16
‘I thought about it but didn’t make it’ is a sentence that many first year students use. This is usually met with the answer: ‘If you can’t make it you didn’t think about it.’ Experienced designers seem to know that making an image can actually give us a better view of the problem. But what makes a drawing such a powerful tool for design? The core of the answer is in the theory of American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce. Sanders Pierce made a separation between different ways of reasoning: deductive reasoning, or proving that something has to be; inductive reasoning, or showing that something is present; and abductive reasonin, or suggesting that something can be. Deductive reasoning is the basis of logic, inductive reasoning is the basis for science and abductive reasoning (also called productive reasoning) is the basis of creative thinking. By using productive reasoning, a solution can be found to a problem that has multiple outcomes. The designer provides a solution not by looking for this solution in a structural way but by testing multiple outcomes. By testing these possible outcomes the best one can be chosen, whereby the productive thinker can also find a part underlying the mechanics of the solution. But if we make architecture, how can we then test these possible outcomes? In an ideal situation this would mean testing different versions of the actual building before deciding on the best solution. This, however, would be a very costly solution. To test the building design we need a representation of it, a classic representation
or a modern rendered and Photoshopped computer image. These representations of architecture surround us on the Internet, in magazines and in books. The accessibility of reference images has exploded in the last decennium and the stacks of ‘paper architecture’ along with it. But are these images a good representation of the buildings they show? What qualities do they share with the real object? Changing the lighting conditions or cropping the image are simple methods, but if we do, what remains of the representation of the actual qualities of the objects we design? An answer to these questions might be hidden in the double meaning of the architectural image. Primarily, it is used to share information about the design. Therefore the focus needs to be on the qualities we want to discuss. The image needs to be a caricature. On the other hand, we use these images to form our own image of the building. Therefore we need to be careful that we keep remembering the difference between the image and reality, the difference between presentation and representation. These are two concepts that are hard to grasp. In order to explain the distinction between these concepts, we need to know how we understand the world around us. Merleau Ponty says that when we look at the world we form a connection with it. We look at a thing of which we know something, and through this knowledge we grant qualities to this object. The object we look at is therefore formed by the qualities of the object itself as well as the knowledge we have about it. When we understand presentation as the showing of pure inherent
qualities of an object we can say that we will never see this true presentation. Because we will always search for a memory by which we can understand the things we see. Only if we were without memories would we be able to see the reality (presentation) of the object. Merleau Ponty shows us that our judgement is determined by the memories and knowledge we have of something. In this we use our architectural presentations to communicate our designs. We give them qualities that we also see in the world around us, searching for the same association. When we present these images to somebody else they may not have the same memories and associations. By presenting an image we can therefore evoke thoughts that we didn’t foresee. This is something that becomes apparent when we exhibit architectural models. The model that was made as a design aid becomes an autonomous object. The model used to be the carrier of the idea. The model gets its meaning from the building. It represents a scaled version of this building or works as an representation of the idea. Therefore, a study into the meaning of the image should shed the weight of architecture to see the image as the image that it is. Again we see the two sides of the model, the autonomous qualities and the qualities of the idea behind the model. The intrinsic quality can be a subject of research, but it isn’t separate from the idea that is behind the model. On the contrary, the two sides are mutually reinforcing. Herein we see the quality of the concept model. The qualities of the materials, the connections