Architectural drawing by hand Versus Architectural drawing by digital media

As an example of an ongoing activity, I selected a pedagogical activity and more particularly the course, “methodology of architectural drawing” in a public institute of interior design. During the course the students are engaged with advanced processes of graphic representation by using typical drafting tools (rapidographs, triangles, compasses, etc) and by discovering several hand-based techniques (axonometric projection, perspective, standard views, scales, etc). 

Several aspects of the activity are determined either by me (instructor’s practices) and/or by the institutional policies. My educational practices are inevitably inspired by several extracurricular influences, such as my professional experience as a designer, my aesthetics, my pedagogical beliefs, etc. The institution, on the other hand, sets several regulations in an attempt to standardize the educational process and to ensure the effective functioning of the institution (figure 1).

Yet, not all institutional policies are implemented entirely by the staff. For example, according to the regulations, the course “methodology of architectural drawing” should be divided into two sessions: theory and workshop. However, I systematically disobey this rule by mixing theory with practice. Consequently, the activity is influenced on the one hand by a general curriculum (imposed by the institution) and on the other, by the lower hierarchy (staff) which may adjust, enrich or alter some aspect of this curriculum (figure 2).

Figure 2. Enacted Curriculum: It is set by the institution and it may be adjusted or altered by the staff.

At the level of the social order (specified curriculum) one of the most well-established beliefs about the pedagogy of architectural drawing is reflected on the national assessment system. According to this stereotype the architectural drawing is a hand-skill that only talented people can practice and consequently a prior examination is needed. Paradoxically, the assessment system seeks to evaluate the overall students’ ability, but in relation to a single professional skill and before the professional studies even begin.

On the other hand, the rapid spread of computers has shifted the interest of the market, towards high technological skills. Consequently, digital drawing has started to adopted (with enthusiasm or skepticism) by many students and institutions, while the status of hand-based drawing has started to diminish.

At the level of the classroom, the participants carry their own influences and experience the activity in different ways. For example, some students due to their familiarity with computers perceive hand-based drawing as a redundant skill, while others (including the instructor) perceive it as an advantageous and irreplaceable skill. Other students regard drawing as a mere technical tool while others as a form of artistic expression. The instructor on the other hand, which is probably the expert, carries his own beliefs and experiences. Consequently, this small group, which shares, willingly or not, the same activity is full of differences.

            Concluding, I would note, that as far as now, I have managed to illustrate only some influences, directed from the social world towards the individual participation. Nevertheless, the opposite direction (from the experienced world towards the social order) remains an unexplored journey that needs further investigation.