<p>yeah, it's still stick figures for me. but that's definitely not saying someone's not creative in other ways. but would this be considered a problem for a student just entering college for architecture?</p>
<p>same situation over here... I am really good at other techniques, but my drawing skills are not nearly as good...</p>
<p>well-- it depends- you need to be able to communicate with a pencil, however it would very much depend on what you "can't do"= there are a lot of architects, past and present, that don't draw in a very traditional way but instead develop their own style that becomes a very efficient mode of communication. Look at Gehry's or Corbusier’s sketches and you will see what I mean. I would relate it to being able to spatially visualize well, yet trying to draw with your non-dominant hand. Your technical skills don’t have to be great- but you do need to be able to think spatially and design.</p>
<p>architects draw as a tool to communicate to other people. it's one way for architects to express ideas to others...so being able to communicate spatially and being able to 'see' things spatially and by hand are really important. architects draw to communicate an idea..and minimally. you rarely see architects draw realistically and in complete depiction because a realistic depiction of what you see may not necessarily communicate what you want the drawing to speak, isolate, or communicate.</p>
<p>and besides, all the realistic depictions for clients are all done by computer software nowadays...and all the technical drawings done on AutoCAD.</p>
<p>le corbusier's drawings look like kid drawings. they are drawn with crayons and seem like it was drawn in a minute or two. yet they communicate ideas very well. architects communicate, not necessarily represent as an artist would</p>
<p>"architects communicate, not necessarily represent as an artist would"</p>
<p>I have a great many artist friends who would take great offense at that comment. The idea of representation as a goal in its own would not fall well with the modern concept of the artist's role. However, if the artist is seen as a creater of representative images, your comment does hold true.</p>
<p>What can be said is that while the artist creates an object to communicate an idea, an architect's sketch is an object created to communicate an object - the building - that in turn will communicate an idea. That is, the architect's sketch is in a sense one step further removed from the idea in itself.</p>
<p>Of course, the sketch can also be seen as the mediator between the idea and the building. And as such would in fact be closer to the idea than the building in itself. </p>
<p>Sorry for going off topic, and I'm sure someone could sketch a nice diagrammatic drawing outlining the relationships between idea, sketch and building.</p>
<p>The thing is....I have an impression that most arch school want you to have lotz of Fine Arts pieces..like watercolor paintings...</p>