In addition to the functions thus far mentioned, rendering has a role to play in what is doubtless the greatest concern of archi tecture—the psychological influence it exerts on human life. A few people, it is true, are fully conscious of the impressions that they receive in the face of noble buildings ; the more pertinent and important fact is that the vast majority of human beings are con tinually, if unconsciously, influenced by the architectural forms and spaces with which they come in contact. Architects themselves are often unaware of the extent of this influence ; that is to say, the influence which is unconsciously received is unconsciously initiated. Perhaps it is in consequence of this that the haphazard and miscellaneous architectural scene which is presented by most modern cities, and which is constantly before the population, is left to impress the corresponding qualities upon the human psyche. On the other hand, there have been periods in the past—the "great periods" of architecture—when the designers must have been quite aware of the influence, and utilized it for conscious purposes. In the Gothic cathedrals, for example, there is embodied, in terms of form and space (terms safely beyond the vicissitudes of any particular church) a potent and lasting influence for the better ment of mankind. Buildings of the first category—depressing or distracting buildings—are legion ; those of the second—buildings which arrest or elevate—are rare. But the more significant forms may be repeatedly delineated and interpreted in drawings and paintings by whose agency they may be widely exhibited, published and, so to speak, broadcast. Rendering, in short, by allying itself with the conscious and objective forces in architectural work, may serve, by paraphrase, to bring home the laconic message of archi tecture.
To sum up, rendering has six principal objects. The first three have long been recognized : to convey advance realizations of pro posed structures, to aid in crystallizing ideas in the architect's mind and to interpret the architectural significance of existing struc tures. The other three remain largely for future development : to serve as criterion and guide in city planning, to assist in evolving new types of architecture and to strengthen the psychological in fluence of architecture on human values.
Whichever of these objects a given rendering is to serve, the renderer—having comprehended why the drawing is being made— is faced with two fundamental considerations. The first is to grasp what is the nature of the architectural subject to be rendered, to so ponder it as to exclude non-essentials. The second is how to employ the various devices of draughtsmanship so as to communi cate this realization to others. Between these two items—the
nature of the subject and the process of rendering—there exists the distinction between ends and means, and it is important that the renderer have this distinction clearly in mind at the outset.
As a matter of common practice, this distinction is often not made. The painting or drawing is often regarded as being an end in itself, and discussion of it centres, in consequence, on purely technical questions : interest of composition, nicety of line, clever ness of brushwork, etc. Many such works are contributions to the subject of technique and justify the enthusiasm of technicians; but, lacking architectural significance, they are not, strictly speak ing, architectural renderings.
It is also a common practice to regard rendering as indeed a means but to substitute for its authentic and natural ends, ends that are special or perverted. For example,—as in the Beaux Arts curriculum—projects are often rendered in elevation (i.e., the representation is of but one façade of the building as this would appear were the eye directly opposite each and every point there on). This, obviously, produces a form which can exist only on paper ; it is not the form which the human eye would perceive in the building itself. Such a treatment serves a purpose, in that an architect, when reading its conventionalized and inexact state ment, can translate it, in his trained mind, into at least an ap proximation of the truth. But just because it requires a transla tion, and is, in itself, foreign to reality, it may be classified as a special practice.
Another common practice, of a different category, is to accom plish, by means of a picture, an end which is positively opposed to architectural fact. The renderer may be called on to exag gerate certain aspects of a proposed building in order to create a more favourable advance impression ; or to exaggerate certain fac tors of an existing building in a way to advertise them. The archi tect or advertiser may wish such a rendering as a result of delib erate calculation or because his personal interest in particulars is so great as to obscure from his view the real appearance of the building in its entirety. In any case, the executing of such corn missions falls rather into the class of commercialized art and may be excluded from a discussion on rendering.
The twofold criterion of values remains to be applied to all renderings : first, comprehension of the architectural essentials involved in the subject; second, effectiveness in pictorial com munication.