Representation in Architecture

Representation is something that is born out of tradition, but solidified through experience. Sometimes it is influenced by the times and sometimes it breaks or deviates from the norm.

There are standard architectural drawings, the plan, section, elevation, axonometric, and perspective and the combinations of these can make an analytique. Each of these drawings has a purpose. What are you trying to convey to the viewer about you design? If the drawing does not convey this you cannot talk about what is not present.

I believe that there is a personal method to representation and design. This is critical. Why is the drawing yours and not another’s? What do you bring to the drawing? what is your process?

The development of technique is a personal decision in design and  representation. This is perhaps the most difficult area to give a generic answer to what representation is, especially in architecture. There is simply not a correct or right answer. The design project combined with your own personal technical skill will yield your representational style and methods.

Often there is a spirit of the times to the method of representation, most centering around graphics. Called a Zeitgeist, it is you choice to emulate or deviate from the current design norm. However while the implementation and resulting representation is unique, techniques and programs implemented are more standard. Both digital and analog techniques will help us to represent designs, however it is the unique design implementation that will yield your representation.

The audience, distance and detail will influence the types of representation and therefore the presentation. However the base decisions are up to you as the designer.

Find your friends in the discipline and learn how they operate. Personally, I look to Glen Murcutt, Frank Lloyd Wright, Renzo Piano, Shigeru Ban and Tadao Ando.