been writ ten a hundr ed time s (Fig. 15); I
wo uld like Lo wr ite the history of Gia cinto Brandi's (Fig. 16),38 not,
l hast en to add, because she is so young and pretty, but because of
th e uncharacterist ic exp ression on her face and in her posture. It is
thr kind of expre ssion normally reserve d in sevent ee nth -ce ntury
pai nting for prost itutes and courtesans. Th e p ictur e's subj ect is
uncerta in, its title a modern sup posi tion rest ing on the fact tha t she
186 hold s dividers, nothing more . On e might ask what such a figure is
experte d to do with the instrum ent she shows us.

• •

POSTSCRIPT
I wrote th is article before visiting Anet and seeing th e dome and
floor or th e chape l. It seems to be as I describ ed it, with the ex-
ception or one detail which had escaped my notice in the photo-
gra ph s ava ilable lo me. Ali.er my retu rn , another photograph - o ne
that 1 had ta ken - showed this up. It is easier to discern project ive
relat ions between two such surfaces in photographs than in the
building itself, where they can not bo th be held in view at the sam e
time, and it is on ly the recollection or apparenL simil arity that
carri es the idea or th eir relation within th e building. (Given the
difficulty of direct comp arison , de l'Orme 's modification of pro-
jective equ ivalence to make the two surfaces look more alike is all
the more effective and all the more artful.) Th e anomaly in my
accoun t of the chapel dom e concerns the relation of the eighteen
ribs looping round the lant ern rin g. I had thoug ht that they pass
across the edge of the lantern ring tangentia lly- and seen from the
floor they give every appearance of doin g so - but they do not. In
fact the lantern ring cuts a little way into the edge of th e p attern of
intersect ions, elimin ating the final circle of half lozenges. Evi-
dently this was an oth er of de l'O rm e's modificat ions of pr ojective
equ ivalen ce, bec au se th e marble inlay on th e floor does include
this part of the pattern. It is po ssible that th is particular modi-
fication had less to do with the forging of app aren t likeness
between dome and floor than with th e technical difficulty of
cut ting such acute ang les in the more friab le stone of the dom e.
188
NOTES
l, From 1he l .atin lramlatio,lo rc·mo,l' or ct1rryfrom one plarr· w another.
2. I ~1wrence Weschler, Seeingi., Fo1 1hr . \am, of th, 'n1111g
grt1111g One Sm I Bcrk,·lev.
1982). A study or Robert Irwin .
3. t-l ichael Baxandall , Giolloand the Orators://11111anis1
Observer.
, qf Pa111t111g
in Ita!r and
ef PictonalComposition/350 1450 (Oxford, 1971).
tllf Discovn_1'
4. T.J.Clar k, Tiu. Image qf 1he l'ro/ile(Lond on,
1973); Th, Abso/111,
Bowgcois\London.
1972); Tiu Paintingof Modem life O.ondon, 198-½).
5. Nor man Bryson , Hord & Image:French Paintingef the AncienRegime (Cambr idge,
1981); Vision& Painting:The Lcgirof th, Gaze (Londo n, 1983).
6. Bennington College, Vermont.
7. The most stimulati ng account or 1his slippi ng-over of the categorical boundaries
is Rosalind Krauss 's 'Scu lpture in the Exp anded Field ', October8 (1979); also in:
o/ theAuant-Gardeand OtherModernist!v[yt/zs(Boston, 1985).
K rauss, Tiu Originali!)>
8. Others might include Walter de Maria , Robert Irwin , Gordon Mana-Clark ,
Donald J udd, Robert Smithson, Micha el Heizer , Christo, Robert M orris, Dan
Flavin, De Wain Valent ine, Mario Merz, John Alken . Sarah Bradp iece. Da,·id
t.ifach, and so on. The question with these artists is not whether they use draw-
ings (some do), but how they use them and why. Above all, the questio n is to what
extent the drawing, ir used as a means or investigation , imparts significant prop-
erties to the thing it represen ts. Many of the works or the artists listed, which are
geome u·ic and apparentl y reducible to drawing, are not, since they possess prop-
ert ies or substance and luminosity which, though they may be mimicked in
drawing , ca nnot be deve loped in investigative drawing . To imagine that they ca n
is a fruitless illusion now being fostered in arc hitectural schools.
9. T his is true, for instance, or K ay Larson's otherwi se excellent review or Turrell's
Whitney retrospective in Art Forum,January 1981, pp. 30-33.
I 0. I am conscious or how similar my description is to Barba ra H askell's description
or Laar, another of Turrell's installations, which appeared in Art in America,May
1981, pp. 90-99. I knew or H askell's article before I saw Tu rre ll's work for myselr
and even read it out in lectures. 1 then made an effort to write about this type of
installation differe ntly, but found I cou ld not do so to any effect. This is certa inly
an ind ication of my indebtedness lo Barbara Hask ell. It may also indicate an
inescapable cons isten cy in Turrc ll's work . See_ also Ka y Larson, op. cit., and
Suzaan Boettger, Art Forum,September 198-½,pp . 118-19.
l I . Pliny the Elder , Natural History,vol. xxxv, para. 151. Sec also K. J ex-Blake, The
ElderPliny's Chaptas011the Historyqf Art (London , 1896).The story adapted by the
painters was recorded by Pliny as or the origin or modelling
(Diboutades · father, a 189
potter, afterwards filling in the outline or the head with clay to ma ke a relieO.
 1'l. Schinkel\ painting is tmcharac1,-ri,1i.- "i1hin ilH"genre. Altho ugh it is accrp1cd
.,s illu,1rati11g tlw Diboutarles sto ry. in \\"hich Pliny cksrr ibes tlH' sh;ido " falling
on a \,·all. liw compil'tr ab'\t·nc~ orarchil<:-ct11n_· i!'I.i:l:-ifar I kno\,, uniqul'. c:-,.;r-cpl
fi,r t\ll ,·arl) yarianl bv .Jo:-ichim, ·o n Sandran 1675. Schink<~!seems to ha\'c
1 19. Edi Bacc hesd,i , l.'0/1,in Comp/,tnd1(,"iotlo(;-_
co11f·i.-ut·dthl' Pliny ancrdott" la ,,·oman as tilt' in,·enlo r) wiLhSandrnrt's shepherd
1ra1"i11g1hr shado" t>f his she,·p un th!" ground. S,·e 1i :F Srhink,I:.·lrd1itektw;
.\ln/nr,. Ai111,t.gm ·trb1•(Berlin. 19B I), cata logue entry 207a, p. '267; and Rob,'rt
, .Jr/ Bulletin,D,:c. I~5 7. p p. 279-90.
Rosc·nblum. 'Th e Origin or Pa i11ting.-
13. Thi s paradox """' poimed out by Lethab~; one o f Webb's greatest ad mir ers . See
\-\'. R. Letha by. Plulip 1-1ebb and hi., I lbrk (Lo nd on, 1979), p p. I 17-25. 'T here arc
two ideals'. lw wri tes. 'souncl1 honrst, huma11buildin g, or brilli ant dr m,ving5 of
exhibition designs.'
I~. :\ distinction h as t0 be m ade be tween those portraits o f art ists in wh ich the too l
rep resen ted the orcu p ation (paintbrush, ch isel o r divider s) and those in which
the work itself was shown .
15. G. T. Toolmer, 'C laud ius Pt o lrmy ' , in Diclionacl' ef ScientificBiography,edi ted by
Gillespie, vol. xi, pp . 186 ff; and C laudi i Pto lcmaci, LiberdeAnalemmate(Rom e,
I S62), which includes many diagrams .
16. Decio G iose ffi, GiolloArchitello(Mi lan, 1963), pp. 82-4 . C lose inspec tio n revea ls
some min o r incons iste ncies in projection, For exa mple , th e facets o f the corner
bastions thal are decorated with squares of dark marble inlay a re shown with the
vert ica l str ips of inl ay registe ring th e sa me width in frontal and ob lique planes. In
a fc"' of the lower pan els, however , th e proportional red uct ion on the ob lique
su r faces was shown correctly.
17. It is in teresting that the story of the o rig in of Greek geo m etr y, also included in
Pliny, is very simi la r to that of the origin of drawing. It tells of Thales find ing the
height of an Egyptian pyramid by measuring the length of its shadow on the
groun d and compa rin g it tO the shadow made at the same time of day by a
sma ller vert ica l of kn own heig ht. To recog nize th e formal eq uiva lence between
these two th ings requ ires, as Meserve points out, im ag ina ry lines to be conce ived
as j oin ing the tops o f th e vertica ls with the e nd s of the ir sh adows on the grou nd,
th us inaugurating a geome try of abst rac t lines. Th e impercipicnce in the story ,
claiming that th e abst rac t line was d iscove red in the measurement of a buildi ng,
the construction of which would have required th at knowledge beforeha nd, is
discussed by Serres. See Bruce M eserve, FundamentalConceptsin Geometry(New
York, 1983), pp. 222-3; and Michel Serres . 'Mathe m a tics and Philosophy: What
Thale s Sa,v ... ', in Hermes(Baltimore , 1982), p p. 84-96.
18. O ne of the finest examp les of this type is a lso in the Opera de l D uomo in Siena,
a drawing o f the Siena Bapt istery facade made around 1370, probab ly by
190 Dom en ico Agostino. Th e deeply reces sed portals a nd aisle windows depa rt from
orthographic ture in Ita!J 1250-140 0
project io n. See John White, Art and Architec
(Ha rmondsworth. 196G), p. '.{27 and pl,1t,· I.'>I. \ \ 'hite also rlisnissc, tlw ea rli,·,t
Ita lian drawi ng o/' this typ<".tlw On·irto C:a1h,·dral facade b\' l ,rn-rnz0 :\ laitani .
about 13 I O(p. 2CJ:2 ).
lib n. I %6 ). p. I :lG. Bacdu·s, hi con -
lests the allribut io n: however. V/hite (:•m/m1.p. 1721 arrepts n a, proba l;k whik
1
Tral.'htrnbcrg argues strongly that it is Ciotto 's s1.:hrmeand ma-:,t·,·en b<"his
drawing (tvl . Tracht enberg, The C.,1111/w1il a Cath,dral:(,'w110:rTimn (New
t of"!·1o,en
York, 197 I"i,p p. 2 1-48}.
20. According to Panofsk~; thi s was th e rnse with no t on ly Egyptian n·licf. b111also
scu lpt ur es in the round. See Envin Panofsky, ·T\ ,e H istory of the Theor y of
H uman Proport io ns as a Rrllection o f the Hi sto ry of Styles', in ,\l eaningIII the
VisualArts (New York, 1955), pp. 60 -62. ·
2 1. L. B. Alberti , The TenBooksefArchite
c//,rf. transla ted by Leoni . edited by Rykwtrt
(London, 1955),book i, cha pt er i.
22. E. H. Gombrich, Ari and lllu.rion(London, I 972), part iii, espec ially 'The
Ambiguities of th e T h ird D imension' , pp. 204-4-4.
23. 'Th ose who wo uld take th e trouble, will understand what I have done wi th the
sp heri ca l vau lt that I had to make for the ch ape l at Anet , with severa l sorts of
branc hes inclin ed in con trary dir ect ions and forming by thi s m eans compa rt-
m ents tha1 a rc plu mb and perpendicular above the plan and paving of the sa id
chape l.' D e !'Orme, Le PremierTomedel'Architectur,
(Paris, 1567), chapter xi, p. 112.
24. Th e most co mpr e hensive rece nt work on de l'Onne is Anthony Blunt's Philibert
j de /'Orme (London, 1958). Blunt no tice d and accepted I he projective relation in
question (p. 43).
25. De !'Orme, having noted th e p rojection of 1hc floor into the dome, referred the
reader to a simi lar proposa l, wh ich he procee d ed to demonstrate and exp lain .
This did involve projection of a plane su rface int o a sphe rical su r face (supra,
chapt e r xii, p p. 112-13), but it was a mu ch simpl er pattern of co nceotr ic squares
on a pavement wh ose effec ts in the dome cou ld qui te easi ly be visua lized from
th e pla n alo n e.
26. Th e pe rspeclive section pub lished by de !'Orme himself , prim itive, like: mo st of
hi s perspectiv es, showed the tracery inaccura tely and did not indi cate the tloor
p att ern (although there is o ne varianl of this which docs include the pavement
and shows it with the same number o f in tersections as th e dome). No ortho-
grap hic drawings of th e cha pel by d e !'O rme surv ive. The plan published by
Androue t du Cerceau in I.ts plus excel/ents baslimentsde France, vol. 2 (Pa ris, I fi07),
showe d th e Aoor nearly as laid (wro ng number or arcs, right type of co nfig-
uration), but the superimpos ition of the lantern plan obsc ur ed the mo st cr itical
area of the pattern. Th e plan from the survey publ ished by Rudophe Pfnor in 191
Monographiedu Cluiteaud'Anet (Brussels, 1867), to all appearances much more
accurate, preserved the topologi cal ch ara cte ristics of th e nest of wrves , but did
 not draw them as circular arcs. ,vhil<-in the section both the curws and their
intersections in the domr fail to correspond to the pattern as constructed.
2i. Blunt not,·d thr ingeni ous natun· or the coffering pattern , its departure rrom the
u,ual method or romparunenting domes using lines_or latitude and longitud e,
and the inaccurnc) or arn ilabl e drawings. vrt despite these perspi caciou s observ-
ations his own account went quickly awry. H e wrote: 'throug h each or the 16 (.,ir)
po ints on the oculus two grt>al circles arc drawn, linking it wid, f\, ·o points on lhe
equator separated from it on groun d plan by what appears to be an angle of
180°'. What Blunt did was to give a descr iption or du Cerceau's plan of the pave-
ment (with its sixteen pairs of branches , not eighteen, calling the arcs great cir-
rlcs and not taking into account the supe rimpos ition or the lantern plan in the
du Cerceau drawing, which arte fact gave rise to the eITects he described in this
passage. l n other wo rds, hr was describing pa rt of a drawing of the Aoor, not the
whole or the dome (great circles could not in any case meet twice on a hemi-
spherical surface unle ss both intersections were on the rim). Sec Blunt, supra,pp.
39-42. For my own investigat ions I have used a crude photogrammetry, w ith
photographs of the dome and floor from the Co nway Library , Cou rtauld In-
stitute, and in Countrylife, 16 May 1908, pp. 702-4. The method, in my ha nds, is
not foolproof, bu t it is probab ly adequate_- Certainly it gives far more reliable
results than could be obtained from existing drawings.
28. Ir a sphere is divided as is a terrest rial globe, with lines or equal longitude and
latitude , and the d iago nals are jo ined , a pattern or this type emerges (see Fig. I I
in this article, from W. Ja mnitzer, Perspectiua CorporumRegularium(Nuremberg,
1568), series G, plate v). It diITers significantly from the arrangement at Anet,
however, in that all the spiralling d iagonals radiate from the poles. At Anet this
area is complete ly empty or curves. A simple metric division also gives the pat-
tern of Michelangelo's Campidoglio pavement. An oval constr ucted with major
and minor arcs or equal length made the divison of each of the four compone nt
curves into six eq ual par ts along the per ime ter an easy matter. R ad ii were j oined
to these from the centre of the oval, and then these radii were themse lves divided
into six rqual parts.Join ing these together produced a spider's web or concentric
ovals across rad ial lines . Alterna ting diago nals with in the network pr odu ced the
pattern. Again, all the diagona ls converged on the cemre.
29. De l'O r mc' s stereotomy requ ires a separate study. H is was the first pub lication of
the tech nique which mai ntained a distinct presence in French archi tecture well
into the eighteenth century and was systematically taugh t well into the nine -
e a In Franfaise (Paris, I 982),
teenth. See J.-M. Perous e de Montclos, l 'Architectur
parts 2 and 3, especially pp . 80-95.
30 . The hippoped e was ont of the few curves, other than the circle and the conic
sections, that was well estab lished in an cient Greek geometry, its properties
192
having been investigat ed by the mathematician Eudox us in the fourth centur y
BC. See Carl Boyer, A History of Mathematics (N ew York, 1968), p. I02. It is an
open que stion whether this was known to d,· !'Orme and . if it was, how it con-
tributed 10 his use or it in the chapel dome.
3 1. This interpr etation accords with the de creased nu Tllber or inter sections on the
pavem ent. Mo re im po rt antly, it accord s with tl1c morpho logy or the pa, ·ement
lozenges. In the envelope of circles J have proposed as I lie basis of the dome
tracery the lozenges arc broadest in the middle of the annular ring and flatlen
towards the inner and outer r ims. Th e pavem ent as built. by increasing the radiu s
of the circles and extend ing the outer rim of the: em·elope, plots only six of the
original eight rings of lozenges on to the available Aoor spac e. The fact tha t the
fourth and fifth rings or lozenges (numbered from the oculu s outwards) are the
same propor tion, while the sixth (outermost ) rin g is noticeably Aaucr and
comparable in propo rtion to the third r ing, supports this conject ure, since this is
exactly the property or the full eight-ring envelope of curves. Not only docs this
make the Aoor patt ern look more like the exp ansive dome pattern, but the
p rojecting corn ice be low the dome cuts the lower rim or the dome itself from
view, obscuring much of the lowest ring or lozenges and maki ng its obsc,vable
dens ity even more nearly eq uivalent to that of the Aoor.
32. D e ]'O r me, PremierTome, p. 33. Yet de !'Orm e was nowhere near as insistent on
the perfection or the circle as other sixteenth-ce ntury writer s on archit ecture,
preferrin g to concent rate his praise on the figure of the cross.
of Michelangelc(H armondsworth.
33. James S. Ackerman, The Architecture 1986),
pp. 167-8. I am grateful also to Richard Patt erson for information on this.
34. It is now often taken for granted tha t idta lism and essentia lism save us from the
kind of instrumenta lity that comes with pos itivism. T his they may or may not do.
But I wou ld insist that they bring with them othe r kinds of instrum entality and
othe r var ieties or subjection j ust as unsavoury. I wo1ild insist also that on ly some
kinds of instrumenta lity are unsavoury.
35. Th us Albe rt i, who had done more than anyone to propagate knowledge of per-
spective in his book on pa inting, accused it of distortion in his book on archi-
tecture (The Ten Books 011Architecture ( I 955 ), p. 22). In the ensuing centuri es,
proportion, its inevitable d istortio n by the eye, an d its practical 'adjustme nt' to
~ou nter the optica l deceptions of three -dimensiona l embodiment were d iscussed
by numero us aut hors. Claude Perrault gave a bri llian t though highly critica l ac-
count or bo th proportio n and adjustme nt in Ordonnance descinqespicesde Colon11 es
(Par is, 1683) (Treatis
e on the FiveOrder
s, translated by J ohn J ames (London , 1708)).
36 . Matila Ghyka, leNumbre d'Or(Paris, 193 1), p. 55 and plates 18-20.
37. J oseph Connors, Borromi11i
and the Roman Oratory(Boston , 1978), p. 3. Connors's
lecture on S. Carlo at the Ar chite ctura l Association in 1982 was very informati ve
about Borromini's use of drawin g.
193
38. Renato Guttuso, L'operacompletade/ Caravaggio
(Milan , 1967), pp . I 08-9 .
(---
 not draw them as circular a rcs, while in the section both the curves and their
intersections in the dome fail to correspond to the pattern as constructed.
27. Blunt noted the ingen ious nature of the coffering pattern, its departure from the
usual method of compartmenti ng domes using lines of latitud e and longitude ,
and the inaccuracy of available drawings, yet despite ~hese per spicac ious observ-
ations his own account went quickly a,vry. I le ""·ote: 'through each of the 16 (sic)
points on the oculus two great circles are drawn, linking it with t\\"0points on the
equa tor separated from it on ground plan by what app ears to be an ang le of
180°'. \<\'hat Blunt did was LO give a description of du Cerceau's plan of the pave-
ment (with its sixteen pairs of bran ches, not eighteen, calling the arcs great cir-
cles and not taking into account the super imposition of the lantern plan in the
du Cc rceau drawin g, which artefact gave rise to the effects he described in th is
passage. In other words, he was describing part of a drawing of the Aoor,not the
whole of the dome (great circles could not in any case meet twice on a hemi-
sphe rical surface unless both intersections were on the rim). Sec Blunt, supra, pp.
39-42. For my own investigations I have used a crude phot ogramm etry, with
photograph s of the dome and Aoor from the Conway Library, Courtauld In-
stitute, and in CountryLife, 16 May 1908, pp. 702-4. The method , in my hand s, is
not foolproof, but it is probably adequate_- Certainly it gives far more reliable
results than could be obtained from existing drawings.
28. If a sphe re is divided as is a terre strial globe, with lines of equal longitude and
latitude, and the diagonals arc join ed, a pattern of this type emerges (see Fig. I I
in this article, from W. Jamnitz cr, Perspeclwa Corporum&gularium(Nure mber g,
1568), series C, plate v). It differs significantly from the arrangement at Anet,
however, in that all the spiralling diagonals radiate from the poles. At Anet this
area is comp letely empty of curves. A simple metric division also gives the pat-
tern of Miche langelo's Campidoglio pavement. An oval constructed with major
and minor arcs of equal length made the divison of each of the four component
curves into six equal parts along the perimeter an easy matter. Rad ii were jo ined
to these from the centre of the oval, and then these radii were themselves divided
into six equal parts.Joining these together produced a spider's web of conce ntric
ovals across radial lines. Alternating diagonals within the network produced the
pattern. Again , all the dia gona ls converged on the centre.
29. De l'Ormc's stereotomy requires a sepa rate study. H is was the first publication of
the technique which maintained a distinct presence in Frcncl1 architec tur e well
into the eighteenth cent ur y and was systematically taught well into the nine-
teenth. See J.-M . Perousc de Montclos, L'Archiltcture a la Franfaise (Par is, 1982),
parts 2 and 3, especially pp. 80-95.
30. The hippopede was one of tl1e few curves, other than the circle and the conic
sections, that was well established in anc ient Greek geometr y, its properties
192 having been investigated by the mathematician Eudoxus in tl1e fourth century
BC. See Carl Boyer, A Historyof Mathematics(New York, 1968), p. I 02. ll is an
open question whethe r this was known to de !'O rme and , if it was, how it con-
tribut ed to his use of it in the chap el dome.
31. Thi s interpretation accords with the decreased number of intersections on the
pavement. More importantly, it accords with the morphology of the pavement
lozenges. In the envelope of circles I have proposed as the basis of the dome
tracery the lozenges arc broadest in the middle of the annular ring and flatten
toward s the inner and outer rims. The pavement as built, by increasing the radiu s
of the circles and extending the outer rim of the envelope, plots only six of the
original eight rings of lozenges onto the available floor space. The fact that the
fourth and fifth rings of lozenges (numbered from the oculus outwards) are the
same proportion , while the sixth (oute rmost ) ring is noticeably Jlatter and
comparab le in proportion to the third ring, supports this conjecture, since this is
exactly the proper ty of the full eight-ring envelope of curves. Not only docs this
make the Aoor patte rn look more like the expans ive dome pattern, but the
projecting cornice below the dome cuts the lower rim of the dome itself from
view, obscu ring much of the lowest ring of lozenges and making its observable
density even more nearly equivalent to that of the floor.
32. De !'Or me, PremurTo=,p. 33. Yet de !'Orm e was nowhere near as insistent on
the perfection of tl1e circle as other sixteenth -cent ury writers on architecture,
preferring to con centrate his pra ise on the figure of the cross.
33. Jame s S. Ackerman, The Archiltclureof Michelangelo(Harmondsworth , 1986),
pp. 167-8. I am grateful also to Richard Patter son for informati on on this.
34. It is now often taken for granted that idealism and essentialism save us from tl1e
kind of instrumentality that comes with positivism. This they may or ma y not do.
But I would insist tl1at they bring with them other kinds of instrumentality and
other varieties of subjection just as unsavoury. I would insist also that only some
kinds of instru mentality are unsavoury.
35. Thu s Alberti , who had done more than anyone to propagate knowledge of per-
spective in his book on painting , accused it of distort ion in his book on arc hi-
tecture (The Ten Boo/cson Archileclure(1955), p. 22). ln the ensuing centuri es,
proportion , its inevitable distorti on by the eye, and its practical 'adj ustment ' to
founter the optical deceptions of three-dimensional embodiment were discussed
by numerou s authors. Claude Perrault gave a brilliant tl10ugh highly critical ac-
count of botl1 proportion and adjustment in Ordonnance tks cinqespecesde Colonnes
(Paris, 1683) (Trealiseon theFiveOrders,translated by John Jame s (London, 1708)).
36. Matila Ghyka, uNombred'Or (Paris, 1931), p. 55 and plates 18-20.
37. Jo seph Connors, Borromi11i and tht RomanOralory(Boston, 1978), p. 3. Co nn ors's
lecture on S. Carlo at the Architectural Association in 1982 was very informative
about Borromini 's use of drawing.
193
38. Renato Guttuso, L'operacompktade/ Caravaggio
(Milan, 1967), pp. I 08-9.