sandr037

I constructed perspectives by hand until I got my first CAD capable computer early in 1990. I started playing during my free time with wireframes and learning the AutoCad system. I very quickly tried to model an Idea I had for the north end of Times Square. The first hand sketches I did for the project are lost, but the following images show the rest of the process, from the point I started to model in the computer. As I viewed the model from different angles, I made revisions by hand. Using a rough wireframe model, it was easy to try on different elements, such as this radiating “crown” cornice. As the model progressed, I added a little pencil shading to help pick out the massing. A too small element could be easily resized… … and checked out from all angles. As the design finally began to coalesce, I started adding shade and shadow to views. Adding new ideas… …and details as I went. This building was for Times Square, so the jazzier the sign opportunities the better. Once I’d develo...

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 ...