Tracing the hidden dimension of line in architectural representation

This research instrumentalizes the deliberation on drawing in architectural representation, in order to criticize the way of seeing that is dominated by recent media technologies and power relations. This paper intends to search how the drawing, in particular line-making, is affected in this environment, and how to respond to it via alternative, manipulative, and creative tactics of vision considering drawing as a critical act. The dependency of line on visuality is criticized by alternative drawing practices of contemporary line-makers. Consequently, imaginative, creative and layered qualities of design thinking, representation and production can be uncovered. Originality in architecture lies in its virtual, hid-den, unseen and unnoticed properties. Methodology selected is nourished by an argumentative method that is based on a system theory approach. A dialectical discussion is conducted utilizing some concepts such as visual-nonvisual, phys-ical-virtual, material-immaterial, and temporal-permanent. Following a qualita-tive approach, unbinding the concept of line changing on a similar axis with digi-tal mediums and tools, the conceptualization process of drawing from a historical point of view, questioning the new concepts that it relates to, and discussing the interaction of changes in line tools and representations constitute the path of this research. As a consequence, it may be proposed that prioritizing the unseen, minor or secondary characteristics of design issues and their dynamic relationships may reveal an alternative line-making practice.

Kaynakça

Allen, S. (1997). From Object To Field in Architecture After Geometry. Architectural Design, 65(5/6), 24-31.

Allen, S. (2009). From Object to Field: Field Conditions in Architecture and Urbanism. In M. Hensel, A. Menges, & C. Hight (Eds.), Space Reader: Heterogeneous Space in Architecture (pp. 119-142). Wiley.

Balık, D. (2017, 01 23). “Mimarlar Neden Hala Çiziyor?”: 21. Yüzyılda El Çizimi Üzerine Notlar. Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from: https://xxi.com.tr/i/mimarlar-neden-hala-ciziy-or-21-yuzyilda-el-cizimi-uzerine-not-lar

Belardi, P. (2016). Mimarlar Neden Hala Çiziyor? (A. Erol, Çev.) İstanbul: Janus Yayıncılık.

Benjamin, A., & Luscombe, D. (2014). Introduction: Drawing Today. The Journal of Architecture, 467-469.

Biro, A., & Yürekli, F. (2010). Elektronikleşen Çevrede Mimarlık. İtü Dergisi, 9(1), 22-30.

Blessing, J. (2019). Color and Mood. Retrieved from: https://www.guggen-heim.org/learning-through-art/art-in-vestigation/color-and-mood

Carpo, M. (2011). The Alphabet and the Algorithm. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Cook, P. (2014). Drawing The Motive Force of Architecture. Wiley.

Cooke, C. (1990). Architectural drawings of the Russian. New York: The Museum of Modern Art: Distrib-uted by H.N. Abrams.

Doğan, F. (2009). Eskizlerin Kurgulanması ve Algılanması Üzerinden Me-kan İmgelemi. Dosya 17: Mimarlık ve Mekan Algısı, 25-31.

Emmons, P. (2014). Demiurgic Lines: Line-Making and The Architec-tural Imagination. The Journal of Ar-chitecture, 536-559.

Erkartal, P., & Ökem, H. S. (2015). Mimari Tasarımda Dokunma Olgusu ve. Megaron, 10(1), 92-111.

Evans, R. (1995). The Projective Cast - Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Fletcher, A. (1996). Technological Graveyard. Domus Magazine Cover. Retrieved from: https://www.alan-fletcherarchive.com/archive/techno-logical-graveyard

Fontana, L. (1949). Concetto spa-ziale (Spatial Concept).

Frascari, M. (2009). Lines as Architectural Thinking. Architectural Theo-ry Review, 14(3), 200-212.

Harvey, D. (2006). Postmodernliğin Durumu. (S. Sungur, Trans.) Istanbul: Metis Yayın.

Hill, j. (2006). Immaterial Architecture. New York: Routledge.Hodgetts, C. (2005). Analog+Digi-tal. Log, 107-114.

Hougaard, A. (2016). The Animate Drawing. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts.

Kahn, A. (1996). Drawing/Building/Text: Essays in Architectural Theory. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Kılınç, M. (2014, August). Mimarlık Dağarcığının Çözünümü. Turkey: Is-tanbul Technical University.

Klee, P. (1972). Pedagogical Sketch-book. New York: Frederick A. Preager, Inc.

Kwinter, S. (1986). La Citta` Nuova: Modernity and Continuity. In K. Hays (Ed.), Architecture Theory Since 1968 (pp. 586-614). London: The MIT Press.

Manolopoulou, Y. (2005). Unformed drawing: notes, sketches, and diagrams. Journal of Architecture, 10(5), 517-525.

Milani, S., & Schoonderbeek, M. (2010). Drawing Theory: An Introduction. Delft Architecture Theory Journal (Footprint), 1-8.

Ming, L. (2019). Out of Ink: Inter-pretations from Chinese Contemporary Art. Pera Müzesi Yayınları.

Nalbantoğlu, H. (1997). Teknoloji Sorununa Bazı Felsefi Yaklaşımlar Üzerine. Mimarlık Dergisi, 276(4), 24-31.

Perec, G. (2016). Mekan Feşmekan. (C. İleri, Dü., & A. Erkay, Çev.) Istanbul: Everest Yayınları.

Purini, F. (2017). Elementary Observations on Drawing. Disegno, 59-72.

Reed, P. (2002). In M. McQuaid (Ed.), Envisioning Architecture: Drawings From The Museum of Modern Art (pp. 78-79). New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved from: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/515

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Di-lemmas in a General Theory of Plan-ning. Policy Scienes, 4(2), 155-169.

Scheer, D. (2014). The Death of Drawing: Architecture in the Age of Simulation . Routledge.

Şenel, A. (2008). Unfixing Place: A Study of Istanbul Through Topographical Practices. UCL (University College London).

Spiller, N. (2013). Architectural Drawing: Grasping for the Fifth Di-mension. Architectural Design, 83, 14-19.

Tschumi, B. (1994). Architecture and Events. (T. Riley, & A. Dixon, Eds.) The Museum of Modern Art.

Yürekli, H., & Yürekli, F. (2004). Mimarlık Bir Entelektüel Enerji Alanı. Yem Yayınları.

Kaynak Göster