Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the History of

Architectural Drawing
Author(s): Mark Hewitt
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 39, No. 2 (Winter, 1985), pp. 2-9
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1424961 .
Accessed: 17/01/2012 00:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1984-).

http://www.jstor.org
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
i
S
- -
- -
- -
- ;
MarkHewittis an architectand Assistant
Professor of Architectureand Preservation
at ColumbiaUniversity.Educated at Yale
University(A.B.1975) and the Universityof
Pennsylvania(M.Arch.1978),he has
workedas an architect,preservationist,and
architecturalhistorianin Philadelphia,New
Yorkand Houston. His previous teaching
includes three years at Rice University,and
adjunctpositions at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Instituteand the Universityof Pennsylvania.
In 1985 he was the Editorof CITE,The
Architectureand Design Review of Hous-
ton, and has published articles on architec-
turalhistoryand criticismin journals such
as The Journalof ArchitecturalEducation,
Dichotomy,VIA,and Texas Architect.He is
at workon a book on the Americancountry
house in the twentiethcentury,for which
he received a GrahamFoundationFellow-
ship.
After brieflyoutlining several examples
from recent historical research which
begin to establish the relativityof design
processes during several different
epochs, this paper suggests that a new
synthetic approach to the study of archi-
tectural representation and its influence
on thought is needed to bridge the gap
between architecturalhistory, intellectual
history and design methodology. Such an
approach would be based upon the con-
cept of studying relationships between
representation, conception, and percep-
tion, or more simply, between modes of
conception as they appear historically,
and the particular forms of representation
used by designers. Drawing, when studied
as a language of thought rather than sim-
ply a medium of expression, may yield
clues to the intellectual history of archi-
tecture which have gone unnoticed under
standard techniques of historical inquiry.
Winter 1985 JAE 39/2
Forms
Representational
and Modes of Conception
An Approach to the History of Architectural
Drawing
The conception of a work of architecture
is one of the most complex of creative
undertakings. It has been studied by both
architectural historians seeking to define
the working methods of architects in his-
tory and by architecturalstudio critics
seeking to perfect design methodologies
which could be passed on to students.1 In
recent years, scholarship in architectural
history and the research of methodolo-
gists have given us new insights into the
relativityof the design process and the
external influences on it. Consider the fol-
lowing revelations from historians about
the graphic and conceptual means used
by architects in past epochs and compare
them to our own ways of thinking about
architectural problems.
I. Greek architects "drew"with words.
Although architecturalmodels were used
as a means of communicatingideas as
early as 725 B.C. at Perachora,architectural
drawings (whetherworkingdrawingsor
sketches) are not mentioned in Greek his-
torical or literarysources. By the fifth cen-
tury B.C., "architects"like Ictinusand Kalli-
crates used several means of giving build-
ers accurate informationto guide them in
the construction of temples, which were by
that time highly conventionalizedbuildings.
The most importantof these, called Syngra-
phai, were detailed descriptivespecifica-
tions which even included dimensions.
Details such as cornice molding and pieces
of ornamentalsculpture were described
through the use of the Paradeigma,a full-
scale mock-up or model, and the Anagra-
pheus, or template.2
II.Medieval master masons, who also
relied on full-scale templates and models
during construction, designed extraordi-
narilycomplex cathedrals and churches
primarilythrough the use of a myriadof
different kinds of plan drawings. (Fig. 1)
These were laid out not arithmeticallybut
geometrically, using simple tools such as
compasses and squares. The intricate
geometric formulae which formed the
canon of Gothic architectural design were
passed down through the guilds or
masonic lodges, falling under the rubric
of the "Artof Geometry."Accurately mea-
sured and proportioned elevation draw-
ings (using orthogonal projection) are
rare among collections of fourteenth- and
fifteenth-centuryGothic drawings. Evi-
dence suggests that they played a much
less significant role in design and con-
struction than they do today.3
III.Following the discovery of scientific
linear perspective construction by Brunel-
leschi in about 1425 and its codification
by Albertiin his Della Pittura,early-
Renaissance architects experimented with
this new technique in various ways. (Fig.
2) Evidence in collections of quattrocento
drawings, such as the Codex Coner
(Soane Museum, London) suggests that
the use of section perspective drawings
supplanted the standard orthogonal sec-
tion as the conventional means of depict-
ing building interiors for the remainderof
the century. This was done despite prob-
lems caused by the incommensurabilityof
the perspective drawing, from which
accurate dimensioning is impossible.4
IV.Fromthe end of the eighteenth century
to the middle of the nineteenth, students
at the Ecole des Beaux-Artsin Paris fol-
lowed a rigid, Cartesian pedagogical pro-
gram which stressed the understanding of
objects, including buildings, as geometric
solids which could be cut and analyzed
graphically according to plan, section and
elevation. This method, known sometimes
as Dessin Geometrale, profoundly influ-
enced both the formal characteristics of
student projects (giving them their axiality
and stereotypical "Beaux-Arts"diagram)
and the means by which students were
required to depict those designs. (Figs. 3
&4) Perspective drawings, which could
not present buildings objectively or ana-
lyticallyaccording to doctrines of dessin,
were generally outlawed in concours until
about 1850.5
These four examples epitomize the analyt-
ical observations which have been made
by historians probing to discover more
about the history of design as a concep-
tual and representational process. Taken
individually,they may be considered as
episodes in the intellectual history of
architecture, for we have long known that
great ideas and ideologies have influ-
enced the imagination of designers, just
as they have writers and other artists.
These episodes also reveal something
more general, and more profound, about
the relationship between drawing and
thought; specifically the way types and
styles of drawing are linked to ideas and
theories of architecture in certain epochs.
Drawing is said to be the language of
architectural design. Linguists, historians,
etymologists and other scholars have
studied the changes in language usage,
vocabulary, rhetoric, and writing style asit

is related to intellectual history, uncover-
ing startling revelations about the way
language has influenced thought
throughout history. The great French psy-
chologist/historian Michel Foucault, has
brilliantlyshown that the structure of
thought itself may have changed dramati-
cally during the Enlightenment.6Architec-
tural historians and theorists have yet to
look with similar depth at the history of
architectural drawing as a medium of
thought.
Scholarship in the history of architectural
representation is in its formative period;
serious study began just after WorldWar
II.Presently, the methodology used by
historians who study architecturaldraw-
ings is similar to that of most art histori-
ans who study paintings, that is, they treat
the representation as an artifactwith
intrinsic characteristics (medium, type,
style) and specific meanings (iconogra-
phy), which conveys informationabout
the primaryobject which it depicts (the
building itself). By their nature, architec-
tural drawings are secondary representa-
tions of artifacts (buildings) as well as
works of art in themselves, which pre-
sents a dual problem for the historian. But
if drawings are taken to provide primary
clues to thought processes and ideas, or
intellectual "habits of mind" as they have
occurred during different historical peri-
ods, then it is clear that a different (and
perhaps complementary) historical meth-
odology is needed. The intent of this
essay is to explore one such approach.
Conception
The mental act of conception, as it applies
to architectural design, involves the cre-
ation of a mental picture or idea, which
may be represented in the form of a draw-
ing or model, or perhaps in words. One of
LeCorbusier's initial "concepts" for the
church at Ronchamp, for instance, is pre-
2A
served in an idea sketch representing the
building, the sun, and the words, "Mais,
brillantcomme le Soleil." A conceptual
process can be defined as a pattern of
thought, perhaps interacting with drawing
or writing, which a designer follows in
bringing work to full realization. These
thought processes may be personal and
intuitive, or may be based on clearly
defined methodologies or programs of
instruction.
Clearly, all designers do not conceive in
the same way, any more than any artist or
writer follows the same conceptual pro-
cess. One of the most popular legends
about conception concerns the protean
abilities of W. A. Mozart,who is said to
have composed entire musical pieces,
including symphonies, in his head before
ever setting a note to paper. Larger-than-
life artists and architects like Michelan-
gelo and Borrominialso possessed
extraordinaryimaginative and conceptual
powers, powers that continue to intrigue
art historians but will never be completely
illuminated. The workings of the artistic
imagination are still a mystery to psychol-
ogists, who understand cognition only in
the most rudimentarysense. But it is clear
that "conception" is an essential element
in understanding architectural design and
drawing. It is the first, and most funda-
mental element in a triad of interrelated
operations-thinking, seeing, and draw-
ing-which forms the basis of this
approach to the study of architectural
representation.
"Conceive the building in the imagination,
not on paper but in the mind, thor-
oughly-before touching paper," wrote
Frank LloydWrightin 1928. "Let it live
there-gradually taking more definite
form before committing it to the draught-
ing board. When the thing lives for you-
start to plan it with tools. Not before. To
I
2B
draw during conception or sketch, as we
say, experimenting with practical adjust-
ments to scale, is well enough if the con-
cept is clear enough to be firmlyheld....
But if the original concept is lost as the
drawing proceeds, throw all away and
begin afresh."7To Wright,as to many
architects, the moment of conception was
precious, the key to giving the imagina-
tion the freedom "to form and then con-
form" a building. But Wright'sMozartian
conceptual method differs from that of
many other equally imaginative designers,
(AlvarAalto for instance) who have pre-
ferred to explore ideas on paper, to make
drawings as "tangible speculation" (in
Michael Graves words8).To continue our
musical analogy, we might liken this to
the method of Beethoven, who wrote,
rewrote, and revised each composition
incessantly until it approached his cre-
ative intention. Nor, in fact did Wright
himself always practice what he preached.
He was as much a Beethoven as a Mozart.
There is considerable evidence that the
process and tools of drawing (especially
triangles) greatly influenced Wright's
designs, and that he and his office/
apprentice staff designed almost from the
start using perspective drawings as study
sketches.9 (Figs. 5 &6) Investigation of the
conceptual processes followed by signifi-
cant architectural designers such as
Wright, LeCorbusier,and Borrominihas
not been attempted in any systematic way.
The beginnings of conception may occur
on paper, in "the first sketch," that won-
derful, tentative, spontaneous casting of
thought onto a sheaf of vellum or a page
in a blank book or, in Aalto's words, "the
white table."?10
(Fig. 7) An architect's
sketch or sketches, approximations of
mental pictures and ideas with their own
intrinsic qualities, provide a kind of foil for
further mental speculations and images.
Winter 1985 JAE 39/2
U

The imagination, in a sense, interacts with

the page. Sketches, especially if they are
determined to be from the first moments
of creation or conception, as for instance,
those made by Le Corbusier on his first
trips to Chandigarh1", should be studied
not simply as whole pictures of an artifact
but as incomplete and imperfect repre-
sentations of thought. (Fig. 8) They pro-
vide keys to the thought processes fol-
lowed by designers throughout history,
and can be studied to show changes in
that "structure of thought," from epoch to
4---J..*
X
-. ._ ,.i
epoch or from designer to designer. a lZ .t., .^tA . : t t -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many questions can be posed to learn
more about drawings from the first con-
ceptual or schematic stages of design.
How fully formed is the first image? From
what point of view is it presented? What
medium and representational form or type
is used? What important information has
the architect not shown which may even-
tually play a major role in forming the
building? Does the architect (or members
of the architect's studio or "school") use
the same sort of initial concept drawings
for all projects? Do the drawings suggest
a pattern in the architect's thinking about
building form? Other questions suggest
themselves when looking beyond the first
drawings to those in which the projects is
developed and refined. Does a particular
design methodology or working pattern
emerge from the study of groups of draw-
ings for a project or group of projects?
Are these patterns common to only a sin-
gle designer, or to a school or movement,
or do they persist across traditional his-
torical divisions of style or culture? These
are the kinds of analytical questions
which must be considered when studying
architectural representation from the
standpoint of method rather than subject.

The Conditions of Representation

If the first element of this triad which
should concern theorists of architectural
representation is conception or the men-
tal process followed by designers, the
second must be the conditions or param-
eters imposed by representation itself. For
this, a taxonomy is required. Architectural
writers have examined at length the clas-
sification of drawings and models12 and
have extensively studied the phenomenon - ..,

of illusion and resemblance. As Ernst

Gombrich has brilliantly explained, the 3,V;4...

1^~'
.'

7 7 I
W N
styles, types, and techniques of represen-
tation place limits on painters-or archi- 3

tects.13 The parameters of drawing itself

Winter 1985 JAE 39/2
 \

LL~ibi~~
.t~C?I-
.L

"............. ,'...*....,,, ,'

. IC
:Ii
:".1 '

1|- E 1 I:.............................. .1

..
. i ,,,, ,, ? .. .Q.e. .. .. ..~ .

6
"\l

tTr_||SPi jz5n <..^ .^

_(
.
.-d
. , . _ .
X,
X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ . . _ . . ..

Winter 1985 JAE 39;2

 l
pi
Ir ir - .,
?e - B
8A
may have a powerful impact on building
form, even though, in theory, the mind's
conceptual powers are limitless.
Architecturaldrawings may be classified
according to medium, to the purpose for
which they are made, and to the way in
which they represent objects. Standard
catalog entries take these things into con-
sideration. The two latter categories I
shall call type and mode. Thus when we
speak of a presentation drawing (type),
executed in pen and ink wash (medium),
we must also describe its mode of repre-
sentation; let us say in this case it is a per-
spective drawing. Other writers have also
distinguished between subjective and
objective drawings, or analogously to per-
ceptual and conceptual drawings.14Sub-
jective drawings are made for the edifica-
tion of the designer himself, or from a def-
inite point of view (in this case they are
"perceptual," i.e. representative of a defi-
nite phenomenal state). Objective draw-
ings are measurable and generally serve
to present the building more abstractly-
both axonometrics (which are commen-
surable) and orthogonal projection draw-
ings are in this group. These kinds of dis-
tinctions can be confusing. Perspective
drawings tend to be placed in the subjec-
tive/perceptual category. But, cannot one
make a conceptual perspective? Working
drawings are considered to be in the
objective/conceptual category, although it
is conceivable that a perspective or
oblique projection drawing might be
included in a set of production docu-
ments as an aid to builders.
Winter 1985 JAE 39/2
-=
8B
The following schematic chart suggests
how a simpler classification system might
work.
TYPE MODE
First sketch Orthogonal projection
Development dwg. Plan. Section, Elevation
Presentation dwg. Paraline projection
Diagram Axonometric, Isometric
Travel sketch Perspective, Model
etc. Composite, Dimetric etc.
A classification system such as the one
above would make it possible to consider
drawings, models, and other representa-
tional devices both as works of art and as
ideas. The importantquestions which
relate representational forms to the pro-
cess of conception require some preci-
sion in terminology, a precision not yet
established in many historical writings.
When one begins to survey the history of
architecture with an eye towards marking
trends and changes in type, form, and
medium of representation, new historical
shapes may emerge. The "revolution"
which occurred in art and architecture
after the discovery of linear perspective in
the fifteenth century offers only one of
many examples in which the use of a par-
ticular drawing mode influenced design-
ers. The complex twentieth-century fasci-
nation with the axonometric, which has
yet to be fully analyzed or chronicled,15
has had an equally profound impact on
building form in our time, such that archi-
tects like Peter Eisenman and Daniel
Libeskind have sought to parody its
.
,.u1- -__
-
t '
.o
A,
.
!!
? :m -. d
e-
I
4'; fiF -
..Q
'G - '"
1~~
7293
objectivity in their work.16(Fig. 9) During
the late-Baroque period in Italyand later
elsewhere, the new art of scenography,
practiced by architects as well as other
MEDIUM artists, began to influence both spatial
Pencil form and decoration in buildings, through
Pen & ink line such major figures as FilippoJuvarra
Ink wash
(1686-1736)17 and the Asam brothers in
Collage
Watercolor Germany.18Scenographic drawing
etc. forms-the scena per angolo foremost-
were used in designing the illusionistic
architecture of the church as well as the
stage. There are manifold cases, too,
where a particulardesign problem or set
of ideas required the mastery or even
invention of specific drawing styles. The
rise of the new art of comprehensive inte-
riordecoration in France and England in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
and the drawings of majorfigures such as
Daniel Marot(1650-1718), WilliamKent
(1685-1748), and Robert Adam (1728-92)
can be studied as bold experiments in
visualizing the spatial, planar, chromatic,
and tactile qualities of rooms. Kent's
important use of the unfolded plan/eleva-
tion or elevation/reflected ceiling plan in
the 1730s testifies to his conception of the
integration of the architecturaland deco-
rativefeatures of five planes of the room
box.19(Fig. 10) Adam, whose intentions
were similar, adopted the same drawing
conventions and refined them in the
1760s and 1770s. An equally important
connection between an art movement, the
Picturesque in England and America, and
a drawing mode, the perspective, has
received more study from scholars20-
there are nevertheless many unexplored

:2V
o
l
. -0 . ."w
.1
. . -,
,
-
. '.
aspects of this problem. (Figs. 11, 12,13)
It seems clear that a history of architec-
tural representation which puts these and
other developments into context will be a
necessary and edifying contribution to
architectural scholarship in the coming
years.
Perception, Visual Thinking and the
Psychology of Design
Up to the end of the sixteenth century,
resemblance played a constructive role in
the knowledge of Westernculture. It was
resemblance that largely guided exegesis
and the interpretation of texts; it was
resemblance that organized the play of
symbols, made possible knowledge of
things visible and invisible, and controlled
the art of representing them.2
-Michel
Larger issues about the nature of thought
processes and the way drawings are made
deserve consideration by theorists and
scholars. Gombrich and Foucault, among
others, provide examples to follow. Both
agree that from the beginning of the
Renaissance mental schemata began to
change along with the concept of repre-
sentation itself. Striving for resemblance
or imitation of nature gave way to the
methods of empiricism. "To the Middle
Ages," writes Gombrich, "the schema is
the image; to the postmedieval artist, it is
the starting point for corrections, adjust-
ments, adaptations, the means to probe
reality and to wrestle with the particular.
The hallmark of the medieval artist is the
firm line that testifies to the mastery of his
craft. That of the postmedieval artist is not
facility, which he avoids, but constant
alertness. Its symptom is the sketch, or
rather the many sketches which precede
the finished work."22 Renaissance artist/
architects, Leonardo foremost, gave us
the skeptical, modern, trial-and-error
mode of design, stemming from the emer-
gence of the sketch as a design tool.23
The first architects to use this method
were Francesco di Giorgio Martini, whose
treatise advocates it24and later the archi-
tects of the St. Peter's shop, notably Bal-
dassare Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo
the Younger.25 (Fig. 2) Drawings by these
masters, still too little known and studied,
chronicle a revolution in thinking. But
because they often do not depict built
works, they have been given less attention
by architectural historians than they
deserve.
r--
v !;
I
I
i _
I
.,
_I
I
. .
. i
i
10 l0
The studies of Gombrich and Foucault, as
well as Rudolf Arnheim's Art and Visual
Perception26, touch upon aspects of the
psychology of representation and the
structure of thought. Psychological stud-
ies, especially those which deal with per-
ception and cognition, contribute to our
understanding of drawing, though psy-
chologists admit that present theories and
methods have generally not been directed
toward architectural issues.27 Perception
forms the third element in the critical triad
for the study of architectural drawings.
The mechanisms of seeing, which
Arnheim and others have called "visual
thinking"28, contribute to the way we draw
and the way we visualize mentally.
Though the eye is not really a camera, the
recording of information in the visual
Foucault field, as filtered through representational
schemas, is the fundamental operation in
the act of making a drawing, an act Gom-
brich describes as the process of recon- t$
ciling "schema and correction" or "mak-
ing and matching." Architects, unlike
painters, are not involved in directly rep-
12
resenting or even abstractly depicting
aspects of the visual world, except as they
must visualize their invented objects
within it. Nevertheless, they must use
similar representational forms, types and
media. It is important to recognize that
both similar and different psychological
operations are involved in the two arts.
We have yet to see a book like Art and
Illusion which speculates upon and ana-
lyzes architectural drawing and percep-
tion so incisively as Gombrich does with
respect to painting.
Such a study would begin by treating fun-
damental issues in perception, such as
inherent mental structures which influ-
ence seeing, the structure of the eye and
its attendant brain functions, and build
from them a series of observations about
seeing and drawing, much as has been
done for painting. It might then focus
upon the spatial and movement percep-
tions and how we have represented these
phenomena in films, models, and draw-
ings.29 Finally, it would analyze the prob-
lems of conceptualizing space and archi-
tectural form within the limits of percep-
13
tion; just as representation constrains and
molds conception, perception must also
establish its own conditions, completing
the interrelated triad.
A fully realized analysis of the relationship
between architectural drawing, design
Winter 1985 JAE 39/2

O 14
methods, and visual perception is,
because of the status of psychological
studies in this area, not imminent, nor is it
likely in the near future. But until we have
a better understanding of how we see and
perceive architectural objects, many
questions about architectural conception
will remain unanswerable. Perhaps the
most importantof these is: how does
drawing help (or hinder) us in the concep-
tion of things we cannot visualize or even
readily perceive? Do the mental oper-
ations of conception sometimes tran-
scend the limitations of both seeing and
drawing? If so, how? How much do verbal
and mathematical processes aid us in
forming buildings in the mind? Consider-
ation of the extraordinaryvisionary struc-
tures of engineer Robert Le Ricolais, for
instance, who used both mathematical
analysis and intuitivevisual thinking in his
work, would provide materialfor such an
analysis.
Perception, cognition, and larger issues
of the structure of thought are critical ele-
ments in the study of architectural draw-
ing, even from a historical point of view.
But the final synthesis in this approach
must come from historical studies which
investigate what can be termed "modes of
conception" in architecturalthought.
Modes of Representation and Conception
Let us return now to the examples which
began this excursus into the relationship
between drawing, seeing and thinking,
the triad of conception, representation
and perception, to focus again on the
issue of historical changes in the way
architects approached problems of build-
ing design and representation. If, as evi-
dence suggests, Greek architects and
Gothic master masons conceived build-
ings in fundamentallydifferent ways, and
manifested their mental habits in the
kinds of drawings they made, might not
historians of representation begin to
establish, analyze and markthe dates and
characteristics of these phenomena and
relate them to other patterns in the history
of art and architecture? The question of
how to approach the writing of an intel-
lectual history of architectural representa-
tion, while it must consider issues raised
in the discussion above, can be resolved
by relating patterns of thought or "habits
of mind" to the forms of representation
used by particulardesigners during par-
ticular periods of time. By doing this, his-
torians may establish "modes of concep-
Winter 1985 JAE 39-2
. .., .1
.1 -, . ... C
1,I- . I '.
tion" which will eventually build the
frameworkfor a history of architectural
drawing.
A mode of conception may be defined as
a pattern of thinking about the composi-
tion of a work of art which in its outline is
similar across temporal and cultural
boundaries, or alternatively,is peculiar to
an individualdesigner. How can a thought
process or pattern be unveiled and ana-
lyzed? In the case of the conception of
architectural objects, the answer is of
course through drawings, which leave
traces of these conceptual modes, and,
perhaps secondarily,through both the
objects themselves and theoretical writ-
ings about design intentions. Evidence in
the form of drawings is scant for many
periods, especially prior to the late-Middle
Ages, but scholars are beginning to
uncover enough clues to design pro-
cesses through various kinds of archival
research30that an outline of the changes
in intellectual patterns of problem solving
and conception might be sketched in the
near future, and filled in as more evidence
becomes available.
Historically,such conceptual patterns are
certainly related to styles, schools, and
movements, the "shapes" of which have
been a major concern of art historians.31
Three general categories of conceptual
modes should be distinguishable by anal-
ogy to these standard historical demarca-
tions: a.) A macro-culturalor international
mode of conception, manifesting itself in
the design process of all architect/build-
ers in a single artistic "empire"during a
given epoch (a good example being Inter-
national Gothic architecture of the twelfth
to fifteenth centuries); b.) A micro-cultural
or "school"-related mode of conception,
found only among groups of designers
participating in a particularmovement or
trained under a particularpedagogical
regime (numerous examples of which can
be found, not surprisingly, in the nine-
teenth century, not only in the Beaux-Arts
but even in movements like the English
Queen Anne, where Norman Shaw's use
of the bird's-eye perspective became the
earmarkof a design method which
stressed the aerially picturesque, see Fig.
13); and c.) Individualmodes of concep-
tion, like those of Borrominiand Wright
(Figs. 5 &6), which appear to come from
an extraordinarycreative mind ratherthan
a source in the contemporary milieu, but
which may influence other designers in
*fV#.I
I
.3
15
various ways. Analysis of the relationship
between such mental patterns and repre-
sentational types, media, and modes, as
well as styles and movements will seldom
yield resolutely simple conclusions, but it
will certainly help to illuminatea critical
aspect of the history of architecture.
A putative example of how a mode of con-
ception might be established through an
analysis of drawing forms might be
sketched for Francesco Borromini,
though no conclusive study of this type
has yet been undertaken. This extraordi-
naryspatial and decorative innovator,
who fused classical and medieval lan-
guages of architecture in a daring and
unique way, made drawings that were dif-
ferent in important respects from those of
his contemporaries. Borromini'sdrawings
(many of which are preserved in Vienna's
Albertina Museum32)are primarilyof two
types: plans of various kinds, and detail
sketches. Borromini's buildings, his great
central plan churches especially, are for-
mally and spatially complex enough to
make one wonder, first of all, how an
architect could invent them without mak-
ing an enormous number of section stud-
ies, of which few seem to exist. However,
as scholars have pointed out in the analy-
sis of Borromini's churches,33the consis-
tent formal and spatial ideas behind the
buildings are all conceived through the
superimposition of geometric figures in
plan and these figures are carried up ver-
tically in spatial layers to form the overall
volumes of the interiorand even the exte-
riorfigures of such things as lanterns. The
idea of using a "layered plan" which con-
tains the representation of several levels
on the same sheet is a medieval one (Fig.
1) with which Borrominimay have been
familiar(having had training as a mason),
and which he clearly used extensively in
the conceptual stages of designing both
Sant'lvo and San Carlino.34(Figs. 14 & 15)
Thus part of Borromini'scharacteristic
mode of conception is his tendency, if we
may go so far as to read his mind, to
imagine his central plan buildings as if
looking down upon them, reading each
volume and cornice and tracing their fig-
ures as though they were superimposed
and distinct simultaneously. Section
drawings, though not unnecessary, were
of secondary importance in the concep-
tual process. A second feature of Borrom-
ini's buildings can also be read from his
drawing habits-that is his extraordinary
facility for inventing and combining geo-

metric figures in decorative patterns, all of
which bore a clear relationship to the
geometries established in the plan.35 The
simultaneous presence of Greek cross,
octagon, and oval in both plan and deco-
ration at San Carlo, analyzed by Stein-
berg, is the best example of this. His pro-
clivity for making exploratory detail draw-
ings testifies to this equally important
conceptual bias. Of course, these obser-
vations do not entirely explain the mental
habits of this protean designer, but they
make a case for a close study of drawings
as keys to a fuller understanding of the
way architects think. Drawings and mental
pictures are clearly related, as is the order
in which drawings are made and the rela-
tive importance of aspects of the building
which they represent. Furthermore,their
representational miodes tell us something
about the way architects preferredthem
to be seen.
Can definite and clearly outlined modes of
conception be established throughout the
history of architecture? Without consis-
tent, documented, reliably identified evi-
dence in the form of drawings, no more
than an outline of the history of architec-
tural representation is possible. However,
enough evidence is now becoming avail-
able through publication of drawings in
accurate catalogs that studies of the type
advocated here are realizable, and have
been successfully carried out.36Formand
content in representation are related as
form and meaning in buildings. The sub-
jects of architectural representations will
undoubtedly remain of primaryconcern to
historians as they help to explain things
like intention, chronology, and precedent.
However, it is clear that drawings repre-
sent more than their architecturalsub-
jects. They are key elements in the intel-
lectual history of art as well as fascinat-
ing, if murky,windows to the imagination.
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge the help of
my colleagues Peter G. Rowe and Dana
Cuff, who graciously read drafts of this
paper and offered valuable comments on
it. I gratefully acknowledge also the stimu-
lation and research provided by students
in my seminar on the history of architec-
tural representation in 1982 and 1983. An
example of an extended study of the type
advocated in this essay can be found in
my article, "Juvarra'sDrawings for Cen-
tral Plan Buildings," cited below.
NOTES
1 On architectural practice, see Kostof, Spiro, Ed. The Archi-
tect: Chapters in the History of the Profession 1977. On draw-
ings see for instance, Powell & Leatherbarrow, Eds. Master-
pieces of Architectural Drawing Abbeville (New York) 1982.
On problem solving and methodology, see Burnette, Charles
and Lang, Jon "A Model of the Designing Process" in
Designing for Human Behavior Dowden, Hutchinson Ross
(Stroudsburg, PA) 1974, pp. 43-54; Rowe, Peter "A Priori
Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural Design,"
JAE, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Fall 1982) pp. 18-23; Moore, Gary,
Ed.
Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning
MIT Press (Cambridge, MA) 1970.
2 Coulton, J. J. Ancient Greek Architects at Work Cornell Uni-
versity Press (Ithaca, NY) 1977, pp. 54-60.
3 Research into the heretofore mysterious area of medieval
architectural drawing is available in a number of sources,
including: Branner, Robert "Villard d'Honnecourt, Reims, and
the Origin of Gothic Architectural Drawing," Gazette des
Beaux Arts, Series 6, Vol. 61 1963 pp. 129-146; Boucher,
Francois "Design in Gothic Architecture: A Preliminary
Assessment," Journal of the Society of Architectural Histori-
ans, Vol. XVII,No. 4 March 1968, pp. 9-21; and Shelby, Lon
R. Gothic Design Techniques Southern Illinois University
Press (Carbondale & Evansville, Illinois) 1977. For a recent,
thorough study of a rare fifteenth-century elevation drawing,
see Davis, Michael T. "Troys Portaulx et Deux Grosses Tours:
The Flamboyant Facade Project for the Cathedral of Cler-
mont," Gesta, Vol. XXII,No. 1 1983 pp. 67-79.
4 Lotz, Wolfgang "The Rendering of the Interior in Architec-
tural Drawings of the Renaissance," in Studies in Italian
Renaissance Architecture, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA) 1977,
pp. 1-41.
5 Moore, Richard A. "Academic Dessin Theory in France after
the Reorganization of 1863," Journal of the Society of Archi-
tectural Historians, Vol. XXXVI:3(October 1977) pp. 145-169.
Perspective was taught as a separate course at the Ecole
throughout the nineteenth century.
6 Foucault, Michel The Order of Things Vintage (New York)
1970 Translation of Les Mots et Les Choses Editions Galli-
mard (Paris) 1966.
7 Wright, Frank Lloyd "Concept and Plan," The Architectural
Record, (January/February, 1928) quoted in Daidalos, Vol. 5
(September 15 1982) p. 12.
8 Graves, Michael "The Necessity for Drawing: Tangible Specu-
lation" Architectural Design, Vol. 47 (1977) pp. 384-93.
9 Michels, Eileen "The Early Drawings of Frank Lloyd Wright
Reconsidered," Notes, Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, Vol. 30 (December 1971) pp. 294-303. See also
Levine, Neit "Frank Lloyd Wright's Diagonal Planning," in
Searing, Helen, Ed. The Search for Modern Architecture, MIT
Press (Cambridge, MA) 1983.
10 Aaito, Aivar "The White Table" from Alvar Aalto, Projekte und
letzte Bauten, Zurich (1978) quoted in Daidalos, Vol. 5 (Sep-
tember 15 1982).
11 The Architectural History Foundation, NYC Le Corbusier
Sketchbooks, Vol. 2 MIT Press (Cambridge, MA) 1981-84.
12 An informative discussion of drawing types can be found in
Martin, C. Leslie Architectural Graphics London 1970.
13 Gombrich, Ernst Art and Illusion, A. W. Mellon Lectures,
1956, Bollingen (New York) 1960.
14 Blomfield, Reginald Architectural Drawing and Draughtsmen
Cassell (London) 1912 pp. 5-10, introduces the subjective/
objective distinction in intention; Stern, Robert A. M. in his
Introduction to Stern and Nevins, Eds. The Architect's Eye
Pantheon (New York) 1979, discusses Blomfield, qualifying it
with the conceptual/perceptual dichotomy.
15 See Blois, Ives-Alain "The Metamorphosis of Axonometry"
Daidalos Vol. 1 (1981) pp. 41-57, for a perceptive essay on
the origins of this drawing type.
16 See, for instance, Eisenman, Peter "House El-Even Odd" Dai-
dalos Vol. 1 (1981)
17 Hewitt, Mark A. "Juvarra's Drawings for Central Plan Build-
ings" Dichotomy (Architectural Journal of the University of
Detroit), Vol. 6, (1983) pp. 17-29. See also Pommer, Richard
Eighteenth-Century Architecture in Piedmont NYU Press
(New York) 1967.
D
18 Harries, Karsten The Bavarian Rococo Church: Between
Faith and Aestheticism Yale University Press (New Haven)
1983.
19 Harris, John The Palladians Rizzoli (New York) 1982
20 Stamp, Gavin The Great Perspectivists Rizzoli (New York)
1982; Watkin David The English Vision (New York and Lon-
don) 1982.
21 Foucault, op. cit., p. 17.
22 Gombrich, op. cit., p. 173.
23 Ames-Lewis, Francis Drawing in Early Renaissance ttalyYale
University Press (New Haven) 1979, discusses the use of
sketches and pattern books by painters during the quattro-
cento.
24 Belts, RichardTheArchitecturalTheoriesof Francesco di
Giorgio, 2 Vols., Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University,
Princeton, 1971, Betts discussed this particular aspect of di
of
Giorgio's design method in a paper given at the Society
Architectural Historians Annual Meeting, in Phoenix, Arizona,
in 1983.
25 For the most complete publication to date of the drawings of
the St. Peters shop in the sixteenth century see Metternich,
FranzGrafWolf Die Erbaungder Peterskirchezu Romim 16.
Jahrhundert Schroll (Vienna) 1972 (published for the Biplio-
teca Hertziana, Rome)
26 Arnheim, Rudolf Art and Visual Perception University of Cali-
fornia Press (Berkeley) 1954
27 Hochberg, Julian "Visual Perception and Architecture," VIA
VI: Architecture and Perception. Journal of the Graduate
School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania (1983) pp, 26-
45. Hochberg concludes his review of psychological literature
on architecture with the assessment that psychologists will
not treat issues salient to architecture without new incen-
tives.
28 Arnheim, Rudolf Visual Thinking University of California Press
(Berkeley) 1969
29 The only psychological study to take this approach is Gibson,
James J. The Ecological Approachto VisualPerception
Houghton Mifflin (Boston) 1979. A less successful study,
devoted to architecture is Arnheim, Rudolf The Dynamics of
Architectural Form University of California Press (Berkeley)
1977
30 See Ackerman, James S. "Ars Sine Scientia Nihil Est, Gothic
Theory of Architecture at the Cathedral of Milan," The Art
Bulletin, XXI (1949) pp. 84-111. Ackerman's brilliant discus-
sion of the discourse over the construction and design of the
cathedral relies not on drawings but on the Annals of the
cathedral workshop, which contain informative verbatim tes-
timony from masons, theorists and members of the clergy.
31 Kubler, George The Shape of Time Yale University Press (New
Haven) 1962
32 See Thelen, Heinrich 70 disegni di Francesco Borromini dalle
cotlezioni dell'Albertina di Vienna (Rome)
1958-9 (catalog)
and Portoghesi, Paolo Francesco Borromini: L'opera com-
pleta Electa Editrice (Milan) 1977
33 Hempel, Eberhard Francesco Borromini (Vienna) 1924, was
the first to do an analysis of Sant'lvo and San Carlo accord-
ing to this schema.
34 The key drawings in establishing the geometric armature for
the church of San Carlo are: Albertina 168,169,170,173
(plans) and Albertina 175, 176 (half plans with facade config-
uration).
35 Steinberg, Leo Borromini'sSan Carloalle QuattroFontane
Garland (New York) 1977, Chapter II:The Drawings and
Chapter li, The Formal Hypothesis.
36 The best example is Lotz, "The Rendering of the Interior,"
previously cited. An interesting work in progress was pre-
sented by Henry Millon and Craig Hugh Smith at the 1984
meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians in Minne-
apolis, entitled "Michelangelo and Architectural Models,"
which documented and analyzed the working methods of the
great architect/sculptor, offering keys to his personal mode of
conception.
Winter 1985 JAE 39/2