1

Introduction

Graphic representation and communication have always been present in architectural practices. Since Renaissance, drawing has played an essential role in expressing design ideas, having been the main method of architectural representation and communication for more than 500 years. However, the emergence of digital technologies introduced “new relationships among architect, design and construction” (Scheer, 2014, p. 49).

Graphic Representation and Communication Mechanisms in Architectural Design

The Hybrid SystemExtended Abstract

Marta Ribeiro LopesDissertation to obtain the Master Degree in Architecture

Técnico LisboaSupervisor: Prof. Dr. Francisco Manuel Caldeira Pinto Teixeira Bastos

Abstract

Graphic representation and communication have always had an established presence in the practice of architecture. From the beginning of the profession, architects have been using analogue tools to express their designs. Digital technologies, however, introduced new methodologies and terminologies, and involve new ways of seeing and interpreting, having modified the way one perceives and reacts to reality.

This study intends to understand the capabilities and limits of the representation and communication mechanisms of the architectural design, evaluating the impact of digital technologies and the potentialities of the use of are mechanisms that result from the combination of others, established in this dissertation as Hybrid SyStemS.

The investigation begins by characterizing and identifying the qualities of representation, which constitute the parameters for study of traditional and digital mechanisms commonly used in architectural design representation. This analysis establishes the capabilities and limits of each representative mechanism, allowing to conclude about which ones are more advantageous for each type of representation. It also enables a comparative discussion about the representative capabilities of traditional and digital mechanisms. Finally, three hybrid systems are studied and its features and capabilities are analysed.

In conclusion, it was firstly established that digital systems do not replace traditional ones, but they can be considered a complement to them, as they create new opportunities to express and communicate architectural ideas. Afterwards, it was concluded that it is possible to do multiple combinations between traditional, digital and hybrid systems, creating countless expressive solutions adapted to the specific needs of each design.

Keywords: Architectural Design; Representation; Communication; Traditional Mechanisms; Digital Mechanisms; Hybrid Systems.

This research aims to study the characteristics of analogue and digital mechanisms currently relevant to the discipline, understanding their representational capabilities. The goal is to assess if digital technologies have emerged as replacement of analogue mechanisms, or whether, on the contrary, they present new opportunities for expressing architectural ideas. Can these be reconciled in a “hybrid” system that takes advantage of the qualities of each tool, improving representation and communication of design ideas and concepts?

2

1_Representation and Communication in Architectural Design

Communication is an essential part of the design process in architecture, since it enables the continuous development and improvement of design solutions, influencing the success of the design (Kalay, 2004).

Architects communicate their ideas mainly through a graphical and visual language (Lawson, 2005). For several centuries, architectural design was represented through drawings and models manually produced. However, digital tools came to introduce new ways of expressing architecture, as a consequence of technological advancement (Sousa, 2010), and with these emerged digital simulation. Unlike representation, which uses signs to relate to a transcendent and unknowable reality, while providing space for ambiguities, simulation replaces the reality with the sign, not having external references (Scheer, 2014).

Representation is not a static or full product, having the ability to evoke reality to the mind of who perceives it (Fuente-Suárez, 2016). It has several qualities (Table T.01), which form the basis for the analysis of the communicative mechanisms more relevant today.

T.01_Representational qualities

2_Analysis of Graphic Representation and Communication Mechanisms in Architectural Design

Until a building is constructed, while the project is only an intention or idea, all architectural manifestations, such as drawings, three-dimensional models, videos or immersive environments, are nothing more than approximations to what the reality will become. These tools then make a bridge between imagination and reality, existing in an intermediate space between them (Frampton & Kolbowski 1981).

From the beginning of the profession, architects turned to analog tools to express their designs. Digital technologies, however, introduced new methodologies, terminologies, and points of view, involving new ways of seeing and interpreting, while modifying the way one perceives and reacts to reality (Barbarash, 2016).

2.1_Drawing

Drawing reflects how the architect thinks about the project, connecting to his imagination and leading it towards a final resolution of the architectural object (Dernie, 2014).

The sketch is an expression of design thinking that conveys a high concentration of conceptual meaning, providing a basis for subsequent projective actions (Suaréz & Labory, 2015). In its abstraction, ambiguity and openness, this mechanism allows the exploration and fixation of the ideas and thoughts of the architect, aiding design idealization (Barbarash, 2016; Scheer, 2014). The sketch also possesses some capabilities to represent qualitative and experiential aspects of the project.

The diagram can be understood as “the architecture of an idea or entity” (Garcia, 2010), being a highly schematic and synthetic abreviation, which expresses an idea with great precision (Campo Baeza, 2019). Its ability to synthesize facilitates the organization and explanation of architectural design concepts, being described by Stan Allen (1998, p.) as “architecture’s best

Quantitative

Description

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Com

mun

icat

ive

(or Realistic) Includes most of the qualities of the object, being little selective and directive on the information it conveys.

(or Abstract ) Includes only some qualities of the object, being highly selective and directive on the information it conveys

Aids the conception and development of design ideas

Illustrates the experiences associated with the architectural object, promoting sensations.

Provides information about the elements of the object that cannot be quantified, such as the appearance or the ambience of the architectural space.

Provides information about the dimensions and relationships of architectural spaces or objects.

3

means to engage the complexity of the real”. This mechanism evokes both intellect and imagination, relating visual perception with rational thought (Deen & Garritzmann, 2010). In this context, the diagram is a mechanism of quantitative and ideational representation and has capabilities of qualitative representation, communicating the design in an emphatic way.

Orthogonal projections are abstractions which represent and communicate, in a clear and rigorous way (Lawson 2004), about the form, dimension, position and materiality of the several design elements (Tibúrcio & Monnerat, 2012). These are essential for communication with construction professionals and are based on rules and conventions (Sheer, 2014). These mechanisms abstractly convey quantitative questions of the architectural object.

The axonometric projection uses geometry and mathematics to express, rigorously and according to specific rules, three-dimensional spaces and objects on a two-dimensional surface. This mechanism represents the reality of the space or object in a concrete and abstract way, rather than representing its appearance (Ching & Juroszek, 2018, Cocozza, 2017 and Krikke, 2000). The axonometric projection “appeals to a possible source of the imaginary, opposed to a rigid, over determinate description of the project” (Lisbon Triennial of Architecture, 2019). This type of drawing can represent the project quantitatively and qualitatively, communicating it in an abstract or emphatic way.

The linear perspective has an illustrative and comprehensive nature and approximates the represented object to its human visual perception (Ching & Juroszek, 2018; Edwards, 2008). It is an important complement in the communication with entities outside the discipline, which are not generally familiar with the language of the architects. This mechanism communicates, in a comprehensive or realistic way, the qualitative and experiential features of the design.

Each of these types of design expresses different capacities and limits in project representation. Considering these aspects, the architect chooses the mechanisms to be used according to what he

intends to express and to whom the representation is intended.

2.2_ Image Manipulation

For over 500 years, design was taken as the graphic expression of choice in the project representation. However, in the 20th century with the dissemination of photography, cinema and television, a strong visual culture was developed becoming an integral part of the daily life of architects, as well as of the population in general (Linder, 2012). The invention of the computer enabled the development of image manipulation technologies, offering new capabilities for recording, analysing and expressing architectural projects (Pallasmaa, 2011). In this sub-chapter, image-based representation mechanisms have been studied that, through their manipulation, have the capacity to express ideas and projectual solutions.

Collages are compositions of image fragments that, given their irregular, unfinished, and abstract nature (Farrely, 2008; Kullmann, 2014; Rodríguez, Desvaux & Álvaro-Tordesillas, 2019), make it possible to question, imagine, and speculate about a reality not yet constructed (Herron, 2013). These may suggest different experiences and atmospheres (Kullmann, 2014) and assist the design idealization, communicating architectural concepts in an emphatic way.

Visualizations, totally or partially generated using digital tools, tend to express the architectural object in a realistic way, so as to be more understanding in communication with entities outside the discipline (Cruz, 2012). This realism sometimes seeks perfection, giving rise to hyper realistic images that transport the observer into a utopian reality (Pallasma, 2011). This mechanism communicates the qualitative and experiential aspects of the project comprehensively. Its closed and deterministic nature causes it to be often interpreted as a reality, not as a representation, and in those cases it can be considered a simulation.

The video consists of a sequence of images that creates the illusion of motion and introduces the

4

fourth dimension: time (Spallone, 2017). These images construct a narrative that allows to show different aspects of the project, while conciliating analytical and pictorial moments (Forget, 2013), constituting a mechanism of high communicative effectiveness (Spallone, 2017). Thus, the video mainly represents qualitative and experiential issues of the project, sometimes expressing quantitative aspects. This mechanism can represent both emphatically and comprehensively, depending on the nature of the images that compose it.

2.3_Three-dimensional Models

The three-dimensional models are essential tools in architectural design, both in its conception and development, as well as communication mechanisms. In this sub-chapter, the characteristics of the two typologies – the physical model and the digital model - were studied, and although both represent three-dimensionality, they present different capabilities and limits, when compared.

On the one hand, physical models have an intrinsic ability to relate mental conception and sensory experience, thus presenting an advantage in relation to the digital model, since they enable a sensorial understanding that surpasses vision (Frascari, 2007, Alexandre, 2017). On the other hand, digital models allow to accurately represent more complex geometries, difficult to materialize manually (Picon, 2010).

Both physical and digital models aid in idealization, but the way they do it is quite distinct. While the physical model combines vision with tangibility to materialize and test architectural ideas (Morris, 2006, Moon, 2005), the digital model takes advantage of the automatic processing capabilities of the computer to create and evaluate multiple solutions, later explored by the architect (Scheer, 2014, Grobman et al., 2010, Eisenmann Architects, 2018).

The physical model has the benefit of being tangible, while the digital model has the advantage of being a basis for other representation mechanisms (Eastman et al., 2011).

In communicative terms, both mechanisms have the capability to emphasize certain aspects of the design or to express the project in a more comprehensive way (Eastman et al., 2011; Moon, 2005).

2.4_Digital Environments

Digital environments are mechanisms that offer the possibility of experiencing and interacting with the designed object or space (Carreiro & Pinto, 2013). Jason Jerald (2016) distinguishes two types of digital environments: augmented reality and virtual reality. Augmented reality enriches the real environment with virtual elements (Llópez et al., 2019). Virtual reality, which also includes immersive digital environments, transports the user to a different reality (Carreiro & Pinto, 2013). These mechanisms allow the user to move freely in space, facilitating the perception of the architectural project (Maldonado et al, 2018), becoming an active subject in the representation (Fiel & Calvet, 2018).

Digital environments present a high capability for qualitative and experiential representation, while also representing quantitative features. These mechanisms are still in development, so it is not possible to determine their impact as a tool for architectural design. In communicative terms, digital environments are clearly comprehensive, showing a general perception of design, and can simulate a reality.

3_Discussion

T.02_Synthesis of representative qualities of each mechanism.

Sket

ch

Quantitative

Drawing

Mechanisms of Representation

ModelImage

Manipulation

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Axon

omet

ric

Pers

pect

ive

Vide

o

Dig

ital E

nviro

nmen

ts

Col

lage

Visu

aliz

atio

n

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Phys

ical

Dig

ital

Dia

gram

Orth

ogon

alPr

ojec

tions

Strong capabilities Some capabilities

Com

mun

icat

ive

5

The analysis of the previous chapter is synthesized Table T.02, in which the representative capabilities for each mechanism are explained. It should be noted that this framework generalizes the representative capabilities of each mechanism, but it does not mean that each mechanism has all the capabilities simultaneously.

3.1_Representative Capabilities

Firstly, the most advantageous mechanisms for each type of representation were assessed. From the synthesis table, it was verified that diagrams, orthogonal projections and digital models are the most effective mechanisms in quantitative representation and that image manipulation tools did not introduce significant new capabilities to this type of representation.

All categories show high capabilities of qualitative representation, with the exception of the drawing category, which is based mostly on the perspective for this type of representation.

The categories that best enable experiential representation are image manipulation and digital environmentS. In the category drawing, perspective is the one that most effectively represents experiences and sensations. The digital model forms a basis for other mechanisms that represent experientially, although the three-dimensional models do not present significant experiential representation capabilities.

The most advantageous mechanisms in the process of idealization are the sketch, the diagram and any of the three-dimensional models. The digital models distinguish themselves from other mechanisms of ideational representation, as they introduce a new subject in the process of conception, the computer.

In communicative terms, the mechanisms that present the best emphatic or abstract communication abilities are the diagram, orthogonal projections, axonometric projection, and collage. The most effective mechanisms for comprehensive or realistic design communication are the perspective, visualization, and digital environments. Video and three-dimensional models have the ability to represent both features,

but not simultaneously.

3.2_ Traditional vs Digital

To analyse the traditional and digital mechanisms in a comparative way, a reorganization of the synthesis table has been carried out (Table T.03). It is also important to mention that the term traditional mecHaniSmS defines the mechanisms that are conceived without using digital processes, or that use these processes as a direct translation of classical methods.

It was concluded that both traditional and digital mechanisms are effective in quantitative representation, but digital mechanisms have advantages in the rigorous representation of less regular geometries. While traditional mechanisms allow the qualitative and experiential representation of the design through visual and tactile stimuli, digital mechanisms introduce other stimuli, such as the illusion of time and sounds. Traditional mechanisms, as well the digital ones, help the design process. However, digital mechanisms add another “subject” to this process, the computer, allowing to create a reality strange to the mind of the architect.

In communicative terms, both mechanisms have emphatic or abstract representation capabilities. However, digital mechanisms offer a greater diversity of tools that communicate in a comprehensive or realistic way, and can become digital simulations if the search for realism is extreme.

Sket

ch

Mechanisms of Representation

Strong capabilities Some capabilities

Traditional Digital

Axon

omet

ric

Pers

pect

ive

Vide

o

Dig

ital

Envi

ronm

ents

Col

lage

Visu

aliz

atio

n

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Phys

ical

Mod

.

Dig

ital M

od.

Dia

gram

Orth

ogon

alPr

ojec

tions

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Com

mun

icat

ive

T.03_Synthesis of representative qualities of traditional mechanisms and digital mechanisms.

6

The post-digital drawing can be considered a system that derives from the combination of the visualization with the collage, blending characteristics of a traditional mechanism and a digital one. It is a collage of image fragments from various origins (photographs, drawings, paintings), manipulated with digital tools such as Photoshop, which allow mixing, modifying and juxtaposing elements, working and softening their connections and limits and creating a cohesive and comprehensive graphic set that keeps the dialogue between the architect and the spectator open (Jacob, 2017, Jacob, 2018). In this context, the post-digital drawing maintains the abilities of the qualitative and experiential representation of the mechanisms that are in its base, and acquires the ideational capabilities of the collage, allowing the discussion and development of the design (Table T.05). The image fragments referring to drawings and paintings that compose the collage comprise a system that is less realistic than the visualization, moving away from simulations, while still remaining within the scope of comprehensive communication (Scheme S.02).

Therefore, digital systems should not be understood as a substitution of traditional methods, but as a complement to them, creating new opportunities to express and communicate architectural ideas.

3.3_Hybrid Systems

Mechanisms that have their origin in the combination of others, acquiring some characteristics of each of them, are established in this thesis as hybrid systems. In this sub-chapter, these systems are addressed through the analysis of three case studies: the sectional perspective, the post-digital drawing and the projected model.

The sectional perspective combines two traditional mechanisms: the section - orthogonal projection - and the perspective (Lewis, Tsurumaki & Lewis, 2016; Ching & Juroszek, 2018). The sectional perspective acquires the qualities of both orthogonal projections, particularly the possibility of representing quantitatively, as well as the perspective, namely the ability to represent the qualitative and experiential features of the object. Thus, this hybrid system offers the opportunity to represent simultaneously the quantitative, qualitative and experiential aspects (Table T.04). In communicative terms, it is a system which combines the abstract nature of the section with the realism of the perspective, constituting a mechanism that is more comprehensive than the section, but is still found in the field of the emphatic representation (Scheme S.01).

#01_Sectional perspective of the Bow-Wow House, Atelier Bow-Wow, 2005.

Source: Lewis, P., Tsurumaki, M. & Lewis D. (2016) Manual of Section, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Enfática

Comprensiva

Pers

pect

ive

Col

lage

Post

-Dig

ital

Dra

win

g

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Visu

aliz

atio

n

Com

unic

ativ

a

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Phys

ical

Mod

el

Proj

ecte

d M

odel

Vide

o

Dia

gram

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Sect

iona

lPe

rspe

ctiv

e

Orth

ogon

alPr

ojec

tions

T.04_Representative capabilities of the sectional perspective.

Emphatic

Collage

Visualization

Post-DigitalDrawing

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Ortogonal Projection

Perspective

SectionalPerspective

Diagram+ Video

PhysicalModel

Projected Model

S.01_Communicative capabilities of the sectional perspective.

7

than diagrammatic video due to the tangibility of the physical model, but continues to communicate emphatically (Scheme S.03).

Thus, each hybrid mechanism acquires the characteristics of the tools that compose it, enhancing the representation and communication of architectural ideas. These systems offer multiple combinations between traditional mechanisms, digital mechanisms and hybrid systems, giving rise to a multitude of expressive solutions that enrich the graphic representation and communication in the architectural design.

The projected model emerged from an experience developed in an academic environment that aimed to present an urban rehabilitation strategy for the city of Mindelo, Cape Verde, and the topography was a determining factor in its configuration. This system results from the reconciliation of a hybrid system - a diagrammatic video - with a traditional mechanism - a physical model of the terrain. The projected model enables the simultaneous representation of quantitative and qualitative aspects of the project (Table T.06). In communicative terms, this system is less abstract

#02_Interior view of Casa na Rua do Paraíso, Fala Atelier (2016).Source: https://falaatelier.com/048

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Enfática

Comprensiva

Pers

pect

ive

Col

lage

Post

-Dig

ital

Dra

win

g

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Visu

aliz

atio

n

Com

unic

ativ

a

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Phys

ical

Mod

el

Proj

ecte

d M

odel

Vide

o

Dia

gram

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Sect

iona

lPe

rspe

ctiv

e

Orth

ogon

alPr

ojec

tions

T.05_Representative capabilities of the post-digital drawing.

Emphatic

Collage

Visualization

Post-DigitalDrawing

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Ortogonal Projection

Perspective

SectionalPerspective

Diagram+ Video

PhysicalModel

Projected Model

S.02_Communicative capabilities of the post-digital drawing.

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Enfática

Comprensiva

Pers

pect

ive

Col

lage

Post

-Dig

ital

Dra

win

g

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Quantitative

Qualitative

Experiential

Ideational

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Qua

litie

s

Visu

aliz

atio

n

Com

unic

ativ

a

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Phys

ical

Mod

el

Proj

ecte

d M

odel

Vide

o

Dia

gram

Enfática

Comprensiva

Com

unic

ativ

a

Sect

iona

lPe

rspe

ctiv

e

Orth

ogon

alPr

ojec

tions

T.06_Representative capabilities of the projected model.

#03_Diagram of the evolution of the city of Mindelo projected on a physical model.

Emphatic

Collage

Visualization

Post-DigitalDrawing

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Emphatic

Comprehensive

Ortogonal Projection

Perspective

SectionalPerspective

Diagram+ Video

PhysicalModel

Projected Model

S.03_Communicative capabilities of the projected model.

8

representation and communication solutions adapted to the characteristics and needs of each architectural design.

Therefore, by understanding the representative capabilities and limits of the available mechanisms, the architect can create expressive solutions adapted to the needs of the project, enhancing the representation and communication of architectural ideas.

In conclusion, digital processes created new representative and communicative possibilities, and boosted the Hybrid SyStem, giving rise to a multitude of new mechanisms that enrich the representation and communication of architectural design.

Can these Hybrid SyStemS give rise to new ways of conceptualizing architecture?

Future developments

This thesis establishes the Hybrid SyStem as a reality in the graphic representation and communication of architectural design. Therefore, it is of interest to study how these systems can influence the creative process.

Bibliography

Alexandre, A. F. (2017) “A Maquete “Inteligente”. Modelação em Arquitectura. Pesquisa, Desenvolvimento e Comunicação do Projecto”, Tese de Mestrado em Arquitectura, Técnico Lisboa - UL, Lisboa.

Allen, S. (1998) “Diagrams Matter” ANY: Architecture New York, nº 23, pp. 16-19.

Barbarash, D. (2016) “Representation Stigma: Perception of tools and processes for design graphics”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, Volume 5, pp.477-488.

Campo Baeza, A. (2019) “Keynote 1: When Most I Wink: On Drawings in Architecture”, em C.L.Marcos (ed), Graphic Imprints: The Influence of Representation and Ideation Tools in Architecture, Springer, Switzerland, pp. xvii-xviii.

Carreiro, M. & Pinto, P. (2013) “The Evolution of Representation in Architecture”, em J. P.Sousa & J. P. Xavier (eds), Future Traditions: Rethinking traditions and envisioning the future in architecture through the use of digital technologies, FAUP, Porto, pp. 27-38.

Ching, F. & Juroszek, S. (2018) Design Drawing, 3ª ed., John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Cocozza, F. (2017) “Axonometry: The Grip of Thought on Space—A Short Survey on the Relation between the

4_Conclusion

Graphic representation and communication are essential in the architectural design process, since they enable the continuous development and improvement of design solutions. For several centuries, architectural design was represented through three-dimensional physical designs and physical models, but the digital world brought forward new ways of expressing architecture, as a result of technological advances.

Representation is not a static or complete product, being able to evoke reality to the mind of those who perceive it. It has several qualities, namely the quantitative, the qualitative, the experiential, the ideational and the communicative emphatic or comprehensive. These set up the basis for the study of the representative capabilities and limits of the different mechanisms, being organized into four categories - drawing, image manipulation, tHree-dimenSional modelS and digital environmentS. The analysis culminated in the elaboration of a synthesis table, which expresses, in a general way, the representative capabilities of each mechanism studied.

The synthesis table facilitated the understanding of the most advantageous mechanisms for each type of representation. After a reorganization of this synthesis table, it was possible to establish the differences between the representative capabilities of traditional and digital mechanisms. Hence, it was first concluded that digital systems do not replace traditional systems, but can be considered as a complement to these, since they create new opportunities to represent and communicate architectural ideas.

Three examples of hybrid systems were studied, namely the sectional perspective, the post-digital drawing and the projected model. These result from the combination of mechanisms and acquire characteristics of the tools that compose them.

Firstly, the analysis emphasized the idea that hybrid systems have been used since the Renaissance. Second, it has demonstrated that it is possible to reconcile traditional mechanisms, digital mechanisms and hybrid systems, creating a multitude of expressive design solutions. Finally, it revealed that it is possible to create customized

9

Act of Planning and a Visionary Visualization Technique” Proceedings, volume 1(9), p.884-894.

Cruz, M. (2012) “A Arquitectura é Lenta a absorver Novos Conceitos”, J.A - Jornal dos Arquitectos: Ser Digital, Volume 244, pp. 33-43.

Deen, W. & Garritzmann, U. (2010) “Diagramming the Contemporary: OMA’s Little Helper in the Quest for the New”, em M. Garcia (ed) AD: The Diagrams of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 228-235.

Dernie, D. (2014) Architectural Drawing, 2ª ed., Laurence King Publishing Ltd, London.

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K. (2011) BIM Handbook - A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors, 2ª ed, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Edwards, B. (2008) Understanding Architecture Through Drawing, 2º ed., Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon.

Eisenman Architects (2018) <https://eisenmanarchitects.com> [30 Julho 2018].

Farrely, L. (2008) Basics Architecture 01: Representational Techniques, AVA Publishing, Lausanne.

Fiel, M & Calvet, J. (2018) “Interactive Experience in Virtual Environments as a Project Tool”em E Perea & E. Valiente (eds) Architectural Draughtmanship: From Analog to Digital Narratives, Springer, Switzerland, 1021-1031.

Forget, T. (2013) The Construction of Drawings and Movies: Models for Architectural Design and Analysis, Routledge, New York.

Frampton, K., Kolbowski, S. (1981) Idea as Model, Rizzoli International Publications, New York.

Frascari, M. (2007) From Models to Drawing: Imagination and Representation in Architecture, Routledge, New York.

Fuente Suárez, L. (2016) “Towards Experiential Representation in Architecture”, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, volume 40 (1), pp. 47-58.

Garcia, M. (2010) “Introduction. Histories and Theories of the Diagrams of Architecture”, em M. Garcia (ed) AD: The Diagrams of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 18-45.

Grobman, Y., Yezioro, A. & Capeluto, I. (2010) “Non-Linear Architectural Design Process”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, Volume 8, pp. 41-56.

Herron, S. (2013) “Plug-in, Clip-on, Tune-up: A Throwaway Architecture with Optional Extras” em N. Spiller (ed) AD: Drawing Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 94-101.

Jacob, S. (2017) “Architecture Enters the Age of Post-Digital Drawing”, Metropolis <https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/architecture-enters-age-post-digital-drawing/pic/22610/> [15 Abril 2019]

Jacob, S. (2018) “Rendering: The Cave of the Digital”, e-flux: Architecture and Representation <https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/representation/167503/rendering-the-cave-of-the-digital/> [15 Abril 2019]

Jerald, J. (2016) The VR Book. Human-Centered Design for

Virtual Reality, Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool, New York.

Kalay, Y. E. (2004) Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, MIT Press, Massachusets.

Kensek, K. & Noble, D. (2014) Building Information Modelling - BIM in Current and Future Practice, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Kolarevic, B. (2003) Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press: Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon.

Krikke, J. (2000) “Axonometry: A Matter of Perspective” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Volume 20(4), pp.7-11.

Kullmann, K. (2014) “Hyper-Realism and Loose-Reality: The Limitations of Digital Realism asn Alternative Principles in Landscape Design Visualization”, Journal of Landscape Architecture, Vol. 9(3), pp.20-31.

Lawson, B. (2004) What Designer’s Know, Elsevier, Oxford.

Lawson, B. (2005) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4º ed. Elsevier, Oxford.

Lewis, P., Tsurumaki, M. & Lewis D. (2016) Manual of Section, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Linder, M. (2012) “Images and Other Stuff”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 66(1) pp.3-8.

Llópez, E., Verdú, J., Piqueras, J. & Ríos, J. (2019) “Heritage Dissemination Trough the Virtual and Augmented Reality” em C.L.Marcos (ed), Graphic Imprints: The Influence of Representation and Ideation Tools in Architecture, Springer, Switzerland, pp. 623-632.

Maldonado, J.,Trujillo, J., Abad, S., Millán, M., Proviciales, J. & Raya, M. (2018) “Virtual Reality as a Tool for Environmental Evaluation of Architectural Environments” em E Perea & E. Valiente (eds) Architectural Draughtmanship: From Analog to Digital Narratives, Springer, Switzerland, 889-904.

Medina, S. (2017) “Why Architectural Collage Is Important to These Three Chicago Architecture Biennial Participants”, Metropolis <https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/architectural-collage/pic/29040/> [15 Abril 2019]

Morris, M. (2006) Models: Architecture and the Miniature, Wiley-Academy, Weinheim.

Moon, K. (2005) Modeling Messages: The Architect and the Model, The Monacelli Press, New York.

Pallasmaa, J. (2011) The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Picon, A. (2010) Digital Culture in Architecture, Birkhäuser, Basel.

Rodríguez, M., Desvaux, N. & Álvaro-Tordesillas, A. (2019) “Makers of Atmospheres: The Image Beyond the Architecture” em C.L.Marcos (ed), Graphic Imprints: The Influence of Representation and Ideation Tools in Architecture, Springer, Switzerland, pp. 857-866.

Scheer, D. R. (2014) The Death of Drawing: Architecture in the Age of Simulation, Routhledge, New York.

10

Sousa, J. P. (2010) “From Digital to Material: Rethinking Cork in Architecture Through the Use of CAD/CAM Technologies”, Tese de Doutoramento em Arquitectura, UTL - Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa.

Spallone, R. (2019) “Twenty Century Design Drawings in Italy: The Case of Aldo Morbelli and Carlo Mollino” em C.L.Marcos (ed), Graphic Imprints: The Influence of Representation and Ideation Tools in Architecture, Springer, Switzerland, pp. 156-168.

Suárez, E. & Labory, E. (2015) “Sketches and Diagrams in Initial Stages of Architectural Design”, EGA - Expressión Gráfica Arquitectónica, Vol. 26, pp 58-67.

Tibúrcio, T. & Monnerat, L. (2012) “Revising the teaching of technical drawing: New technologies creating new paradigms”, 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Villach, 26-28 Setembro. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6402208> [ 20 Março 2019].

Trienal de Arquitectura de Lisboa (2019), “Concurso Prémio Universidades Trienal de Lisboa Millennium bcp”, <https://www.trienaldelisboa.com/open-calls-pt/d/opencalls_t2019-universidades> [28 Março 2019]