Architects use various means to elaborate their thoughts. Hand-drawn architectural presentations were used by architects long before computer technology was introduced to the discipline.164 In the Western tradition, although drawings for religious architecture existed since the Middle Ages, architectural drawing was not officially taught until the École des Beaux-Arts included it as part of its pedagogical program.165 Drawings should be considered as an aspect of the architects’ “initial concepts” for designing a project, as Le Corbusier’s sketches have demonstrated in the history of modern architecture.166 During his lifetime, Michael Graves never stopped drawing and painting. Even in an era when computer-generated design began to dominate his field of work, Graves never gave up the traditional manner of hand-drawn presentation, which he thought to be a more effective means of communication.167 For over three decades, he emphasized in his publications the great importance of drawings in his creative process.168 It is for these reasons that the function of drawing within his architectural design deserves a closer examination.
In a 2012 article titled “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing” published in The New York Times, Graves provides some fundamental ideas in defense of the hand sketch and against computer-aided design (CAD). “Drawings are not just end products: they are part of the thought process of architectural design. Drawings express the interaction of our minds, eyes and hands,” he states.169 Based on their characteristics, Graves classified his own architectural drawings into three categories:
164 Mark Hewitt, “Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the History of Architectural Drawing,” in: Journal of Architectural Education, 39, No. 2, Winter, 1985, p. 2.
165 Ibid.
166 Ibid., p. 3.
167 Michael Graves, “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing,” in: The New York Times, September 1, 2012, p. SR5.
168 Michael Graves published three important articles on the architectural drawing: “The Necessity for Drawing: Tangible Speculation” was first issued in Architectural Design of June 1977, pp. 384–393, and then reprinted in the monograph Images of a Grand Tour of 2005. Michael Graves, “The Necessity for Drawing: Tangible Speculation,” in: Images of a Grand Tour, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005, pp. 235–246. A second article titled “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing” was published in The New York Times in 2012, and the article was included in a later publication Michael Graves: Inspiration and Process in Architecture of 2014. Michael Graves, “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing,” in: Michael Graves: Inspiration and Process in Architecture, Milan: Moleskine, 2014, pp. 6–9. In a 1978 article, Graves specified the term “referential drawing;” Michael Graves,
“Referential Drawings,” in: Journal of Architectural Education (JAE), 32, No. 1, September 1978, pp.
24–27.
169 Graves 2012 (as note 167).
a) the referential sketch, b) the preparatory study, and c) the definitive drawing. Each category of drawing has a particular function that he described in his texts.170
The referential sketch is a quick freehand drawing that means to record an idea.171 According to Graves, it can be considered “a visual diary” of an architect, recording observations of different kinds, such as historic buildings or their details, objects, or just visualizing an idea on paper.172 The choice of documentation is completely selective, sometimes even fragmentary, due to the fact that the selection implies a person’s “artistic conscience.”173 From Graves’ point of view, a great example of “drawing as a conscience” would be Le Corbusier’s sketchbook, since its observation and recording are based on the architect’s research, those drawings were not random.174 In his own sketchbooks, Graves made a considerable amount of shorthand drawings (categorized by him as referential sketches) that can be considered as raw material. They were applicable and could be intergraded with other ideas into later projects. Graves would have never ruled out the possibility of reusing his own designs. In particular elements that possesse a certain symbolic meaning are repeatedly to be found in his works.175 In his 1978 article, Graves cited his projects of the Fargo-Moorhead Cultural Center Bridge (1977), and Plocek House (1977) as examples of what a referential sketch meant to him (figs. 29, 30).176 It can be observed that Graves started the conceptual sketches with very simple lines in those examples, and combined these with partial referential drawings to create a more understandable design. What is noteworthy is that a large portion of his “raw material”
is based on the experience of his “Grand Tour.”
Concerning the Taitung museum, it is certain that Graves also executed referential sketches during the conceptual stage of the project. A prominent feature in his model of II.1, which is known as the model for the competition proposal, is that all of the exhibition galleries and the academic research center are topped with heavy metallic roofing. Based on the color of their roofing, it is evident that the material is an imitation of bronze. Despite the fact that materials have been changed, the shapes
170 Graves 1977/2005 (as note 168), p. 236.
171 Ibid., p. 236.
172 Michael Graves, “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing,” in: New York Times, September 1, 2012.
173 Graves 1977/2005 (as note 168), p. 237.
174 Michael Graves, “Le Corbusier’s Drawn References,” in: Le Corbusier: Selected Drawings, London:
Academy Editions, 1981, p. 8.
175 Graves 1978 (as note 168), p. 24.
176 Ibid., pp. 25–27.
of the roofs represented in the model of II.1 are very similar to his sketches of stilt houses and primitive huts (figs. 6, 32a-f).177 These sketches bear a close resemblance to Southeast Asian vernacular architecture. As social anthropologist Roxana Waterson already points out in her publication of 1997, common features of Austronesian indigenous houses in Southeast Asia are lifted structures and enormous roofs (fig.
31).178 Graves’ sketches of primitive houses also included these prominent features;
his houses are mostly raised by wooden or bamboo structures, and the imposing roofs sometimes even have horns (figs. 32a, 32d). In addition, one of his sketches is very similar to the Palakuwan (English: Man’s House), which is a training and religious house of the Pinuyumayan tribe (figs. 32f, 34). The extraordinary exhibition buildings Graves presented in the model of II.1 were not by accident. These stylistic similarities evidenced that Graves must have studied Austronesian indigenous houses, and he considered “Austronesian” not only Taiwanese Indigenous but Southeast Asian.
The second type of drawing is categorized by Graves as the “preparatory study,”
which is a drawing that documents the partial designing process of a project. 179 These drawings present established ideas for architectural projects. In this regard, they can be defined as being related to a step in the planning development following the referential sketch. It was Graves’ personal preference to draw his preparatory studies on yellow tracing paper, mainly because its translucent quality allowed him to create different layers, one above the other, in order to explore the potential extension of a project.180 It is clear that Graves’ approach in this stage is to experiment with his design concepts. He connected this method of exploring different ideas with the pentimento (Engl. pentiment, literally repentance stroke), which means the changes made by the artist in a painting.181 The architect, thus, transformed the compositional alteration that leaves unintentional traces in an image into an intentional act, and even a “technique.” As a testing method, the process explains the reason for many alterations and conversions in this stage.
177 Michael Graves & Associates, unpublished.
178 Roxana Waterson, Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 21.
179 Graves 1977/2005 (as note 168), p. 237.
180 Graves 2012 (as note 167). In his 1977 article “The Necessity for Drawing: Tangible Speculation,”
Graves only mentioned that the medium was “transparent paper;” Graves 1977/2005 (as note 144), p.
238. According to his own statements, the time Graves started to use yellow tracing paper should be no later than 1977.
181 Graves 1977/2005 (as note 168), p. 237. Jonathan Stephenson, “Pentiment,” in: Oxford Art Online, 2003
(http://www.oxfordartonline.com/search?q=pentimento&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true).
One crucial aspect that makes the preparatory drawing differ from the other two types is that it is restricted to a two-dimensional form, showing the plan, elevation, and sometimes the section of a building.182 Graves created preparatory drawings of the Museum of Prehistory in different phases, including some studies that he added to the competition proposal: the Stage II reception building (figs. 7, 19), the Stage II academic center front elevation (figs. 7, 15), academic center courtyard side elevation with its loggia (or corridor) topped with a pergola on the upper story (figs. 7, 16), Stage II exhibition building (figs. 7, 17), as well as a dining pavilion (figs.7, 18) which is not evident in the plan of Stage II.183 Studies for the revised design at Stage V have also been published; this material comprises the reception building front elevation (figs. 14, 20), and the elevation and section of the exhibition pavilion (figs.
14, 21, 22).184 In comparison with drawings made at the phase of revision, the drawings for the competition proposal are obviously more related to the referential sketches, which show the continuous progress of the design.
The last category of Graves’ architectural sketches, the “definitive drawing,” is also the final stage of the design process. This kind of drawing integrates the referential sketch and the preparatory study, presenting concrete ideas of structural arrangements of a building.185 Graves points out that in this stage drawings are used to deal with proportional issues, in his words to “fix as much as possible the various two- and three- dimensional aspects of the entire composition.”186 Although it is the last step in the design process, it may still not be comprehensive. As he states in one of his articles: “[…] no single drawing can explain the several aspects of a building’s intentions.”187 For example, it is technically not possible to demonstrate the elevation and axonometric plan of a building at the same time. On top of that, the drawing should be closer to the reality and achievable.188 Presently, not only the final step of the planning process, but even the sketch of the rough ideas can be executed by computer.189 Nevertheless, drawing is directly and deeply connected with Graves’
thinking process. To Graves, drawing things is the same as taking notes, an act that he
referred to as a contact between physical and mental, that is, “the interaction of our minds, eyes and hands.”190 These interactions helped him to remember, and the progress of the three types of sketches explains why drawing constitutes an integral part of the thinking process and cannot be replaced by new technology for him.
190 Ibid.
VI. The Architectural Language of Michael Graves