This post is just a collection of a few notes / thoughts after reading more of Johnathon Hill’s The Illegal Architect and Miwon Kwon’s One Place After Another – site specific art and locational identity, in terms of architects / architectural representation / design.
(Johnathon Hill) Do architects only draw what they can control? Sight becomes hierarchy of sense? Architecture becomes ‘artefact’. Pleases the architects eye.
(Miwon Kwon) Site-specific art becomes immaterial. Sight is not hierarchy, other senses are equally valued? Other senses can allow something to be uncontrolled by architect say, can be more improvised and temporary. Not just about pleasing the architects eye?
Draft / quick images that could lead to more detailed drawings that deliberately displease the eye. You could have a series of detailed elevations, sections, axos where each one is interrupted by a single figure or numerous figures. You never can get a sense of the building / designs entire detail in one drawing, you have to move between drawings to see parts that are hidden in one but revealed in another to eventually get the ‘full picture’. Maybe they would be set out in a way that as you look through the details, it is as though you are moving around the figure(s) as if moving in a crowd for a better view.