REVOLUTIONS IN PARALLEL: THE RISE AND FALL OF DRAWING IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN by Kristina M. Luce A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) in The University of Michigan 2009 Doctoral Committee: Professor Daniel Alan Herwitz, Co-Chair Associate Professor Malcolm McCullough, Co-Chair Professor Celeste A. Brusati Associate Professor Lydia M. Soo © Kristina M. Luce ____________________________ 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The dissertation is more of a collaborative effort then an individual one. I am certainly responsible for the words on these pages, and I am, of course, solely responsible for any errors, but the thinking I cannot claim as mine alone. In this brief moment when one can acknowledge the contributions so generously provided by others, I find myself overwhelmed by the size of my indebtedness and by my gratitude for all scholars who brave criticism, and even ridicule, to share their thinking. One simply cannot make a contribution to any field without the first being inspired by the work that has come before, and the works of James Ackerman, James Elkins, Hans Belting, Mario Carpo, Wolfgang Lefèvre, Herbert Simon and John Harwood, among many others, were of enormous help in forming my own thoughts. More personally, this dissertation would not have the shape it does today had Greg Lynn, Neil Thelen, Evan Douglis and Richard Sarrach not given generously of their time, energy and expertise to share their thinking with me through a series of interviews. In some cases their words have found a place within my own, but they all have helped shape my understanding of the current state of design and practice within architecture. Without the generous financial assistance of The Mellon and Getty Foundations, and The University of Michigan’s Department of Architecture, Institute for the Humanities, Center for the Education of Women and Rackham Graduate School it is doubtful this dissertation would ever have been finished or, for that matter, even begun. ii Jean Wineman and Lisa Hauser were instrumental in many things throughout my Ph.D., but I owe them both a larger-than-normal debt for the support they provided in my application for a Rackham Pre-Doctoral fellowship. Thanks to them and the TCAUP nominating committee I was able to finish my dissertation during this fellowship’s tenure. My research and writing during the prior year was the result of The Getty Foundation’s Resident Scholar Program at the Getty Research Institute, and the year before that by Michigan’s Institute for the Humanities through a Sylvia Ann Duffy Pre- Doctoral Fellowship. This support has left me in awe of those who give to the Humanities through their much needed and generous endowments. In addition to their financial support, I am grateful to the scholarly communities associated with the GRI and the Institute, especially: Wim De Witt, Christopher Alexander, David Brafman, Gail Feigenbaum, Julia Bloomfield, Charles Salas, Sabine Schlosser, Cathy Davis, Kara Cooney, Katja Zeljat, and George Wineberg, as well as Eliza Woodford, Doretha Covel and Terry Jansen; not to mention the amazing and stimulating environment provided by all the other fellows and scholars. My advisor, mentor and friend Daniel Herwitz has been tireless and unbelievably generous in his constructive criticism and support. I am proud to bear his intellectual imprint. In the various roles she has taken within the Ph.D. program at TCAUP, as well as on my committee, Lydia Soo has never failed to provide much needed support both to my thinking an in my never-ending quest for funding. In the earliest stages of this project’s formation, no committee member had more influence on the shape and pattern of my thinking than did Celeste Brusati who exposed a whole new way of thinking about images, perspective and picturing. And, as the Co-chair for my dissertation committee, iii Malcolm McCullough has enabled my focus on the questions of this moment to which my work might speak. I also want to acknowledge Anatole Senkevitch who helped convince me to come the University of Michigan and who guided me through the first three years of my Ph.D. In addition to these more recent mentors, I remain in awe of my undergraduate and professional school advisors, Sergio Sanabria and Robert Benson, both at Miami University of Ohio. I have been benefited and enriched by the influences of each of these scholars, and I enjoy envisioning my own work as a path that winds through and connects each of their areas of expertise. My colleagues and dear friends Stephanie Pilat and Nick Senske read drafts and/or talked out many of my half-baked hypotheses, nurturing and validating me even when I had utterly ceased to make sense, for which I will remain eternally thankful. My father Jonathan, who as an artist tends to dislike critics, nevertheless found a creative connection to what I was doing, allowing my project to serve as fodder for many long and helpful conversations. My stepmother Cynthia not only tolerated such garrulousness, but often fueled it with her magnificent garden and culinary skill. With my brother Nathan, their love and support has time and again been a much needed and uplifting gift as I repeatedly drove the brief distance between their house and Ann Arbor. My mother Virginia’s generosity throughout my academic career has been stunning, whether helping to support my research, travel or just with the expenses of day-to-day living as a student. She taught me to value education and without that dear lesson, I certainly would not be writing these words today. And finally, in the years leading up to this moment, I have seen the work it takes to finish a dissertation. I have watched friends disappear from view only to emerge after iv months of isolation, dazed by the work, hurdles and stress. I have been largely unaware of such trials within my own process. I attribute this odd perception to three things: the pleasure of completing the dissertation together with Stephanie (camaraderie is a wondrous balm), the careful ministrations of my excellent therapist and friend Dion, and the joy-filled distraction of joining my life with Brett’s. To each of them I offer much love and a truly heart-felt thanks. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF APPENDICES xiii ABSTRACT xiv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Foundations 1 Outlines 6 Categories and Terminology 11 Trajectory 15 CHAPTER TWO: THE ADOPTION OF DRAWING 16 Drawing’s State of Affairs 16 A Conflict Emerges 24 The Drawings Explored 26 Changing Lines and Changing Drawings 28 The Stage is Set 34 The Milan Drawings 36 Strasbourg Plan A 47 The Pantheon Drawings 58 The Fractures 79 CHAPTER THREE: THE RISE OF FORM 86 Techniques, Ontologies and Design 86 Gothic Moments of Origination 90 The Strasbourg Drawing, Part II 93 Imitative Changes 97 Renaissance Moments of Expansion 106 vi The Pantheon Drawing, Part II 108 The Drawing as Instrument 111 The Drawing as Building 116 The Drawing as Truth 120 The Drawing as Divine 123 Representing Form 125 Form, Symbol and Icon 130 CHAPTER FOUR: THE RISE OF PROCESS 137 Drawing’s Transparency 137 Drawing’s Opacity 139 Kahn’s Challenge 141 Modernists and Drawings 146 Index as a Path to Transparency 150 Eisenman’s Challenge 153 Eisenman’s Transparency 162 Transparency and the Index 164 Architectural Transparency as an Icon of Index 166 A Battle Over What Defines Architecture 169 CHAPTER FIVE: THE ADOPTION OF COMPUTATION 177 Evan Douglis and the Extension of an Aesthetics of Process 185 Gehry Technologies and the Process of Design 198 Familiar Shapes 216 FIGURES 221 APPENDICES 273 BIBLIOGRAPHY 340 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Image of Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles on left and the New Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao on Right.....................................................................................222 Figure 2: South Tower Épure located in the Crypt of the Cathedral of Bourges. ...........223 Figure 3: Laon Tower Drawing from the Sketchbook of Villard d'Honnecourt, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, 19093, p. 19. .....................................................................223 Figure 4: “Ideal” Plan (Upper Figure) from the Sketchbook of Villard d'Honnecourt, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, 19093, p. 29. ...........................................................224 Figure 5: Detail from Façade Project A, the Reims Palimpsest, before 1270, Book G661, Dépot Annexe des Archives Départmentales de la Marne, Reims, France............225 Figure 6: Albrecht Dürer, Etliche underrrict zu befestigung der Stett Schllosz und flecken, 1527............................................................................................................226 Figure 7: Milan Cathedral Plan and Section, Antonio di Vincenzo, Bologna, Museo di S. Petronio, Archivio della Fabbrica di San Petronio, cartella 389, no. 1, Cat. No. 6.227 Figure 8: Reims Apsidal Choir Section from the Sketchbook of Villard d'Honnecourt, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, 19093, p. 64. ...........................................................228 Figure 9: Reims Interior and Exterior Elevations from the Sketchbook of Villard d'Honnecourt, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, 19093, p. 62. ...................................228 Figure 10: Section Details from the Milan Drawing showing the Pier Capitals (left) and Bases (right).............................................................................................................229 Figure 11: Trace of Reims Wall Épures. .........................................................................229