Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can we surpass the representational nature of architecture drawing to consider and discuss the agency of architectural drawing in process and result? Over the course of three years from 2019, a cohort of architect–drafters, architect–theoreticians and a curator are meeting every six months in a reflective exchange to discuss the production and exhibition of a collection of drawings and drawing-related artefacts. The varying cast of the bi-annual symposia are participants from the United States, Canada and Europe including Michael Webb, Perry Kulper, Laura Allen, Bryan Cantley, Nat Chard, Mark Dorrian, Arnaud Hendrickx, William Menking, Shaun Murray, Anthony Morey, Mark Smout, Neil Spiller, Natalija (Nada) Subotincic, Mark West, Michael Young and Riet Eeckhout. Surpassing the representational nature of architecture drawing, a group of architects and I consider and discuss the agency of architectural drawing in process and result. Drawing architecture implies materializing an architecture within the drawing, where it can be sought, found and experienced. This refers to an action in the present progressive, an action by the author in the process of bringing into the world through drawing – architectural research through drawing. The artefacts, as drawings, that we are looking at are an end in themselves and not a preparatory means to build an environment as in how drawings are used in architectural practices for buildings. These symposia aim to reveal and come closer to the individual agency of each practice within the drawn discipline of architecture, to establish a way in which we can show this agency in an Exhibition at Montreal Design Centre in August–December 2022. The bi-annual symposium days were structured by round-table conversations and discussions that take place based on drawings or drawing-related artefacts brought in by the participants. In ‘Drawing architecture’ Session 1 in New York, we had an in-depth introduction of each participant’s practice with Michael Webb, Perry Kulper, Bryan Cantley, Nat Chard, Arnaud Hendrickx, William Menking, Shaun Murray, Anthony Morey, Neil Spiller, Natalija (Nada) Subotincic, Mark West, Michael Young and Riet Eeckhout. Participants expanded on their bodies of work, tools and the nature of the drawing practice. For ‘Drawing architecture’ Session 2 in London, we sharpened the conversation between the participants by: (1) establishing an angle from which we talk through the artefact(s) (drawing or drawing practice-related artefact), each participant from the standpoint of their practice. Angle: Talking through the drawing or drawing practice-related artefact, can you expand on the agency of the drawing (practice) within the discipline of architecture? Questions that might be helpful: (a) How does the drawing work as a tool of investigation (technique of leveraging knowledge). (b) Where and what is the architecture within the resulting drawing/artefact? When is the architecture in the process? Is there architecture within the drawing? (2) By placing the drawing or artefact central during the symposium talk and organize a group conversation around it. It might be that you bring one or more current drawings/artefacts enabling you to expand on the specific drawing practice investigation. The artefact might be resolved or unresolved, finished, ongoing or just starting and in the thick of things. The presence of the drawing allows the group to come closer to and understand the agency of the artefact itself, supported by talking us through and unpacking the artefact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".