WHO WOULD HAVE LIKED TRANSPARENT DRAWING?

Corb, for one.  He of course considered himself a painter first.  And his daily painting was a basic exercise in composition, completion, balance, form, etc.  Admittedly his paintings were opaque.  Yet I think he would have gone wild with a drawing method that was transparent.  Just my guess.

Mies.  He did those very simple line perspectives.  And Meis being Meis, he always had a glass wall that you were looking thru.   Transparency was a mantra for him.  Or at least the juxtaposition of transparency and opaqueness was his mantra.

Wright.  I get the sense that he would not have liked TD.  Certainly all of those wonderful prismacolor three dimensional renderings were of course representational.  And I don’t recall seeing many three dimensional studies in his sketches.

Holl, as he does fantasy watercolors already, they just are not transparent.  It would be fun to see him open up and draw transparently.  Not that he really needs any “opening up.”

Palladio.  Not so much.  With such a complete focus on proportion and symmetry, what could Transparent Drawing add?  For an architectural enclosure conceived in 2D, a three dimensional method would have been pointless.

Of course this fun game can continue ad infinitum.  Yet the general trend seems to be that the more modern your orientation, the more that Transparent Drawing could add to your understanding and capabilities.  So Corb and Mies, the ultra modernists that they are, might have benefitted.  And Wright, classicist that he was, maybe not so much.

Or how about this moniker:  Transparent Drawing;  It’s Not For Classicists.

The drawing above was generated from a projection of one of Corb’s sculptures.