Architectural drawing is a means to an end. But where in fact does it end ? Must it be realized in the building as asserted by architect Oliver Reagan “the end is to convey to the contractor the instructions they need in order to materialize the building conceived by the architect.” (1) Or, could the drawing be an autonomous edifice that exists for its own sake as in DOGMA’s The Project of Autonomy claimed by Pier Vittorio Aureli? Alternatively, does the drawing culminate in the form of unique vision, critique, manifesto or speculation, like those provocative cenotaphs depicted in Etienne-Louis Boullée’s ink wash drawings (2)?
This article discusses two modus operandi through the lens of ‘speculation’. The first uses the drawing to imagine, anticipate, and speculate the future, where the ‘thing’ of drawing and the message behind it forms the vehicle to the uncharted frontier. Early pioneers of this praxis can be traced to the visionary platonic expressions of Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu, or the ruinous and sublime etchings of Piranesi at the end of the eighteenth century. Although drawing as a speculative praxis was never meant to be the mainstream, its proliferation in the early twentieth century through the works of Gläserne Kette, Bruno Taut, Hans Poelzig, and Theo van Doesburg opened the door for others. This avant-garde spirit would continue to bloom in the ’60s, during a turbulent climate of political, philosophical, social, and technological progress. It provided a fertile ground for the drawn provocations of Superstudio, Archigram, Bernard Tschumi, Perry Kulper, CJ Lim et al (3).
Another form of speculative drawing practice emerged out of the “post-Bilbao exuberance” occuring between the opening of Gehry’s magnum opus in 1997 and the Great Recession of 2008. A decade where the novelty of shape making was forsaken for innovation. Much of the production made to embellish the potentiality of the property owners, investors, or the State. Whether it is land speculation or investment in property acquisition, the objective is not to advance a visionary agenda in the avant-garde sense of the tradition, but rather to visualize the monetary return of an investment. Two preconditions made this a possibility. First, the explosion of emerging markets and its demand for building consumption. Second, the widespread use of computational tools in practice that made picture making simple. This production was often associated with transnational architectural firms that were deeply conjoined (and enslaved) to capitalistic preconditions (4).
Furthermore, with the pervasive use of social media since 2008, it has provided a platform that enables the public to have immediate visual access to buildings, which challenged the traditional slow and limited distribution of the architectural image of the past. Hence, the role of drawing in the post-digital era marks a generational change and reflecting a shifting perception of the architectural drawings. This article probes the relationships between the drawing praxis of Boullée and contemporary speculative practice and how the entanglement is still a process in the making.
1. Oliver Reagan, “Notes on Drafting,” in George E. Hartman and Jan Cigliano, eds., Pencil Points Reader: A Journal for the Drafting Room, 1920–1943 (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004), 6.
2. Anthony Vidler, “Étienne-Louis Boullée.” Architectural Review (November, 2016): 51–53.
3. Desley Luscombe, “Illustrating Architecture: The Spatio-Temporal Dimension of Gerrit Rietveld’s Representations of the Schröder House.” Journal of Architecture 22, no. 5 (January 1, 2017): 899–932.
4. Xuefei Ren, “Architecture as Branding: Mega Project Developments in Beijing.” Built Environment 34, no. 4 (January 1, 2008): 526.
