Vol. 3 No. 5 (2026): Signifying Signs
Articles

Co-creation in Sketching Space

Simon Twose
Victoria University of Wellington

Published 2026-07-02

Keywords

  • Expanded Drawing,
  • Architectural experimentation,
  • Art Installation

How to Cite

Twose , S. (2026). Co-creation in Sketching Space. TRIBELON Journal of Drawing and Representation of Architecture, Landscape and Environment, 3(5), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.36253/tribelon-4091

Abstract

Co-creation in Sketching Space reflects on a series of experimental sketch installations developed within the ongoing research project Expanded Drawing, which investigates the limits and possibilities of architectural drawing through multi-modal, spatio-temporal in­stallations. The research aims to intensify the open characteristics of architectural drawing and redirect them toward domains beyond drawing itself, proposing open architectural sketching as a way of sensing complex phenomena, including open natural systems. It asks whether expanded architectural drawing can create new encounters with ungraspa­ble phenomena, and what these encounters might reveal about our relation to them. The paper discusses the latest works in Expanded Drawing, focusing on how they intensify and problematise drawing’s authorship. Co-creation 01, 02 and 03 are “inhabitable sketches” in which multiple authors sketch live in space and remotely via Zoom, responding to dynamic feedback from diverse spatial subjects and from video records of their own acts of sketching. These installations amplify authorial input from multiple entities, engaging performative, gestural, temporal, material, and sensorial dimensions. The paper examines the role of other-than-human authors, the complex attention of human drawers, and the agency of both the spaces where drawing is produced and the spaces it seeks to capture, map, signify, predict, or control. Drawing on Posthuman ontologies and the work of prac­titioners such as Kirsty Badenoch and Nikolaus Gansterer, the paper outlines an expand­ed mode of architectural drawing that challenges long-standing conventions and opens drawing to auscultatory possibilities: drawing as a sensing device capable of producing new knowledge of space and of our relation to it.

References

  1. M. Adrià (ed.), Thought by Hand. The Architecture of Flores & Prats, Arquine, 2014.
  2. A. Arteaga, Researching Aesthetically the Roots of Aesthetics, in N. Gansterer, E. Cocker, M. Greil, CHOREO -GRAPHIC FIGURES. Deviations from the Line, Edition Angewandte, De Gruyter, Berlin-Boston 2017.
  3. K. Badenoch, The Garden Transcripts, in K. Badenoch, P. Skandarajah (eds.), Cartographies of the Imagination, Blissetts, London 2021.
  4. S. Ballard, Art and Nature in the Anthropocene. Planetary Aesthetics, Routledge, London- New York 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429328862
  5. K. Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press, Durham-London 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
  6. R. Barnett, Utu in the Anthropocene, in Places, August 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22269/210831
  7. J. Bennett, Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things, Duke University Press, Durham- London 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391623
  8. R. Braidotti, The Posthuman, Polity Press, Cambridge 2013.
  9. J. Clark, Smudges, Smears and Adventitious Marks, in Interstices. Journal of Architecture and Related Arts, IV, 2019, pp. 1-8.
  10. N. Chard, P. Kulper, P. Perry, Pamphlet Architecture 34. Fathoming the Unfathomable, Archival Ghosts + Paradoxical Shadows, Princeton Architectural Press, New York 2014.
  11. J. Elkins, On Pictures and the Words that Fail Them, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998.
  12. R. Evans, Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 1997.
  13. J. Faust, Andrew Marvell's Liminal Lyrics. The Space Between, University of Delaware Press, Newark 2012.
  14. M. Frascari, Lines as Architectural Thinking, in Architectural Theory Review, XIV, 2009, 3, pp. 200-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820903341605
  15. N. Gansterer, Drawing as Thinking in Action, solo show at Drawing Lab Paris, France, 21 March-15 June 2019, curated by J. Pacher.
  16. T. Ingold, Making. Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, Routledge, London- New York 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
  17. M. Kupiak (ed.), Olafur Eliasson. Your Mobile Expectations; BMW H2R Project, Lars Müller Publishers, Baden 2008.
  18. S. Maharaj, Know-how and No-how, Stopgap Notes on `Method' in Visual Art as Knowledge Production, in Art and Research. A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, II, 2009, 2, pp. 1-11.
  19. J. Pallasmaa, The Thinking Hand. Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, UK 2009.
  20. A.L. Refiti, How the Tā-Vā Theory of Reality Constructs a Spatial Exposition of Samoan Architecture, in Pacific Studies, XL, 2017, 1-2, article 1-2.
  21. N. Spiller, In Praise of the Blur, in Architectural Design, LXXVIII, 2008, pp. 132-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.655
  22. A.M. Yates, Mauri-Ora. Architecture, Indigeneity, and Immanence Ethics, in Architectural Theory Review, XXI, 2016, 2, pp. 261-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2017.1288638
  23. S. Twose, J. Moloney, A. Globa, L. Harvey, Drawing the Unfixed, in Interstices. Journal of Architecture and Related Arts, XXI, 2022, pp. 123-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24135/ijara.vi.694
  24. S. Twose, J. Moloney, L. Harvey, Canyon. Experiments in Drawing a Landscape, in Drawing On. Journal of Architectural Research, III, 2019, pp. 123-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/znc9eq11
  25. S. Twose, J. Moloney, Drawing Canyon. Sfumato Presences in Drawing and Landscape, in Interstices. Journal of Architecture and Related Arts, XIX, 2019, pp. 41-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24135/ijara.v0i0.554
  26. S. Twose, A. Globa, L. Harvey, J. Moloney, Reef. Drawing in the Expanded Field, in H. Griffin (ed.), Connections. Exploring Heritage, Architecture, Cities, Art, Media, University of Kent-AMPS, Canterbury 2021, pp. 352-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.14138306.v1