Michael Graves and the Cult of the Pencil

So this Michael Graves New York Times opinion article has been making the rounds.

I would like to state here that his argument is BULLSHIT. We should all be up in arms that this is how our profession is being represented to the general public. Michael Graves’ lack of comprehension and ability with computers neither proves nor justifies such a disservice to our community. How do his views help? How do they show architects a path forward? Trace paper and pencil? An anecdote about joint doodles in a meeting? Um… ever heard of… I don’t know any of the programs and apps out there that allow similar collaboration via a myriad of tablets, laptops, smartphones, etc. but don’t require you to be in the same room. To name a few, there is ArchiCAD with Teamwork 2, Revit with Worksets, Google Docs with well Google Docs, Skype, iChat, and similar video and screen sharing programs, and even that freaking social drawing app Draw Something. Collaboration and creativity that makes proximity irrelevant? Hell yeah I want that. Now I can be my best creative self whether my design muse is sitting next to me in a boring meeting or in Houston. It’s not the tool that matters, but how you use it.

Seriously. It’s insulting.

To think our creative value is based on the tool we use is ridiculous. Yes, as I’ve said elsewhere, tools make a difference. But the best tool won’t turn me or Michael Graves into Le Corbusier or Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Tools, whether a pencil or BIM, are enhancers. If your worth as a creative thinker is based on your medium then you’ve got problems. Those that worship the pencil and paper over other media are backwards thinking and on the wrong side of history. Michael Graves makes a good point about there being three types of architectural drawings – the “referential sketch,” the “preparatory study” and the “definitive drawing.” That’s a great way to see things and I agree that computers dominate the third type, the “definitive drawing.” And for good reason. The power of BIM is just too great. But come on, the other two are only the purview of hand drawing? This is not a failing of computers, but a failing of architects, a tragedy that needs to be fixed.

For centuries architects were in the Avant-garde. We were the gate keepers of so much creative power and exploration. But just like we’ve lost the role of master builder, we are now marginalizing ourselves in the realm of harnessing the creative future. From a technical standpoint, architects are so far behind other industries dedicated to design and creation. So what’s the solution? Claiming that, because we haven’t adapted our processes and schooling to handle technology, we must be above it. That the creative process loses it’s magic when it gets digitized. BULLSHIT. I wonder if the people behind all the wonderful recent Kickstarter video game projects would agree with the digital destruction of creativity.

Think about this…

Are there 78 year old architects who have been using computers for 75 years? No. Of course not. But there will be. When we try new methods of production and design, the early results can be stiff and far from our best work. But this isn’t a sign of failure. It’s merely a step in a new direction. It’s something to overcome, to work through. Those of us who are slogging through the changing tools of architecture will come out stronger on the other side. Remember, we were all given crayons before we could walk. Today’s infants are now also given access to computers. This is a good thing.

So Mr. Graves let’s try your letter again.

But this time I’m going to write the rallying cry at the end for you:

“Architects have always designed with the equivalent of pencil and paper. From the earliest scribbles on a cave wall through much of the 20th century, our design tools have not fundamentally changed. This is no longer the case and we have past the point of no return. As a profession we have fallen behind in the rush to adopt new technologies. Even things like BIM, which seem so new and awe inspiring to us, have been around for decades in other industries. I am excited to see the upcoming generations embrace the digital realm and show me the soul of the computer. The soul that must be there. Because in truth there is no soul in the computer. Or in the pencil and paper. It’s in us. Our creative spark. The medium is just a means of expression. Let’s embrace and take ownership of the technology around us. To think or do otherwise leads only to obsolescence and marginalization.”

: The digital natives are here. And they don’t give a shit about your technological hang ups.

25 Responses to "Michael Graves and the Cult of the Pencil"

David says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm

Read this http://nyti.ms/RMeQCx

If these were computer generated drawing no one would care. But since the were created by a person we do care.

There is “value” when something is created by human hands.

Reply
David says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Almost forgot, give your kid some paper and crayons.

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm
  
  My daughters get both crayons and computers. The FLW article… yes there are many pieces of art by a famous artist in the collection. One of the things that creates value in the archive is the individual nature of the objects. I presume there are not multiple copies of those works floating around the world. If the letters or photos or drawings are destroyed, much is lost. A computer file can be printed a million times. Each copy has less worth because it is one of many. That does not devalue the original creativity though. If all we had were single period print outs of FLW work (in this scenario there are computers in FLW’s lifetime) and no original files, I’m sure they’d be valued too. As they are products of an artist (who happens to be an architect).
  
  Graves is really lamenting the lost prominence of art in architecture. And that is a shame. But art and medium are not the same thing. Pencil does not equal art. Both pencils and computers can produce crap, it depends on the person. Same goes for the creation of art.
  
  Reply
Erik says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm

David,

I think you missed the point. There is no call for “computer generated” anything. But there is a call for those that design to learn and adopt the tools that will dominate the industry in the coming years.

The person still creates, no matter the medium…

Reply
Brian says:

September 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm

Well said Jared… As mentioned there is nothing wrong with paper and pencil we all can sketch, it is jut a medium for our creative ideas. We all need to convey information, but technology should not be condemned because paper and pencil are somehow claimed as the ideal source. I also like your final statement on “obsolescence and marginalization” which is totally true.

It also reminds me of this Le Corbusier quote from Towards a New Architecture – “In every field of industry, new problems have presented themselves and new tools have been created capable of resolving them…If we set ourselves against the past, we can then appreciate the fact that new formulas have been found which only need exploitation to bring about (if we are wise enough to break with routine) a genuine liberation from the constraints we have till now been subjected to.”

Different context, but think it fits well in the BIM and the evolution Digital Design Technology conversation.

Well done, I’m interested to see where this conversation goes…

Reply
Rob Harrison AIA says:

September 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm

I studied architecture at University of Toronto in the late ’70′s, in the last years of Peter Prangnell’s unique and brilliant program that focused on the humanistic “why” of architecture more than the “how.” There were no drawing classes–and in fact flashy hand renderings were actively discouraged because they often masked a lack of thought in the design. Looking closely at the portfolios of intern architects since the advent of computer drawing, I often see the similar issue: Their computer drawings are often very impressive technically, but shallow spiritually. If their buildings were actually built, they would be oppressively ugly. I think perhaps that’s what Michael Graves is on about. In my reading of the article, he allows that “drawing” includes both hand and computer techniques, lamenting only that as of yet the computer does not connect haptically to our hearts as well as the pencil does.

I’ve been doing this for 33 years now, 22 in my own practice. I’ve been using the computer to draw for the last 14 years, starting with PowerCADD in 1998, and now ArchiCAD for the last several years. Hardly a Luddite. That there is a difference in the experience of drawing with a pencil and drawing on the computer is unquestionable. There’s still room for improvement, eh?

If you haven’t already read it, look up Wendell Berry’s essay “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” in the collection of essays What Are PEOPLE For? (You can Google it–it’s online!) His criteria for innovation are brilliant, and ought to apply to our tools for drawing as well.

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm
  
  Rob, thanks. Yes. Yes. Yes. We need more “why” and less “how”. I hope that was Michael Graves point. That’s my same issue with firms looking for very specific computer skills/program knowledge… to much how, not enough why. Many of us that are heading down the path of BIM see this as a journey of “why”, which is super fascinating to me.
  
  Right now I’m trying to think of a new tagline for my site, something that moves it beyond ‘support and training for forward-thinking people”. I really like the idea of basing it off some version of “The why of Archtiecture, not just the How”. Okay that is a little crude, but I’m going to think more on this.
  
  Oh and yes… always room for improvement!
  
  Thanks for the comments (Everyone!) and I’ll definitely check out that essay.
  
  Reply
Daniel Wyckoff says:

September 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm

In the 30 years I have been using computers there has always been an effort to make their output look like something done by hand. While the effort and thought in producing the file and plotting it out might have the same serendipitous feeling of creation, there has always been a perception that the perfect line that results is complete and well, perfect. The human eye does not think that about a hand-drawn sketch. While I think the local building department would laugh me out the door if I brought in a hand drawn document these days, I believe the speed and immediate feedback of a hand sketch will never be replaced by a hardlined computer drawing be it 2D or 3D. I believe Mr. Graves laments the lack of skills that the current crop of designers have when it comes to non-computer-aided drawing. Along with this skill comes the freedom to think that the product is in development and is open for interpretation by the viewer and creator alike. As much as the software developers try, I have yet to see or experience such simplicity. On the computer there is always a compelling need to make things more perfect.

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 6, 2012 at 10:50 pm
  
  Daniel,
  
  Good points. Thanks.
  
  It didn’t flow well, but in an earlier draft of my post I talked about my experiences in school with both projects all done by hand and projects all done in the computer. The primarily digital ones were definitely less successful. But I see this as a challenge to overcome, not a forgone conclusion to accept. Let’s suppose for a moment that there’s no one in the architecture community that currently has the freedom in the digital realm that pencil and paper provide (don’t know if that’s the case). What should we do about that? Build up one medium’s success and put it on a pedestal? Or continue to explore our other outlets. I feel like we all have a good grasp on the upper limits of hand drawing. It’s speed and connectivity to our creative process is very well understood and appreciated. No argument from me. But what happens when we can match that with another tool that ALSO provides other benefits. That is really intriguing. That’s what I want to see more of us explore. Yeah it’ll produce some ugly drawings and some crap designs. But I’d rather fail in an effort to discover something new than succeed where others have already been.
  
  The pressure and desire for perfection in all computerized work (while an asset for CDs) is lamentable, but not inevitable. As is the need to replicate hand drawn styles. But I think there is room to discover the intentionally looseness in CAD and BIM. This different way of thinking in the computer is something I’ve been exploring, especially over the past year and continue to work on. As it specifically relates to ArchiCAD, I’ve been searching for ways to not build a CD set from day 1 (which is such an easy trap to fall into). But instead stay loose and exploratory. To contradict the inherent workflow, while still embracing and taking advantage of the underlying logic and benefits of BIM. It is hard because modeling the finished product in SD is SO SO seductive. But not the comptuer’s fault.
  
  I’m just not convinced that the freedom that we all feel with hand drawing is unique to physical media. I’m reminded of the progression of painting and photography in the 19th and 20th century. Each art form goes through stages. Mastering realism seems like the major hurdle before unfettered freedom. Before painters like Picasso, Mattisse, and Monet, we had realists. Photography upset the applecart and helped painting make the transition beyond realism. Why spend hours and days painting an exact reality when the photograph could do it (eventually) instantly. While first too crude, photography advanced to realism (ie, a normal color photo) and then eventually to something grander than that. Some photographers moved on to the abstract and experimented just like the painters. Photography didn’t destroy painting and that’s a good thing. But it did change the relationship of painting with many of its subjects. Painting a portrait became something different. The same goes with technology and architecture. CAD and BIM usage is still in its infancy. We’re still in the realism phase. But I think that phase is ending.
  
  It’s true that for many of the younger generation (me included), we didn’t get enough schooling in hand sketching. I don’t believe this makes us lesser designers. Just different. I have drawn all my life, but I don’t have the practiced architectural hand of those older than me. Yes I can doodle and think with a pencil. And I of course do (and as a parent of a young child it’s great to have more excuses to doodle again). But I’m not going to be able to produce a good looking sketched elevation or plan. I just don’t have the practice and wouldn’t show a client what I can do now. So what’s the bigger value for me? To learn how to emulate other architects who will always be ahead of me in handwork? Or press on to explore the possibilities of other means of design and expression?
  
  Reply
Jerome Leslie Eben, AIA says:

September 7, 2012 at 6:32 am

I know Michael Graves, FAIA and believe his editorial did more for the profession than any computer generated dwg. can.
My clients get a kick out of my hand drawn
sketches, especially when I create in front of them across their Kitchen table, which means that I am drawing upside down!

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 7, 2012 at 9:21 am
  
  Jerome, thanks for your comments. I’ve reread my post a few times to make sure I don’t imply it… I am not knocking the value of hand sketching. My argument is not an either/or proposition; it’s a both. It’s about our value as architects and creative thinkers.
  
  We can sit across from clients at a kitchen table and produce designs in real time. That takes creativity, talent, and a desire for exploration. It’s not something inherent in our choice of media. I can model ideas for clients while we sit together in front of a laptop. Same goal, different tools. As architects we need to embrace all options and not say only my solution works for idea generation. That is what I’m calling bullshit.
  
  If students come out of school creating flat dull work it’s a failing of education, not craft. Furthermore from a purely aesthetic perspective there are some amazing images being created by students now.
  
  Blanket statements about the failure of computers without ideas for solving the problem does not further the conversation. So here’s a question for those that disagree with my rebuttal. Is the superiority of the hand sketch do to our current technical limitations with computers or a fundamental flaw in the mind/body connection as it relates to creating on a computer? And regardless of your answer, what do we do about it?
  
  Reply
Scott J. Newland, AIA says:

September 7, 2012 at 9:53 am

Jared,
This is obviously a very ripe subject for discussion! I didn’t react to Graves’ article as strongly as you did, but I couldn’t help but read it without being able to put aside my anti-Graves bias. The tools one uses don’t matter as long as the architecture is as clear and strong as it can be. Reading his words on how drawing allowed him to “work out the compositional problems in a definitive way”, especially regarding the Denver Public Library, made me laugh out loud. He has been known to dwell on building design studies in plan and in elevation, but real buildings are never seen that way. I toured that building earlier this year and it’s about as dumb and clunky as they come, full of what I considered poorly resolved compositional problems. And let’s not even start talking about the huge Graves-designed blemishes on the Minneapolis Institute of Art and Children’s Theatre. Grrr. His ego is greater than his buildings.
I routinely go between ArchiCAD 2D, 3D, SketchUp, hand sketches and even physical models to explore and resolve designs. All tools are valid. In the end, as a design develops, BIM is the only way to go, and I am, in fact, a stronger architect for having learned it.

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 7, 2012 at 10:05 am
  
  Thanks Scott. I was hoping you’d add your voice to this discussion. I remember the first time that I mentioned to Eric Odor that you were an avid ArchiCAD user; he was shocked because he knows and thinks of your hand work. Which by the way is AWESOME. Everyone else can check out some examples here: http://www.newlandarchitecture.com/Sketches_and_Watercolors.html Anyways, I digress. Computers… one more way to explore and resolve.
  
  Reply
Chuck says:

September 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Practically, I do not see the difference between a pencil/paper tool and a computer tool, as far as creativity goes. It seems to me that many are using the pencil as a crutch, rather than a tool. There is something absorptive about properly sharpening the lead, using soft enough lead, and paper with enough tack. In fact, way back when I was hand drafting, we poched building components in the details. When mimicing concrete, we called it “therapy.”

Now that we don’t have to spend our time doodling around, we can be truly creative. I use rectangles for bubble diagrams, with the added benefit that the rectangles represent the area called for in the program. Just like a bubble diagram, we can move the rectangles around to arrive at a workable flow, without having to deal with erasures and re-skecthing all the elements we just made. This works well for us, since we design all our buildings from the inside out.

I doubt that Graves’ buildings are any better because of the pencil. If he believes that they are, it doesn’t say much about his talent.

Reply
Djordje says:

September 8, 2012 at 1:42 am

Well …

The ugly truth about using computers for anything is that they never to what you want, but always what you tell them to do. So it’s not about the technology, or the media, or the tools used, it’s about you.

I am old enough to have done quite a few project completely by hand, including perspectives, to know the difference. And, it’s the same difference – if the tool is not the extension of your design thought, the result will be bad, and vice versa. Whatever the tool.

It’s about you, and your ability to use the tool at your disposal (“how”) to convey your design idea (“what”).

Always.

Reply
Erik says:

September 8, 2012 at 8:33 am

My Dad always said; “It’s a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.” ‘Nuff said…

Reply
Daniel Wyckoff says:

September 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm

If there is a dream interface it might be like the one shown here:
http://vimeo.com/3365942

Reply
Steven Goodwin says:

September 10, 2012 at 9:36 am

I didn’t feel that Michael Graves was dissing on the profession but rather lamented the fact that many architects are being sent out from a majority of Architecture schools unable to communicate from hand drawing. A skill that should not be forgotten but sadly it is. At our office many of our interns do not know how to sketch but are quick to show their skills on drab hard line CAD programs and some of them are incredibly talented on amazing rendering software. This is not the same.

There is something that happens on a different level when hand is put to paper. The brain and the hand together communicate in a different way and our clients love it when they see our hand drawn sketches. He indicated three levels of drawing – two of which are hand drawn- the last, the definitive drawing, he argued that the computer does a better job and was acceptable.

I’m not sure why you are so upset at his article- I completely agree with his approach and unlike your conclusion find many like me that lament the loss of hand sketching. He didn’t lament the use of CAD in the office (it has its place) only the loss of creative ability that hand sketching brings to the profession.

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 10, 2012 at 9:47 am
  
  The issue for me is that the real problem is “the loss of creative ability”, not what media provides this. Over stressing the decline of hand sketching is a distraction. I doubt that is the root cause. But just a symptom of something deeper and darker. Of what? Not sure. The shift from an art focused education to a pseudo-science one? A focus on issues other than aesthetics and composition? Those things are perhaps easier to stress when everyone is working by hand, but could be just as attended to on the computer. But we don’t. Why?
  
  The first post on my blog raises these issues.
  
  http://www.shoegnome.com/2010/07/11/aesthetics-of-production/
  
  “The brand of color pencil or water color paint shouldn’t dictate the style of a rendering, so why do we let computer programs?”
  
  Reply
Reece Carter says:

September 12, 2012 at 2:50 pm

I don’t think his essay was sincere because it was typed as opposed to being hand written on a note pad. Since no one shared in the experience of its creation, I challenge the thought process as valid… Just sayin’…

Reply
1. Jared Banks says:
  
  September 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm
  
  Reece, FTW! A) haven’t laughed that hard in a long time. B) I might have to close down comments on this post, because seriously can it get better than your comment?!
  
  Reply
Reece Carter says:

September 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Reply
Why Do We Draw? | In DePth says:

September 24, 2012 at 7:50 am

[...] piece has had some detractors — most notably, this guy – who feel that Graves is being something of a technophobe. I didn’t take it that way [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (216.151.210.51) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (74.200.244.59) and so is spam.

Reply
The best designs lie ahead of us | Shoegnome says:

January 2, 2013 at 10:50 am

[...] aesthetics of Parametricism, but it signals a potent new direction. This returns me to thoughts on Michael Graves New York Times piece. Again. If your design process hasn’t been improved by technology; if your process [...]

Reply
You are a Dinosaur | Shoegnome says:

January 23, 2013 at 9:00 am

[...] is there this insistence on the mind/hand w/ pencil connection? I heard this belief too many times at the recent architecture conventions I went to (I’m [...]

Reply

Seriously. It’s insulting.

Think about this…

So Mr. Graves let’s try your letter again.

Share me:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply