<p>What’s the difference? Do rough drawings of nudes done with pencil on paper count as freehand sketches?</p>
<p>I’m asking this question because some schools/employers/etc. say they want to see freehand sketches in the portfolio to send them, and I’ve checked several portfolio examples which had “freehand sketch” sections that seemed to basically consist of quick sketches of some object(s) in reality (e.g. buildings, people, etc.), with no creative manipulation.</p>
<p>I think free-hand sketching just means drawing with no rulers. You want them to be loose, but still insightful. Some schools phrase it as freehand drawing, too.</p>
<p>I also think they are looking for drawings by hand rather than drafted or by computer (notably CAD). They are looking for the ability to “see” and interpret, rather than strictly manipulate. Drawings by hand can have many styles and forms. They don’t necessarily have to be flowing.</p>
<p>^ To the replies above, that’s what I thought, which is why I got confused when someone said that freehand sketching always involved creative manipulation when I asked this question somewhere else (forgot to mention that in my first post).</p>
<p>I get the idea that freehand sketches could either be of real objects or of imaginary objects, and that they are distinctly not technically precise (i.e. no use of rulers or even attempting to draw perfect replicas of the real or imagined object) but are usually realistic. Quick drawings of nudes that stood before you would count under this category; drawings where revealing the flow and form of the body through quickly-implemented lines and shading holds greater weight than precision to the point of OCD.</p>
<p>Now my second question is, for a portfolio for, say, MArch I, would they prefer to see freehand sketches mainly consist of architecture, or would mainly freehand sketches of other objects (e.g. nudes, whathaveyou) potentially be successful in the admissions process, as long as such sketches demonstrate sufficient (excellent in my case) technical ability and spatial awareness?</p>
<p>My understanding is that by and large they don’t care. Personally, when I did admissions (and I was just a student member of an M. Arch admissions committee many years ago), a portfolio that had some evidence of interest in buildings had a slight edge. If you do beautiful nudes or still lives by all means included them, but maybe one or two drawings could be of architectural details or buildings. There’s no one right answer here. One committee might prefer one thing and another might prefer something else.</p>
<p>you really like nudes…</p>
<p>lol not meaning to offend at all. it just comes up in both your posts. A lot of schools don’t want to see you drawing architecture. One or two pieces won’t hurt, but they’re certainly not going to like you better because you drew a beautiful building rather than a beautiful… nude. the question of freehand sketches has been answered, and I’ll just add just drawings take more time and therefore should be more detailed than sketches.</p>
<p>
I emphasized “nudes” because most of my freehand sketches currently consist of nudes, and I wanted to gather an opinion on whether this would be acceptible for my portfolio or if I’d have to go out of the way to add more sketches of buildings, etc.</p>
<p>
Well, I presume they’re looking for particular qualities or skills that come across in your drawings, and such qualities/skills can be manifested in drawings of things related to architecture yet also outside of the architectural realm. I don’t think any architecture grad school adcomms would not want to see drawings of architecture; if anything, I think a healthy amount of architectural work would positively affect you in the admissions process because it demonstrates some interest in the subject, as well as the ability to interpret architecture specifically (as opposed to something else). In my view, ideally, any subject drawn should be treated with equal weight, with analysis strictly on qualities/skills manifested through the drawing.</p>
<p>
That’s generally the case, although these are not inherent traits.</p>