 |
David’s Island
Strategic Plot
Drawing made: 1996-97
Drawing size: 24” x 36”
Materials: Mylar, graphite,
ink, tape, found imagery, x-rays, foil, photographs, transfer letters +
trasnfer film, cut paper.
|
Drawing Architecture
A conversation with Perry Kulper
If “action painting” is produced by
the dynamics of dripping, smearing, and sweeping brushstrokes of paint to
reveal the complex character of abstract art, then “action drawing” would be
something like juxtaposing lines, planes, volumes, typographical elements,
photographs, and paper cutouts on a drawing that aims to uncover the
intricate universe of architectural ideas.
Each of Perry Kulper’s architectural
drawings is a cosmos of information and possibilities that resist the banal and
simplistic reductionism so typical of contemporary architectural
representation. Series after series, his drawings display objects as
background, and background as object in a constant visual journey of an
architecture that doesn’t settle and always evolves: an architecture of
ideas.
WAI discussed with Perry Kulper the concept, intention, and potential of
drawing architecture.
 |
‘Fast Twitch’, Desert House
Site Plan v.01
Drawing made: 2004
Drawing size: 24” x 36”
Materials: Mylar, graphite,
tape, found imagery. transfer letters + transfer film, cut paper.
|
WAI: There was a moment in our academic
experience in which we became very interested in the potential of
representation strategy. This was at the same time as one
of us was researching about the potential of the representation tools of the
avant-garde in the 20th century, starting with Le Corbusier and
ending in the late 1960’s with projects by Archizoom and Superstudio.
Following our studies we discovered
in Europe, in the midst of the debacle of Wall Street, that the architectural
crisis had started a long time before the crash of Lehman Brothers.
We felt that architectural representation and its dialectical relationship with
architectural thinking was being overlooked, as representation was becoming a
mere sales exercise in which renderings and cartoonesque diagrams served as
smoke screens that tried to disguise a lack of intellectual
depth.
In order to continue our interests
and answering a strong urge to challenge the situation we created
WAI.
We would like to know about
the origins of your fascination for solving the puzzle of architectural
representation? Could you share with us how your interest in this realm of
architecture started?
Perry Kulper: While I had a latent interest in architectural drawings in
my time in grad school at Columbia (Archigram, Graves, Stirling, Abraham, etc)
and in the offices where I worked, my active interests in architectural
representation evolved through: a self reflection on my own limitations as a
designer through a realization that I lacked the formal, material and
representational skills to work on a fruitful range of ideas; an interest in
trying to find ways to visualize and materialize thought; trying to find a way
into unexplored disciplinary conversations; exposure to a range of architecture
and art practices in Los Angeles that opened questions about what architectural
representation might discuss.
My interests in architectural representation were
motivated specifically by my early years of teaching at SCI-Arc where I was
around a number of provocative people who were thinking and working on the
potential of the architectural drawing including Thom Mayne and Michael Rotondi
of Morphosis, Mary-Ann Ray and Robert Mangurian of Studio Works, Andy Zago,
Neil Denari, Coy Howard and so on. I was also beginning to think about the
preferences of various kinds of architectural drawings and I was formulating
thoughts about the ‘crisis of reduction’ and how the architectural
representation might help avoid the reduction of things too quickly in the
design of a project. I was also wondering how I might account for things that couldn’t be metrically, or instrumentally
visualized and was moving from my more dominant formal
predilections in design to relational thinking and how to structure various
interests in spatial settings. This suggested to me that alternative forms of
visualization, imaging and drawing might be more effective in relation to an
increased range of ideational and architectural possibilities.
 |
‘Bleached Out’
Relational Drawing , v.02
Drawing made 2003
Drawing size 24” x 36”
Materials: Mylar, graphite,
tape, found imagery. transfer letters + trasnfer film, cut paper.
|
During that period of time have you seen
architectural representation in general undergo substantial
changes or has the essence remained the same although
with a different set of tools?
Digital culture has and will continue to have significant
impact on the roles that visualizations have played for the architect over the
last 15- 20 years. What can be worked on, who can work on it and the
translation of what’s being worked on have changed in contemporary life.
Collaborative logics, forms of spatial generation, construction logics (linked
to digital fabrication, in particular) have changed the roles, questions and
operational positions for architectural representation. Arguably, the latent
capacities and tacit knowledge gained through the making of a drawing have been
changed through the instrumental techniques linked to various digital
protocols. The changes are less dramatic in practice and perhaps more vivid
with un-built projects and speculative research. Architectural representation
has changed to include other forms of imaging and visualization ‘outside’ the
conventions of drawing practices, opening
alternative potential for what’s in play and what’s not in a project. In some
influential discussions there has been a shift from what architecture looks
like to how it behaves –a movement from the configuration and image dominance
to parametric and performance logics. We’ve also witnessed an increase in the
roles of the meditating visualizations, particularly the use of
diagramming. There are certain questions that remain the same and others
that will change. Key disciplinary discussions linked to a multitude of
cultural shifts will be of increased importance as they become
integrated in spatial production, particularly in relation to shifts in the augmented or changing roles of
architectural representation.
Has your perception and understanding of
architectural representation changed during your years of experience as a
thinker, educator and practitioner? Have you seen an evolution or any dramatic
change in your approach towards architectural representation?
Yes, my sense about the potential of architectural
representation has both changed and been enlarged astronomically. Several key
things come to mind including: an increasing interest on my part to augment the
picturing of architecture (as the dominant mode of recognizing the potential of
a project), to the generative roles of mediating drawings and their capacities
to consider a wide range of ideas simultaneously, I have
augmented imaging form or its
abstraction through visualizations connected to relational thinking. In
addition to what things look like I am particularly interested in: how they are
structured; the roles that representation have played in expanding what I think
is possible ideationally, conceptually and materially; a clearer understanding
of the capacities of various approaches to architectural representation and
when to deploy them relative to the different phases of a projects development;
the value of moving between certainties explored in the space of representation
and hunches, guesses and flat out shots in the dark; the latent potential of
the drawing in relation to its explicit intent; an ability to work on and
through temporally active conditions rather
than static appearances; and an expanded sense of what might be considered as
fodder for the architectural mill.
When you mention that the approximations,
hunches, and shots in the darks have hugely increased, does that imply that the process has become
more artistic in the sense of a programmatic freedom that allows you to explore
representation “as” an end in itself, instead of representation as a possible
building in the future?
Partially, as a result of allowing uncertainties
to enter drawings I have enjoyed freedom of many kinds. A more relaxed and
accommodating approach has allowed me to work ‘creatively’ (always a dangerous
word) in broadened ways by supporting expanded relational capacities in the
drawings to discuss things that might not otherwise be in play. I try to
visualize and support ideas long enough to see if they might be relevant to a
project in the long run. Increasingly, I am less judgmental about possible
ideas for a project, especially in the early phases of a project –about whether
everything in play is suitable for the piece of work. Depending on what I am
working on I often make drawings, or parts of drawings that are not targeted at
a synthetic building proposal, but are specific in their intent –studying
erasure as a possible representational and spatial activity, for example.
With the liberations I’ve granted myself come different
kinds of possibilities including an ability to make connections where I hadn’t
seen them, to open the range of ideas that might belong to a project and to
work on things that might not initially, or ever, make sense. Eventually, I
tend to look for a fitness between the situation in which I am working (the
situation might include a site, or sites and their respective histories,
physicality, futures, etc, the cultural and disciplinary questions at stake,
considerations of like projects in the world, my ambitions for the work, etc)
and whatever I might propose –a kind of measure of what is relevant, or
appropriate to discuss in a project.
Explored through certain kinds of drawing techniques, the
hunches and approximations allow me to see other possibilities- the drawings
and my understanding of the work frequently gets richer and talks about an
expanded set of constituencies, or possible participants, real, conceptualized
and as yet unimaginable. To be honest, I also simply need to support some
considerations through drawing in the only ways I can at the moment because in
the early phases of a project, in particular, I often don’t know how to resolve
the geometric and material articulation for ideas. By allowing the co-existence
of fairly certain ideas and hunches I relax a need to get it all right and
enable conversations to emerge through the visualizations, discovering the
project rather than attempting to prove it. If I had the skills to
‘convert’ the intellectual project into a geometric and material one
immediately, I might not make mediating visualizations. On the other hand, the
potential that emerges as a result of making drawings that try and move ideas
to formations enables a multitude of unforeseen and sometimes profitable
trajectories to enter a project. Ultimately, some of the drawing efforts have
been testing grounds to examine the appropriateness of ideas and where ideas
might come from.
On that same line,
do you think that architectural representation can or should be appreciated as
an art in itself, or should it always remain judged as a purely architectural exercise?
A great question- I’ve had a range of conversations with
friends, colleagues and students over the years about your question. I think
that architectural representation has a range of things it can discuss, both
internal and external to the discipline. I think we should position and support
a broad range of ways in which architectural representation works including its
capacity to work as a design accomplice, to enabling musings without known
outcomes, to speculating on alternative agendas for architecture (the roles of
so-called paper architecture, for example) to, as you’ve suggested, being
objects in the world with their own potential. I don’t think architectural
representation should always be judged solely as an architectural exercise,
absolutely not. From my perspective it’s useful to expose the roles
architectural representations play, when and how they might be deployed, how
they relate to other forms of architectural representation and how, if
appropriate, they might find their spatial translation. For my work, I’m interested in
finding appropriate modes of representation given the tasks at hand- the
situational fitness of things again. I also value decisions I make in the
drawings that are not linked to the situation in which I am working, but are
linked to the agency of the drawing with its own potential.
Has any
specific strategy or tool helped you to have a better
understanding of the potential of architectural representation or of
architecture as a discipline?
Amongst a range of things that have happened relative to
your question a handful of key things occur to me. These include: the potential
of composite architectural drawings, or visualizations- using multiple
representation languages simultaneously in the same drawing; strategic
plotting —plotting relations of agents, actions and settings, over and through
time; analogical thinking —thinking and working through likenesses with
things, events, conceptual structures, etc; and an expanded sense of the
potential of architecture through the use of diverse design methods. I’ve
indentified 14 of them and those means for producing work have allowed me to
work on a highly varied range of ideas in different situations.
 |
‘Central California History Museum’
Longitudinal Section
Drawing made 2010
Drawing size 24” x 36”
Materials: Mylar, graphite, tape, found imagery. transfer letters + trasnfer film, cut paper.
|
Referring to something you wrote in the piece “The Labor
of Architectural Drawing” when discussing the risk of drawing as a
confrontation with the “conceptual daylight of the blank drawing surface”, we
can’t help but see an allegory
with one of Jose Saramago’s literary masterpieces about a city in which a
mysterious outbreak makes people go blind. The blindness in the story is not
portrayed as the typical visual blackout, but on the contrary, it is manifested
as an incessant light that drowns the sight of those affected in an ocean of
milk in which any discernible contrast between the sky and the water has become
imperceptible.
In the story, the hero is portrayed as somebody whose
sense of duty and hope keeps her from going blind. In her struggle between her
feeling of impotence in front of the overwhelming amount of problems of a blind
society she has to carry the unbearable weight of responsibility and somehow
guilt of being the only one able to see.
When you affirm that architectural drawing’s “potential
for creative engagement with diverse ideas in a project are on the wane,” do
you feel as if architecture has lost
its sight, and that there are just a few architects able to
see and understand the potential of architectural representation as a tool to
think architecture?
The Saramago (‘Blindness’, if my thin memory serves)
reference is interesting and useful, but I don’t think I am in a parallel world
to the hero. I think I’m looking for potential in architectural representation
that maybe others aren’t, but I also don’t expect them to
—the cultural and disciplinary questions and interests are just different. I do
see the world of architectural representation as amazingly well poised to act
as cultural and spatial agents, especially in the midst of significant change –as
a generative realm, not simply a descriptive medium, or a technique motivated
position.
I think there are multiple sights, or sites for the
discipline to work on. I don’t think architecture has lost its sight, it’s just
seeing other potentially interesting things at the moment. To be honest (this
is pure conjecture) I’m not sure there’s a broad interest in architectural
representation, or more specifically the roles of the architectural drawing at
the moment. In the early 21 Century architectural representation seems often to
be used instrumentally, often bypassing the expansive potential of
representation as a way to think through spatial problems and to enlarge what
it is that architecture might discuss.
Parenthetically, related to my interests in situational
thinking, in diversifying my skills as a designer and in trying to come to
terms with what kinds of issues are relevant to work on in a project (its
‘scope’ towards a cultural and disciplinary ‘fitness’) and how to work on them
(using particular design methods and representation techniques, strategically),
I am often interested in sustaining multiple families of ideas, or interests in
a project. Given my predilections the potential of architectural representation
is huge on this front.
 |
David’s Island
Proto Strategic
Plot, Details
Drawing
made: 1996-96
Drawing
Size: 9” x 12”
Materials: Mylar, graphite,
found imagery, transfer film, cut paper.
|
Do you see your architectural approach as a mode
of intellectual resistance?
No. The approach, ethically, structurally and
operationally that I champion might be entirely different from project to
project, or from speculation to speculation. I think some people see what I do
as a mode of resistance, but that’s not my intent. I consider my interests more
a form of augmentation and challenging default positions rather than a mode of
resistance. If there is intellectual resistance it has more to do with
challenging the mono-project, while avoiding the crisis of reduction and
in not taking the means and techniques we deploy in architectural production
for granted. I have a desire to develop spatial scenarios that participate at
several levels with multiple constituencies in a spatial proposition-
culturally, disciplinarily and situationally.
And finally, referring to what you call
the crisis of reduction, do you think that the current architectural scenario (disciplinary,
academic, professional) offers a fertile soil for the development of
new representation strategies,
or is a radical change needed?
From my point of view, and very generally, I think the use
of representational strategies is sometimes deployed instrumentally and that
anything outside that usage is seen as peripheral, or outside what the
discussion might be. Because of my frequent interest in trying to support and
develop multiple families of ideas in a project, single, or mono-
drawing approaches tend to be inadequate to the questions I ask. Said
differently, I don’t always have the skills to figure out how to sustain ideas
I’m working on in a project through conventional drawings like plan, section,
perspective and so on. Given my predilections these drawing types, while historically
extraordinary in their own right, implicate synthetic understandings of the
ideas of a project at the time of their use. Sadly, my understanding and
ability to make synthetic decisions is often not ‘in sync’ with the preferences
or allowances of traditional drawing types.
And while I rely a lot on the conventions of architectural
representation, in fact I grew up in architecture education and in practice
through them; I have tried to understand their biases and preferences, so that
I can deploy representation strategies more tactically, given what I’m working
on. Again, I generally look for an appropriate set of relationships between
what’s being worked on and how those things are being worked on. Said
differently, drawing types ask the ‘lions to jump to the same platforms at the
same time’ and my design skills and interests simply don’t work that way.
I think there is a reasonable range of representational
strategies available disciplinarily, professionally and academically. I do
think we might address the question about contextualizing the representational
strategies available, what they’ve led to and when they are more effectively
deployed as a way. I also think that it’s possible to innovate within what’s
known, by shifting the relational assemblies, or relational contours within a
representational approach. To be honest I do think that radical changes might
be necessary.
 |
Spatial Blooms
Il Gesu Study 2
2009
Digital Print
Assisted by Justn Foyle
|
Perry
Kulper is an architect and associate professor of
architecture at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture +
Urban Planning. Prior to his arrival at the University of Michigan he was a
SCI-Arc faculty member for 16 years as well as in visiting positions at the
University of Pennsylvania and Arizona State University. Subsequent to his
studies at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (BS Arch)
and Columbia University (M Arch) he worked in the offices of Eisenman/
Robertson, Robert A.M. Stern and Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown before moving
to Los Angeles. His interests include the roles of representation and design
methods in the production of architecture and in broadening the conceptual
range by which architecture contributes to our cultural imagination.
Posts
