Thinking Through Drawing: Engaging Multiple Temporalities
There is a critical value to the relationship between Architecture, in its making and realization, and how possibility is perceived on both a subjective and cultural scale. Architecture, in its process and form, not only reflects societal interest in moral and ethical priorities, logistics, invention, and desire, but also holds a significant influence upon it. The constructed spaces and relationships of architecture shape daily patterns, offer moments of confusion and delight, and play a part in our daydreams. Architecture sets the stage for the creative process. It is influential in shifting the landscape of the imagination - a landscape that is intrinsically linked to the future, and to what we perceive to be possible.
My desire as an architect has centered upon the potential to expand this presence of possibility within the built environment: to encourage the momentary conversations between its real and imagined offerings. The reciprocity of the relationship between the making and the inhabitation of architecture hinges upon this dialogue.
The presence of possibility is the natural crux of the creative process. It is the dream and the place of work interposed, the animating factor of invention. As an architect, creative spans of time are where the seeds of the built form originate. Harbouring unfleshed circumvolutions and navigations, the creative phase is an experiential ground of relevant and specific possibility. Although these possibilities (the presence of possibility through inhabitation and the presence of possibility through invention) may differ in context, they essentially share form through their indelible connection to the realized building.
The standard process of drawing architecture contains many contradictions; the temporal distance between the imagined and real building, the ‘translation’ of exploratory drawings into construction documents, the assumptions of inhabitation and programme. In practice these contradictions are absorbed by a historical tradition of representation that projects (and predicts) an unfolding in time. The imagined temporality is held within this framework and is submissive to the conceptual assumptions of those involved; assumptions that often remain unchallenged. Through a rigourous exploration and unfolding of the creative process, I believe there exists the potential to discover not only a prospective way of developing a more engaging architecture, but a way to question the flexibility of the architectural drawing by means of a critical temporal construct; a construct that is active within the drawing process itself.
How can the engaging potential of the creative process, in particular the anticipation and method of drawing architecture, have an active presence in the life of its resulting built form? How can this motivating force (the impetus of creation) converse with, and potentially enrich, the inhabitation of the architecture?
University of Brighton Studentship