At the brief presentation for the Pelliccia and Nix fellowship work this afternoon at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, I hope to convey my thoughts on Drawing. Beyond my specific research questions, this is what I learned:
In the eddy of contemplation, and a little more research, what I learned was that, between my two disparate drawing programs, one [experiential drawing] was the answer to the other [the process of constructing a comprehensive, detailed, yet impossible view of the city.] I learned that intimate knowledge, the kind gained from walking and drawing and looking and lingering, was necessary for the makers of Renaissance and Baroque Views of Rome. I believe they relied on triangulation, measurements, and mathematics, street and block plans like Nolli perfected, views from multiple high points around the city. But it was the knowing, walking the streets, that was the key to fabricating the amazing impossible view.
I can photograph every inch of it, but only the drawing – both the conscious act of eye to mind to hand (to eye to mind to hand) and the capacity of drawing to twist, splay, point, unfold, converge and overlay perceptions, time and space - allows me to understand the structure, volume, materials, density, permeability, renewal, decay, verve of a place. Through drawing it, I attempt to devour it and it always devours me. It is exhausting and exhilarating. Only through this tug of war, can I really see the place. Likewise, I can look at every bird's eye view and read every text, but it is in the acting that I begin to understand the process of creating. Perhaps this 'third' dimension of research, acting, is the best 'primary source' in studying history of drawing processes.
|Drawing the impossible (bird's eye view) from the Gianicolo [How did Giuseppe Vasi do it in 1765?]|
|Drawing within the city, spaces shaped by walls. Experiential drawing.|
|a few finishing touches at pin-up|