Is Drawing Composition Becoming a Lost Art?
Now that we are deeply secured in the digital age, we hear the term “lost art” being tossed around a lot these days. We hear about the lost art of hand writing a letter, or the lost art of book publishing, or the lost art of printing daily newspapers. What these lost formats had in common is they used the art of composition to convey information—traditionally, by hand. Even though an old-fashioned, handwritten letter to a pen pal looks vastly different from that of a newspaper, both of them had distinct compositions that aided the reader in understanding the narrative being conveyed.
Creating a CAD drawing is also, it seems, becoming a lost art. Note I used the word “drawing” and not “model.” The practice of breaking down a 3D object or structure into several components and visually conveying it as a 2D hard copy drawing is going by the wayside. In short, the art and skill of drafting is dying. The ability to know not only what has to be put on a drawing, but how to present it is being lost.
Composition items such as proper presentation scales, appropriate object line weights, the right linetypes, consistent and well-placed annotations and dimensions, etc. are virtually ignored these days. Failure to use proper visual communication techniques can cause confusion that costs time and money, and may damage good reputations.
I want to make it clear this article is not intended to be a slam toward designers who create 3D models, nor is it to be interpreted as “old school” drafters refusing to transition from 2D to 3D. I am talking specifically about the lost art of drawing composition, or drafting skills, if you will.
When CAD software was introduced to the AEC market in the early 1980s, there was a legitimate concern that the art of drafting would be lost. Those initial worries were put to rest when the generation of hand drafters who transitioned to the digital medium managed to keep one foot in the physical world. This is to say, the art of creating a drawing with good composition was still the primary goal, and CAD software was just another drafting tool. In their minds, all they did was replace their T-squares and zip-tones (look it up, kids) with the “Ortho” setting and hatch patterns, respectively.
So what’s going on? The evidence would suggest that no one is interested in making drafting a career choice anymore. In particular, the people pursuing post-secondary education are enrolling in Technologist or Technician programs, which tend to focus on practical design and theory. Even though it is clear they are getting exposure to the various CAD design software as part of their curriculum, it is making the previous generation of drafters wonder if today’s students are getting any instruction on proper drawing/drafting composition.
There seems to be an assumption among companies that if they hire a technician, they will get the luxury of a single person performing two tasks (design and drafting), which will maximize productivity. In the short term, this may be true, but when it becomes evident the drawings are not clear or of the quality their clients are used to seeing, time and money could be lost to change-orders and addendums.
Not only is the newer generation entering the industry often unaware of proper drawing composition, many lack basic CAD practices. They may have sufficient design skills to develop complex models, but without a foundation in “proper CAD practices” to ensure a drawing is organized and composed properly, a basic skill like xrefing that model across several drawing sheets may be lost on them.
The result is that these people are not necessarily being hired under false pretenses, but rather hired under assumed qualifications. In the past, when someone came into the office to interview for a drafting position, they came with a roll of drawings to prove why they would be qualified for the job. But now, it would appear that when an interviewer asks: “Do you know how to use ‘XYZ’ CAD software?” the interviewee will typically answer: “Yes,” giving the impression they know how to compose a drawing. This doesn’t mean the interviewees are being deceptive; they are being truthful when they say they know how to “use” the software, and the interviewers are assuming that proper drafting skills are inherent.
Once young Techs are settled in with their new employer, their designs and calculations are reviewed and approved by senior professionals, but is anyone reviewing or critiquing the actual hard copy drawings they create? These drawings may go out the door with improper drawing composition, causing confusion to those who need to read them (typically the clients, contractors, estimators, review boards, and even lawyers). The people overseeing the Techs are likely assuming the drawings are okay since they were impressed with the design models.
So, how can this be resolved? One idea is that design and consulting firms could look into a better QA/QC program where the senior professional reviews the drawings more closely. But again, if the assumption is being made that a good model results in a good drawing, then QA/QC becomes ineffective.
Companies can also look at developing a policy where the “old school” CAD drafters mentor the newer Techs’ drawings during their first few months of employment to show them the “company way” of doing things. This approach may include having the Tech review and follow a written guideline with everything spelled out as well as letting the mentor access and redline the CAD drawing with comments. Once Techs have earned the trust of their mentors, they can “graduate” to creating drawings independently and will then only be scrutinized by the already established QA/QC policy of the company. The problem with this approach is that there are fewer and fewer of the old-school drafting generation left because they have either moved on to other things or have retired altogether.
A third option, and this suggestion may be a little tricky, is for the companies to establish a relationship with the institutions that are instructing the younger Techs. They can potentially reach out to them and suggest modifying the curriculums to include drafting fundamentals, and if need be, offer assistance in developing a curriculum. Even though these institutions may already have an established drafting program with an advanced curriculum, a fundamentals program designed specifically for the technician and technologist students would make a world of difference.
Many technical institutions and companies may already have work placement or internship agreements in place to aid the fledgling new Techs, but reviewing and shaking up the current practices may be needed. And considering that the intent of these institutions is to educate the younger generation so they are employable, it would be in the institutions’ best interest to work with companies in the AEC field.
One final thought… although this article is focused primarily on those who are overseeing the development of the Techs coming into the industry, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Techs themselves have a role to play as well. My advice to them: take responsibility for developing your drafting and composition skills. Not only are you developing a career, you’re creating a reputation for yourself—a reputation that depends on improving your knowledge and skills. Get to know your new coworkers. Find out who among them have the best reputations, because they are typically the “go to” people who can guide and mentor you. These people will not only show you WHAT to do, but more importantly, what NOT to do.
