Abstract

We are awash with images and repetitive information. This affects the study and practice of architecture, which is by nature ocularcentric and reliant on a graphic system for the communication of architectural ideas between designer, builder, and client. The graphic system signifies the possible built outcome by serving as a conduit between ideas, design, and built form. This established system is threatened by the easily produced, reproduced, and consumed digital image. Investigation of this condition is relevant as the educational domain and professional practice of architecture both become stewards of, and servants to, that which is increasingly mediated by and technologically determined. This study presents a modest, but nonetheless valuable, query into the appropriateness of digitally manufactured graphics in the academic studio. Architectural graphics have evolved since the Renaissance. Their principles however remain in tact, relevant, and applicable to the study of the image in the contemporary academic studio. Existing knowledge refers to these images interchangeably as representation and visualization. This naturalized practice needs to be evaluated, as the tangible referent is not so easily recognized in the digitized graphics charged with communicating the buildable aspects of a speculative design. This thesis aims to distinguish between representation and visualization, arguing that each possesses unique attributes as communicators of architectural information. A mixed method approach to discourse research has been used to interrogate digital media in the academic studio. The existing discourse within educational texts suggest that the expectation of graphics is not fixed. Ambiguous perceptions are evaluated in a survey of second year architectural students. Finally, a content analysis confirms the dominance of visualization over representation in graphic presentations. The findings suggest that visualization is inferior to representation to communicate buildable architectural information.