The status of the architectural drawing is perhaps only becoming harder to define. In the main, the makers of architectural drawings are not those who analyse their possible cultural significance, whether for reasons of insufficient critical distance or simply lack of ‘reflective’ time. And since the ‘invention’ of architectural drawing itself, in the differentiating of Architecture from the so-called Manual Arts, we have struggled to say what sets architectural thinking apart, largely relying on the perennial definition of ‘artistic’ ability combined with ‘technical’ savoir-faire.
The recent workshop Beyond the Documentary: Defining Mastery in Architectural Drawings, held at London’s Courtauld Institute, sought to reassess prevalent assumptions about architectural drawing, asking how these works can be understood not only as serving the act of building but as having a status of their own. In the words of Courtauld curator Stephanie Buck, the debate endeavoured to articulate how we might understand architectural drawings as ‘expressions of a specific creativity’, forming part of a ‘history of creative thinking’.
How can we understand drawings as expressions of a specific creativity, forming part of a history of creative thinking?
The status of the architectural drawing is perhaps only becoming harder to define. In the main, the makers of architectural drawings are not those who analyse their possible cultural significance, whether for reasons of insufficient critical distance or simply lack of ‘reflective’ time. And since the ‘invention’ of architectural drawing itself, in the differentiating of Architecture from the so-called Manual Arts, we have struggled to say what sets architectural thinking apart, largely relying on the perennial definition of ‘artistic’ ability combined with ‘technical’ savoir-faire.
The recent workshop Beyond the Documentary: Defining Mastery in Architectural Drawings, held at London’s Courtauld Institute, sought to reassess prevalent assumptions about architectural drawing, asking how these works can be understood not only as serving the act of building but as having a status of their own. In the words of Courtauld curator Stephanie Buck, the debate endeavoured to articulate how we might understand architectural drawings as ‘expressions of a specific