Despite the fact that many have mourned the digital turn in architectural drawing as something perilously insensible, when architecture students today draw it is more commonly hand on mouse than pen in hand. This paper examines ideational digital visualisation based on ethnographic field observations and semi-structured interviews carried out at the Royal Danish Academy of Arts, School of Architecture. Pallasmaa, among other critics of digital drawing (Pallasmaa, 2009, see also Graves 2012), has reminded us of the importance of embodiment for the creative process of drawing, and denounced digital drawing for an inherent haptic remoteness. When using a postphenomenological framework for analysis of students’ drawing practices a more precise image of the critique of digital drawing emerges. What Ihde has called visualism (Ihde, 2009) for architecture is as old as the profession itself and digital drawing technologies do not change this paradigm. The main difference between digital drawing and analogue drawing is the embodiment relation. However, it is not in the embodiment relation but in a hermeneutic relation and in a particular sort of alterity relation that the architecture student engages with the drawing as a thinking tool. Architectural thinking is formed through the act of drawing and the drawing is thus not a neutral representation. By exploring these relations this paper brings a new perspective of ideational visualisation in the creative arts to the extensive postphenomenological literature on visualisations.
|Publication status||Published - 2017|
|Event||Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science : STS (In)Sensibilities - Sheraton Hotel, Boston, United States|
Duration: 30 Aug 2017 → 2 Sep 2017
|Conference||Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science|
|Period||30/08/2017 → 02/09/2017|
|Other||If sensibility is the ability to grasp and to respond, how might we articulate the (in)sensibilities of contemporary technoscience? How, similarly, can we reflect on the extent and limits of our own sensibilities as STS scholars, teachers, and activists? The conference theme invites an open reading and exploration of how the world is made differently sense-able through multiple discourses and practices of knowledge-making, as well as that which evades the sensoria of technoscience and STS. Our aim is that the sense of ‘sense’ be read broadly, from mediating technologies of perception and apprehension to the discursive and material practices that render worlds familiar and strange, real and imagined, actual and possible, politically (in)sensitive and ethically sensible. <br/><br/>We welcome open panel and closed session proposals, individual paper submissions, and proposals for events that are innovative in their delivery, organization, range of topics, and type of public. Due to the growing number of submissions and our desire to be as inclusive as possible, each participant will be strictly limited to only one paper or media presentation and one other activity (such as session chair or discussant), for a maximum of two appearances. Participation in the Making and Doing event (see below) is not counted toward this limit.<br/>|
Hyams, I. L. B. (2017). Thinking Through the Screen: A Postphenomenological Investigation into Digital Drawing in Architecture Education. Abstract from Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science , Boston, United States. http://4sonline.org/files/4S17_program_abstracts.pdf