The collection

Classical modernity in its final phase renounced all personal modes of expression in drawing, and even suppressed dialogue with it, so that the character of its representations as well as of its architecture became more impersonal.

The key problem of architecture, however, is the transformation of thought into reality. This is a long process, which can only happen with the help of drawing.

The transformation of this creativity should be achieved through pictures, sketches, plans and city visions and this is a stark contrast to the purely executive activity of the architect.

Architectural thought manifest itself not only in what is built; it first becomes immediately obvious in drawings. The visualisation of an idea enables a precise recognition of cultural attitudes, independent of the linguistic possibilities of expression.

The drawing releases the architect from the limitations of whether an idea can be realised and enables its precise formulation which can unfold in its complex entirety untainted by compromise. In this respect it is the purest form of architectural creativity. It remains what it was historically – a pioneering medium which gave impetus to new developments in building by rousing, stimulating and provoking.

It is not only the architectural will which is evident in architectural drawings. The technical style, the choice of motif and the styles of drawing and expression reveal the personality of the architect himself. They illuminate the correlation between the person and the transformation of his idea into his specific architecture. They define everything which makes any old buildings special.

If we consider drawing to be a part of the architects craft, then the method of developing architecture from the drawing or sketch certainly stands in contrast to the purely technocratic and abstract design process, which was common practice in the Sixties and Seventies from the last century at the time of the great architectural boom

This attitude towards architecture has made an impression on our cities for a long time. The politicians and architects of this generation have, however, not been able to supply the proof that quality of life can be measured by technological achievements.

Functional analysis and the simple fulfilment of spatial requirements lead to simplistic solutions – visions are left by the wayside. This is the reason why the architectural expression of our cities does not correspond to our cultural, technological and scientific position.

Nowadays influence of drawing on constructed architecture is stronger once again. As in the past, only a few architects get the chance to realise their impressions and, in this regard, artistic representation is the only was to preserve these visions and to pass them on.

The process of transforming architecture in a time of specialisation requires more precise and more objective information, otherwise misunderstandings and falsification of the original idea, are unavoidable. The picture of the architect as master builder, sculptor, and painter conflicts with the view of modern architects, who have made architecture a science through the industrialisation of buildings and thus introduced a process of anonymous building. Science and art have an equal share in this process. First and foremost however is thought.

We attempt to develop, with the help of sketches, concepts which are followed by a period of waiting and a period of self-criticism and reflection. This is all important when deciding whether a concept is pursued or not.

The basis of many sketches is fictitious and their content is solely dictated by the architect’s desire that they be “just so” and by the need to examine the soul of the projects concerned.

Our architectural vision is subordinate to a rational principle of geometries. The complexities of the place,, the functions and the overall plan overlie these simple geometries. In this respect genius is a decisive factor here. The specific atmosphere of the place should be reflected in the project and become apparent.

We do not believe that polemics are called for in architecture and urban development, not even as an escape ahead in a time which, despite huge scientific and technical as well as political an economic achievements, has become grey and unattractive in its everyday life through a worrying lack of cultural consciousness and sensibility.

Architecture and urban development should be bound into an open process in which the established form is constantly revised and newly interpreted. 

In this way, shaping the environment is not the invention of new for the sake of the new, but a creative act. The motif is the further development of what already exists.

The acknowledgement of accepted thought and the search for better solutions arising from the value of this experience is comparable with the tradition of the trades and contrasts to the throwaway culture. This attitude requires discipline and forms the basis for art with a social dimension.