TOM NGO

CATRINA STEWART

JESEN TANADI

OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS

PERRY KULPER
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

75 INDEX
T
A 77 Tom Ngo
B
L 78 Catrina Stewart
E
79 Jesen Tanadi

5 FOREWORD
OF
80 Olalekan Jeyifous
C
O 81 Perry Kulper
N
T 6 Three Years of Labor: A Prologue
E
N 8 A Word of Introduction
T
S 10 The Labor of Architectural Drawing

13 FIVE BY FIVE
T
14 Tom Ngo A
B

83 ANNOTATIONS
26 Catrina Stewart L
E
38 Jesen Tanadi
OF
50 Olalekan Jeyifous
84 Acknowledgements C
62 Perry Kulper O
85 Colophon N
T
E
N
T
S

AN OPENING STATEMENT FIG.01

5
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

In January 2013 The Draftery re-launched with a new
brand: we built a new website, adopted a new logo and
type identity, and restructured our entire project. The
Draftery became a full fledged institution with the goal
of promoting the role of architectural drawing in the
world. Having been active for a year and a half prior, our
rebranding sharpened our looks, squared our edges, and
moved us away from our original format, towards a model
that looked something more like a publishing house. In
the months since that transformation, we’ve continued to
make changes; in addition to showcasing each drafter’s
personal rhetoric, materials, and processes, we’ve solidi-
fied our editorial voice and allowed some of our critical
stance to shine through. Now, on the eve of our third
Jesen will now act as the Designer and Design Director
of The Draftery. Originally brought on to act as an Editor
for Figures, Athan’s role in The Draftery has slowly grown
to include a significant administrative role and the de-
velopment and launch of The Draftery’s new publication,
Captions. Similar to Jesen’s disciplinary shift, Athan has
stepped momentarily away from the professional prac-
tice of architecture to study and write history. While pur-
suing an advanced degree in Architectural History, Athan
will assume the role of primary Curator and Editor of all
of The Draftery’s activities.
Since we launched The Draftery virtually nothing
has turned out as we had planned. We never expected
this project or our interests in the conversation about
architecture will act and remain relevant. Drawing spans
a spectrum that extends from our mind’s inner recesses
to an infinite digital reattribution; and it touches archi-
tecture at every intuitive, social, political, and personal
moment along the way. Building may be able to take place
without architecture, but architecture is only a discipline
because of drawing.
While some things are drastically different from the
very first iteration of The Draftery, we are confident that
our intentions and our mission have remained the same.
Our ad-hoc model has allowed us to accommodate the
many changes we’ve had to constantly make in order to ATHANASIOU GEOLAS
improve ourselves and expand our reach; and we appreci-
ate all the patience and support we’ve experienced along

anniversary, we are readying ourselves for another, more
subtle, kind of change.
Fig.01: An Opening Statement was originally pub-
lished in January of 2012. The release of a second
edition of Fig.01 celebrates the three years that we have
drawing to last this long. More importantly—and we are
quite positive it’s because we didn’t know what we were
getting ourselves into—we never expected to have learned
as much as we have. For instance, did you know that ar-
chitectural drawing was an esoteric topic? Perhaps, like
THREE
the way. And so, without fear of redundancy: our mission
is to provide a limited context and focused commentary
on the ways in which drawings engage the world through
their making—to dispel the belief that drawing is dead.

kept The Draftery alive by looking back to the very first
publication that brought us here in the first place. It
also marks a shift in both our publishing model and our
internal structure.
The original versions of Fig.01 and Fig.02 were made
YEARS OF
the two of us, such an assertion seemed impossible fol-
lowing so many years in architecture school where ques-
tions of architectural representation and the role of
intuition in “intelligent mark-making” was commonplace.
Now we know. It is is easy to enjoy looking at draw-

possible through a collaboration with BOOKLET, a small
press based in Tokyo. While developing Fig.03, we came
6 to realize that our aspirations for the physical manifesta-
tion of Figures required that we take complete control
over both the content and the format of Figures; and so,
we decided to self-publish. In hindsight, perhaps we would
have made a different decision had we really known what
we were getting ourselves into.
LABOR:
ings, but it is difficult to present the often dense and
jargon-filled conversation that surrounds them. But this
is exactly what The Draftery continues to concern itself 7
with: the earnest presentation of “what we talk about when JESEN TANADI
we talk about drawing.” As Perry Kulper writes, “Draw-
ings are not innocent…” Of the many precisely relevant
comments Kulper makes throughout his essay, here we’ll
mention only one at length because with it he brings us

Self-publishing carries with it a large set of chal-
lenges, which are nearly insurmountable for a small entity
such as The Draftery. Funding, marketing, distribution,
and (the entirely unexpected requirements of) customer
service were some of the real-world challenges that we
A
directly to the point:
Drawings are not innocent: they protect and
foreground a range of biases and conceits,
and patrol and occasionally transgress
ethical, political, and representational ter-

soon confronted head on—not to mention, of course, all
the other concerns that plague the construction of a jour-
nal, such as its contents, design, and basic administration.
Owing to conversations with our friends and their invalu-
able suggestions—most notably from Ethel Baraona Pohl
PRO-
rains. Drawings can play substantial roles
in the generative practices of design and
in the technical description of material and
form, but they can also be deceitful and
uncompromising accomplices that favor a

of dpr-barcelona—we have decided to move ahead with a
Print-on-Demand and digital distribution model. Fig.01.2
will be our first attempt.
Three years may not be all that long in a profes-
sional setting, but for us, that time has led to significant
transitions in our disciplinary alignments. Jesen initially
founded The Draftery as part of his personal design prac-
tice; it was an excuse for him to legitimize his research
and catalogue of architectural drawings. Now however,
his personal design practice no longer includes architec-
tural drawings; in fact, his interests and training have shift-
ed to a new discipline: graphic design. With this change,
LOGUE
complacency of fancy, visual delight, and
seduction (which at times is a useful role
of drawing) over insightful and revelatory
discoveries. And while highly visible, archi-
tectural drawings—our representational
partners in crime—remain in the blind spots
of the profession, frequently accepted and
deployed uncritically.
The Draftery continues to believe that drawing in
any form, and by any method, matters. We continue to
believe that it is through drawing—the architect’s means
of self-reflexive and critical action—that the discipline of

ANNOTATIONS ANNOTATIONS
 FIG.01
A WORD
OF
The act of collecting has always been important to me:
seeking, gathering, and cross-referencing are part of
my ritual.
In the summer of 2011, I started The Draftery as
a small digital archive. It was a way for me to share,
with relative ease, an image bank lying dormant on my
hard drive.
At first, the only criteria used to select an image
for the collection was whether I liked it or found it inspir-
ing. Once the collection was shared publicly, however, it
needed to be structured, categorized, and indexed. The
website—the original platform for this publication—con-
tained the following tenets used to aid in the selection
and organization of the work:
8 The Draftery is a digital archive curated/put
together / collected by Jesen Tanadi.
The Draftery locates itself at the intersection /
jumble / mish-mash of architectural represen-
tation, drawing, and printmaking.
The Draftery promotes the lost art and practice of
the meticulously / slowly / painfully executed
hand-made drawings and prints.
The Draftery provides contemporary alternatives
to the overly-published / way-too-shiny /
disturbingly normative imageries widely
available today.
The Draftery champions those who haven’t traded
their craft / skill / care for the expediency /
ease / uniformity of the current digital age.
This framework still holds.
FOREWORD
AN OPENING STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
JESEN TANADI
With the encouragement of Évita Yumul of BOOKLET, I
began work on a version of The Draftery that would be
bound, published, and shared as a physical artifact—a
project that called for a rethinking of the roles of each out-
let, the printed and the digital. While the website serves
as a kind of public “flat-file,” providing an array of images
by various architects and artists, the book allows for a
more careful, direct, and intimate examination.
Unlike the website, the publication’s capacity lies in
the space for contributors to elaborate on their personal
rhetoric and the processes involved in their creative prac-
tices. In other words, the publication offers a glimpse of
“what we talk about when we talk about drawing.” On a
more personal note, the publication became an excuse
for me to work more closely with the contributors, to the 9
extent that we acted more like collaborators.
Now, The Draftery is no longer merely a digital ar-
chive. And while it continues as a personal collection, I
must include and credit others: the more-than-amazing
publishing team; the ever-so-patient editors; and the un-
believably-awe-inspiring contributors. I hope this is only
the first of many future editions; but more importantly, I
hope you enjoy the work featured here—works of time,
of effort and, of care.
A WORD OF INTRODUCTION
 FIG.01
FRAMING DRAWING
THE LA-
The traditional realization of design through drawing is
under fire: once an undeniable ally of the architect’s
practice, it has lost some of its conceptual, practical, and
disciplinary value. Its latent capacities, its mediating
roles, and its potential for creative engagement with
BOR
diverse ideas in a project are on the wane.
As the range for architectural expression grows, the
architect’s tool kit for moving from ideas to architecture
is shrinking—or at least becoming increasingly self-
similar. While there are many provocative questions and
OF
considerations attached to this observation, the architec-
tural drawing is one of a number of real and discursive
locations for broadening the scope of architectural
design. In the process, we may discover what it is about
architecture that the architect might draw.
ARCHI-
A diverse array of provocative topics belongs to the
critical positioning of the potential roles of architectural
drawing. These include: the ethics of imaging, visualizing,
and drawing; distances between drawings and built archi-
tecture; spatial temporality envisaged through the act
TEC-
of drawing; the conditions of conception and experience
that elude the conventions of drawing; the act of drawing
that which is not targeted for picturing, or imaging, archi-
tecture; and drawings as autonomous objects in the world,
full of potential, independent of their so-called content.
TURAL
10
DRAWN OUT
In the words of Robin Evans, “architects do not make
buildings, they make drawings for buildings.” Unlike other
disciplines—like poets who write poems, cartographers
DRAW-
who construct maps and filmmakers who produce films—
architects rarely make architecture. This history is
evolving—partially as a result of the new relationships
between digital applications and fabrication processes,
and because of the shift of the architect’s roles. However,
ING
architects and the means by which they convey infor-
mation about architecture generally remain at various
kinds of distances from the fruits of their labor:
built architecture.
Drawings in general—and architectural drawings
PERRY KULPER specifically—are lodged deep in our cultural and disci-
plinary histories, spanning a wide array of definitions and
interpretations—this is their legacy. Drawings are not
innocent: they protect and foreground a range of biases
and conceits, and patrol and occasionally transgress
ethical, political, and representational terrains. Drawings
can play substantial roles in the generative practices of
design and in the technical description of material and
form, but they can also be deceitful and uncompromising
accomplices that favor a complacency of fancy, visual
delight, and seduction (which at times is a useful role
of drawing) over insightful and revelatory discoveries.
And while highly visible, architectural drawings—our
FOREWORD
AN OPENING STATEMENT
representational partners in crime—remain in the blind
spots of the profession, frequently accepted and de-
ployed uncritically.
Historically, the architectural drawing has been
motivated by ideas—conception—on the one hand, and
by a projection of material make up—construction—on
the other. We make assumptions that relations exist
between the surfaces of speculation (the architectural
drawing) and the surfaces of construction (the building),
but what those relations are, what they mean, and how
they are changing should not be taken for granted or
accepted without reflection. As the roles of the architect
change, so too should the roles and status of the archi-
tectural drawing.
Implicit in the act of drawing is a psychological and
visual confession where secrets, intentions, and secret
intentions are encountered. Here, conditions of society,
site, program, and graphic demonstration converge as
the architect acts as a metaphorical conductor and mystic,
orchestrating social, political and personal values. The
drawing, as an accomplice, operates at the dense and
tangled intersection of circumstance, cultural import,
and creative identity, providing moments of coordination
and landmarks for navigation for the architect. It is a
metaphorical Bermuda Triangle for the secret sojourns
and wanderings of the creative mind, simultaneously
grounded and wild. The drawing is a kind of visual al-
chemic cauldron for untold stories in a quest for meaning-
ful engagement and psychological metamorphosis with
the world as it exists—or with a world that might exist.
Drawing is a psychological risk: an authorial vulner-
ability, front and center. Confronting the white drawing
surface—now a black, or empty, screen—is an act of
transgression. Carried out in the conceptual daylight of
the blank drawing surface, this face-off or confrontation
is feared by the drawing, the surface, and the architect
alike. The act of drawing is an assault on whiteness—on
absence—once started, destined to finish: a radical
expanse of mark-making in which the hidden agendas
of the author face the possibility of coming out into the
public arena of cultural, spatial, and creative accountabil-
ity—a moment of ethical and cultural reckoning.
The space of the architectural drawing is stable
yet vulnerable. Its histories are established and waiting
to be written, its potential concrete and invisible. In the
drawing of space and the space of drawing might we
attempt, if only momentarily, to forget the scenic surface
of the drawing and to think behind, beneath, and through
the surface, acting more like forensic detectives in the
x-rayed surface of mark-making? Could it be that we
can come to terms with the relational possibilities of
the drawing in addition to the static appearance of the
architectural image?
THE LABOR OF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING
FINALLY
No artist realigned the nature of artistic production more
than Marcel Duchamp. The readymades—the mass-pro-
duced objects he bought in the early 20th century—
overtly challenged a pair of historical trajectories for the
definition and production of art: one, that art should be
unique; and two, that art should be produced by highly
trained artists. By challenging the necessity of traditional
artistic labor, questioning the value of unique objects,
and establishing a potential coherence between objects
and activities of everyday life and the rarified realm of art,
Duchamp and his readymades arguably constituted the
most serious realignment of the categories of art and its
practices since the Renaissance.
By helping to liberate artists from conventional
means for producing work, Duchamp contributed to a
climate that opened and rewarded an increasingly trans-
parent and porous idea about the possibilities for art
and its production and cultural agency. Artists no longer
needed to satisfy themselves with the production of
unique and aesthetically driven objects. This new pos-
sibility challenged assumptions about what it was to be
an artist through a kind of double rejection in which many
artists stopped using traditional means for producing
art and stopped making work that was solely targeted
for the museum. Liberated from traditional working
skills, from the production of unique objects, and from 11
the dominance of the visual, this novel production of art
established new aesthetic criteria less concerned with
appearance and more concerned with ideas.
Upon reflection, the release of the artist from con-
ventional artistic practices and from the obligation to
fulfill his/her traditional roles have been substantial to the
questions, processes, and formations affecting the lineage
of my work—particularly my drawings. As a result, the
possibility for broadening the scope of the architectural
drawing has emerged. This broadening has enabled a
number of things to occur: not the least of which is the
emergence of the latent capacities of a drawing, combined
with a more varied conceptual range for an architectural
proposal. Both of these tendencies augment the tradi-
tional roles of the architectural drawing, opening another
channel in the discipline’s critical discourse.
The images of some of my drawings included here
establish a fabric of communicative relations that capi-
talize on some of the key questions posed through
Duchamp and the un-making of traditional artistic labor:
to paraphrase the art critic Saul Steinberg, “a shift from
the labor of art to the labor of work” towards effectuating
another range of cultural agency through the architec-
tural drawing.
13
 I use nonsense as a framework to challenge and play with-

TOM
in conventions of architecture. Within the work, I tug
and pull on proportions, incorporate redundancy, remove
functionality, and amalgamate concepts to make archi-
tectural oddities. The resulting images are allegories of
the (architecturally) impossible and illogical that employ

NGO
absurdity as a method.
Based on the belief that craft can be an illusion,
these drawings were made on the back of out-of-date
maps that had been discarded from a local library. They
are usually torn and folded many times over, giving the
drawings an abject quality. As a result, the work appears
disposable, which emphasizes content over contempo-
rary aesthetics.
I use this absurdity to breathe new life into an ar-
chitectural discourse that has been consumed by ef- 15
ficiency and economy. It is forthrightly about creating
something seemingly useless when we are all too often
concerned about making something useful. The act al-
lows us to be irrational and embrace an inherently human
trait; because the farther architecture moves away from
being human, the farther it moves from being art
ARCHITECTURAL ABSURDITY ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF VICTORIAN NONSENSE
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

16 17

FIVE BY FIVE TOM NGO

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

18 19

FIVE BY FIVE
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

20 21

FIVE BY FIVE TOM NGO

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

22 23

FIVE BY FIVE TOM NGO

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

24 25

FIVE BY FIVE TOM NGO

CATRINA
STEWART The following drawings were born from an extended pro-
cess of layering of stories and activities I imagined taking
LONDON CITY FARMHOUSE place in a London Farmhouse Tower. They were carefully
collaged and drawn to capture the spirit and life of the
building: the architecture is intended to be seen as a ma- 27
chine that is integrated within the daily activities of those
living in the community. Though the constructs may not
be structurally viable, they allow the viewer to experi-
ence the atmosphere of the building and its inhabitants.
These drawings also serve as a criticism of norma-
tive architectural representations that are devoid of life,
though we understand that life is what buildings are
made to house. Presented less as beautiful and isolated
objects, the drawings provide a glimpse of how the build-
ing would perform and affect the lives of those in it. They
represent how architectural spaces and forms could be
integrated, as well as aid the community and city they are
designed for.
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

30 31

FIVE BY FIVE CATRINA STEWART

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

32 33

FIVE BY FIVE CATRINA STEWART

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

34 35

FIVE BY FIVE CATRINA STEWART

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

36 37

FIVE BY FIVE
 BUT WHAT IF THE LIGHTS DON’T TURN BACK ON? I began the following drawings as abstract geometrical
investigations—looking into the relationships of moving
bodies in space—that manifest themselves as strange
machines. These machines explore, react to, and criticize
our everyday relationships with the built environment.
The work presented here consists of hand-drafted draw-
ings, taking into account the machine’s necessity to be
extremely precise, and though absurd, their capacity to
be completely realizable.
I saw these drawings as legible artifacts in and of

JESEN
themselves, and with the requirement that they serve as
pedagogical documents employed to provoke the imagi-
nations of the general public. With these drawings, I re-
imagined the role of the architect; not as a constructor of
space, but as a social provocateur, asking the public to

TANADI
once again engage with their built environment. 39
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

40 41

FIVE BY FIVE JESEN TANADI

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

42 43

FIVE BY FIVE
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

44 45

FIVE BY FIVE JESEN TANADI

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

46 47

FIVE BY FIVE JESEN TANADI

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

48 49

FIVE BY FIVE
 The series contains abstracted planimetric drawings

OLALEKAN
and eerily-serene cityscapes that suggest the changing
contours of urban settlements. They represent an idea
of a degenerate futurism, yet one might find similar
typologies and scenes in places such as the favelas of
Brazil and North Africa, and in overpopulated cities such

JEYIFOUS
as Lagos, Mexico City, and Mumbai. Though outputted
digitally, the drawings possess a textured and painterly
quality as a result of combining hand-drawn sketches,
industrial textures, surfaces of deteriorated paper, and
digital architectural models.
A constant interplay between digital and analog
processes is important in my work, resulting in a highly
layered set of documents. The drawings presented here
began as digital images that were output, drawn over and
scanned back into the computer in order to be retraced, 51
textured, and layered.

DEGENERATE FUTURISMS
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

52 53

FIVE BY FIVE OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

54 55

FIVE BY FIVE
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

56 57

FIVE BY FIVE OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

58 59

FIVE BY FIVE OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

60 61

FIVE BY FIVE OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS

PERRY
KULPER

THE DRAWING OF AGENCY I believe that the capacity of the architectural drawing
remains powerful.
These drawings were constructed by working ad-
ditively and subtractively, enabling the visualization of
design thinking. They accumulate potential, both latent 63
and real, because they were developed over extended pe-
riods of time. Representational borders are opened, sus-
taining broadly based ideational, critical, and material
design possibilities. Communicatively, the drawings move
between hunches, certainties, and flat-out shots in the
dark towards cultural and spatial agency. Linked to the
lineage of collage making, they contain cryptic—or
glyphic—languages of proto-architectural marks,
words, and images, oscillating in a tensional play bet-
ween the language of representation and the language
of architecture.
Made of graphite, found imagery, cut paper, tape,
and transfer letters, they produce ambient surfaces
that tease coded—or indexical—marks. Instrumental
practices are crossed with provocative language toward
a synthetic, but incomplete and strangely familiar whole.
Akin to puzzles, geographic matrices, or taxonomical
inventories, the drawings establish a range of relation-
ships known, discovered, and lost and what it is about
architecture that the architect might dare to draw.
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

64 65
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

66 67

FIVE BY FIVE PERRY KULPER

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

68 69

FIVE BY FIVE PERRY KULPER

 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

70 71

FIVE BY FIVE
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

72 73

FIVE BY FIVE PERRY KULPER

75
 AN OPENING STATEMENT

16 – 17 Ghost-town Precious, 2008

16" × 14"
Colored pencil & graphite on found paper

TOM NGO
is an artist currently residing in Toronto, Canada. Using
absurdity as a rhetorical device, he questions (architec-
tural) conventions in his drafted drawings.

to.tomngo@gmail.com
tomngo.net
18 – 19 No Other Way, 2009
13" × 18"
Colored pencil & graphite on found paper

20 – 21 The Grass Grew There, 2008

23" × 16.5"
Colored pencil & graphite on found paper

22 – 23 Work and Home, 2010

23" × 29"
Colored pencil & graphite on found paper

24 – 25 The Owl, 2010

23" × 29"
Colored pencil & graphite on found paper

INDEX
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

40 – 41 Guerrilla Urban Parasol, 2011

22" × 30"
Graphite & ink on paper

CATRINA STEWART
is a recent architecture school graduate. Her work envi-
sions and proposes a new ad-hoc urban future and its
28 – 29 City Farmhouse Masterplan, 2011 implications on the city’s inhabitants in her home town of 42 – 43 Armature for Urban Fantasies, 2011
700mm × 1000mm London, England. 22" × 30"
Digital print on paper Graphite & ink on paper
catrina.stewart@yahoo.co.uk
catrinastewart.com

30 – 31 Methane Pink Storage Bags, 2011

JESEN TANADI
300mm × 400mm
Digital print on paper

is a designer and printmaker. He enjoys geometry, archi-

tectural hyperboles, and subterranean spaces and can be
found in Detroit, Michigan.

32 – 33 Farmhouse Communal Kitchens, 2011 jt@thedraftery.com

300mm × 400mm jesentanadi.com
Digital print on paper

44 – 45 The Geographer's Den and Mapping Machine, 2011

22" × 30"
Graphite & ink on paper

34 – 35 Electric Eel Powered Lift, 2011

300mm × 400mm
Digital print on paper 46 – 47 The Yard, Measuring the Yard, 2011
22" × 30"
Graphite & ink on paper

48 – 49 A Roof for the South Street Power Plant, 2011

36 – 37 London Farmhouse Elevation, 2011 22" × 30"
700mm × 1000mm Graphite & ink on paper
Digital print on paper

INDEX INDEX
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

52 – 53 Urban-Growth Strategy #01, part 1, 2008

16.5" × 16.5" 64 – 65 David's Island Strategic Plot, 1999
Digital media on paper 24" × 36"
Graphite, ink, text found imagery, x-rays, foil,
photographs, transfer letters and film, cut 66 – 67 Central California History Museum,
paper & tape on Mylar Thematic Drawing, 2002
24" × 36"
Graphite, ink, found imagery, cut paper,
acetate, transfer letters & tape on Mylar

OLALEKAN JEYIFOUS
seamlessly combines digital and analog media as an artist
and designer based in Brooklyn, New York. His work
depicts dystopian urban visions. 68 – 69 Central California History Museum, Section, 2011
24" × 36"
hello@vigilism.com Graphite, found imagery, cut paper, paint chips,
vigilism.com transfer letters & tape on Mylar

54 – 55 The Central City Settlement, 2008

60" × 40"
Digital media on paper

70 – 71 Central California History Museum,

Muse Drawing Machine, 2009
24" × 36"
Graphite, found imagery, cut paper & tape on Mylar

56 – 57 Urban-Growth Strategy #01, part 2, 2008

16.5" × 16.5"
Digital media on paper

72 – 73 Fast Twitch, Section, 2011

58 – 59 Urban-Growth Strategy #01, part 3, 2008 22" × 30"
16.5" × 16.5" Graphite, digital imagery, maps, satellite

PERRY KULPER
Digital media on paper photo, cut paper, transfer letters and film &
tape on Mylar

creates his heavily-layered drawings in Ann Arbor, Mi-

chigan and teaches at University of Michigan’s Taubman
College of Architecture and Urban Planning. His interests
revolve around the role of representation in the produc-
tion of architecture.

pkulper@umich.edu
60 – 61 The Outer-City Settlement, 2008 sitemaker.umich.edu/pkulper/home
16.5" × 16.5"
Digital media on paper

INDEX INDEX
83
 FIG.01 AN OPENING STATEMENT

THE DRAFTERY COPYRIGHT

ACKNOWL-
The Draftery is a curated archive with multiple platforms. © 2014 The Draftery
We promote graphic works by lesser known architects, Drawings and texts © their respective authors, used in
artists, students, and other practitioners. It is a place for this publication with expressed permission.
the analysis and presentation of architectural drawings— All rights reserved.
a place to learn how each practitioner’s personal reason-

EDGE-
ing develops a distinct process.
Our mission is to provide a limited context and pointed
commentary on the ways in which drawings engage the
world through their making—to dispel the belief that
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in
any manner without the written permission from the
publisher, except in the context of reviews. Every
reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners
of copyright. Errors or omissions will be corrected in

MENTS
I’m still surprised at what The Draftery has turned out to drawing is dead. subsequent editions.
be… What began as a small digital archive has grown into
a (slightly) larger digital archive—but more importantly, it Visit us at www.thedraftery.com.
has become a networking tool and an excuse for my on-

COLO-
going research into the realm of representation & image- STAFF
making. I hope this first issue has given a memorable Athanasiou Geolas
introduction of things to come. Editor
Of course, with any project, there’s always a laun-
dry list of people one is truly grateful for: Jesen Tanadi

PHON
Thomas Gardner & Athan Geolas—Editors of The Designer
Draftery—for going through the process
with me; without their patience and critical Thomas Gardner
feedback, this publication would have fallen Advising Editor
apart right from the beginning.
Tom Ngo, Catrina Stewart, and Olalekan Jeyifous—
84 this issue’s contributors—for being great 85
sources of images and words; without their
hard work, The Draftery would never have FIGURES JOURNAL INFORMATION
had any content. Figures is a printed journal in which a small number of Fig.01.2: An Opening Statement
Last, but never least, Perry Kulper—this issue’s drafters are curated around a specific theme. Each issue ISBN 978-1-940623-01-6
main contributor—for not only providing us of Figures opens with an editorial statement and an essay Published by The Draftery, an imprint of Geolas Publishing
with great images, but also for writing an on drawing from one of the drafters. Following this often June 2014
exceptional essay that locates itself in the personal thought process, we present a series of draw- –
current trend of critical discourse in archi- ings that respond to the essay through their techniques, 8.5" � 11"
tectural representation; without his insight, processes, and visual rhetoric. While we open with words, CMYK
dedication, and patience while undergoing we let the drawings speak for themselves. Perfect bound
revisions, this publication would never have Printed & distributed through Blurb
carried the same weight. CONTRIBUTING DRAFTERS
Tom Ngo Designed by Jesen Tanadi
Catrina Stewart
Jesen Tanadi STOCKIST
Olalekan Jeyifous If you would like to carry this journal, please contact us at
Perry Kulper stockist@thedraftery.com

ANNOTATIONS ANNOTATIONS