Jenjoy’s response expresses my own. To add to this, I have noticed a strong leaning among my student peers toward computer aided graphics. Our professors attempt to impress on us the importance of hand rendering and our program is structured to teach design drawing first and computer graphics second. Still, despite this encouragement the midterm/final presentations are top heavy with computer aided rendering. I witnessed one studio presentation that challenged landscape architects, planners and architects to collaborate on the same project. Beautiful, complex computer rendered prints dominated the walls. One student created a smaller hand rendered drawing and a conceptual wall relief. Before the presentation this person expressed to me that she was concerned she was ‘out of place’ – that her work did not fit with the other presentations. But in the end her work was greatly admired. One prevailing comment to her from guest and professor critics alike was that they could really ‘feel’ what it would be like to be in her designed space. They said that they really wanted to be able to walk around (‘to be in ‘) that space. This example seems to me to touch the heart of the matter, which Jenjoy states below in her first paragraph. For me the two mediums have their purpose, process and end. I think that one form of graphic expression should not overshadow the other and both need to be developed. However it does seem that both in school and in landscape architecture firms (judging from the many professional websites I’ve viewed) electronic technology can tend to outpace the art of hand drawn graphics. It may be important to remember that the heart and soul connection is experienced differently in each medium. Ask what is lost and what is gained in terms of creative process and visual thinking if one technique is favored (or replaces) the other. My preference echoes my education, hand rendering is the primary underlying foundation of creative design thinking and computer aided rendering is its partner.
