sandr037

I expect that someone following this blog has wondered why I’m wasting my time exploring graphical projections. They are not central to professional rendering. They are certainly not in the mainstream of architectural illustration. Graphical projection is not what springs to mind when you think about selling a design: it isn’t very dramatic or emotional; in fact it is a rather cold, abstract technique. But, I don’t think you can understand the modern movement of architecture without understanding graphical projections; and understanding the modern movement has been on my mind for a long time; and is what I’m after right now. Back in the hay-day of Beaux Arts building, architects used orthographic drawings (plans, sections and elevations) rendered in shade and shadow. They avoided graphical projection drawing. If a three dimensional view was necessary, a perspective was created. Even a simple diagram such as this vault study from Joseph Gwilt's Civil Architecture (1825) was drawn ...

You may have noticed that the vast majority of graphical projections in the last three posts were at least nominally realistic. They describe an object simply and clearly. They occasionally border on abstraction, but that is usually a side effect of graphical projection itself. There is, however, a vein of almost pure abstraction in modern architecture. It is almost as though elite architects were frustrated modernist painters. Or, that abstract expressionist painters had decided to have a contractor actually build their two-dimensional painted abstractions. In the early modern era there was not only a tendency to muddy perspective images, but also a move away from perspectives entirely. Projection drawings (isometric drawing, etc.), previously the domain of engineers, began to be used by architects for presentation. The tendency of these types of drawings to emulate abstract art was an added feature (if not the whole point of doing them). Most projection drawings of the 1920s were cl...