Drawing practice: revealing collectivity within architectural complexity
Defry Agatha Ardianta, Yandi Andri Yatmo, Paramita AtmodiwirjoPurpose
This paper explores architectural complexity through drawing practice by investigating collectivity as an inherent condition of architecture. It seeks to expand the discourse on architectural representation by positioning drawing not only as a tool of representation but as an open, investigative process capable of revealing relational, paradoxical and temporal dimensions of architectural knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach
The study adopts a qualitative, practice-based research approach using hybrid drawing as both method and medium of inquiry. A case study of the Peneleh Dutch Cemetery in Surabaya, Indonesia, is explored through proposition-driven drawing practices, including line drawing, tracing, superimposition, video recording and three-dimensional scanning. These practices are accompanied by reflection-in-action and abstraction to examine how collectivity emerges through form, condition and time.
Findings
The drawing practices reveal collectivity as a paradoxical and the idea of altogetherness, where partiality and wholeness, intention and indeterminacy, and stability and change coexist simultaneously. Architectural complexity is shown to arise not from singular entities, but from the collective presence of fragments, conditions and temporal layers. Drawing, when treated as an open process, exposes these relationships beyond conventional representational limits.
Research limitations/implications
This study is limited by its reliance on a single case study and a specific set of drawing practices developed in relation to the Peneleh Dutch Cemetery. While this focused context allows for in-depth exploration, it limits the generalisability of the findings. Future research could extend this approach to different architectural typologies, cultural contexts or scales to test the applicability of drawing as an open, collective research method. The study also opens implications for further methodological development of practice-based drawing research, particularly through computational, participatory or cross-disciplinary approaches.
Practical implications
The findings suggest that architects and designers can employ drawing as an exploratory and critical tool rather than merely a representational one. Drawing practices that embrace openness, fragmentation and indeterminacy can support design processes that engage with complexity, time and collective conditions more effectively. This approach encourages designers to reconsider conventional drawing conventions and to integrate alternative technique, such as tracing, layering and time-based media, into design frameworks to enrich architectural thinking and decision-making.
Social implications
By revealing architecture as a collective and evolving condition, this research highlights the social dimensions embedded within architectural spaces. The drawing practices foreground everyday activities, traces and informal uses that are often overlooked in formal representations. This perspective encourages greater sensitivity toward social presence, memory and lived experience in architectural analysis and design. Recognising collectivity through drawing can support more inclusive and socially responsive approaches to architecture, particularly in contexts where space is shaped by continuous negotiation among diverse users and temporal conditions.
Originality/value
This research contributes a methodological framework that positions drawing as a form of architectural research and knowledge production. By re-articulating drawing as an open and argumentative practice, the study offers a novel way of understanding architectural complexity through collectivity.