³í¹®¸í |
Ç¥Çö, »çÀ¯, ºñÆò ¼ö´ÜÀ¸·Î¼ÀÇ °ÇÃà µå·ÎÀ× - 1960³â´ë ÀÌÈÄ °ÇÃà µå·ÎÀ×ÀÇ ºñ-ÀçÇöÀû Ư¼ºÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î - / On the Architectural Drawing as an Instrument of Expression, Speculation, and Critique - Non-representational Architectural Drawings of the 1960s and Onwards - |
¼ö·Ï»çÇ× |
Çѱ¹¹®È°ø°£°ÇÃàÇÐȸ ³í¹®Áý, Åë±Ç Á¦73È£ (2021-02) |
ÆäÀÌÁö |
½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö(153) ÃÑÆäÀÌÁö(12) |
ÁÖÁ¦¾î |
°ÇÃà µå·ÎÀ×; ÀçÇö; Ç¥Çö; »çÀ¯; ºñÆò ; Architectural Drawing; Representation; Expression; Speculation; Critique |
¿ä¾à2 |
Architectural drawings have been at the core of architectural culture since the Italian Renaissance of the 15-16th century when Leon Battista Alberta famously separated the role of architect from that of construction engineer. Through the Enlightenment the convention of architectural drawings became more sophisticated in its method and technique, yet its purpose has remained as the means to communicate ideas and represent form of buildings with efficacy and precision. This paper, however, follow another lineage of architectural drawing tradition which architectural avant-garde of the 1960s and onwards employed and expanded to question the condition of architecture and life. By examining how these architectural drawings operate against the norms of conventional representation, this paper suggest three expanded domain of architectural drawings: drawings to express and seduce, drawings to speculate and theorise, and drawings to crituque. In an era when the power of computation allow for higher expediency and precision in architectural production, it might as well be timely and necessary to reflect on the role of architectural drawing in this way. |