A distinction between models and drawings is this… With a model you CAN look at the model in particular ways that make it make sense, while with Drawings you DID look at the model in particular ways that make it make sense. This difference between CAN and DID is the critical difference that makes very clear that models and drawings are unbreakably interdependent. The one (either one) makes really no sense without the other.
A very nice example below from 1924. Notice that in this case you build the model in your mind, looking at these drawings, and the model makes sense (in ways that matter) because of these drawings. The same process goes for digital models too. You make sense of them by looking at them in particular ways.
(end of quote)
On a related note, have you heard, for more than 2 decades now, people who talk about “the end of drawing“, that’s going to be brought sooner or later, by some kind of digital modeling technology or another?
This has been nonsense since the first time anyone said it, and every time since. A common iteration that’s more recent and continues to persist today is the idea that digital-model-to-fabrication workflow spells the end of drawing.
Yeah, no it doesn’t. You have to understand a model while you’re building it, and this requires looking at it in particular ways that make it make sense.
I have a message for anyone pronouncing the forthcoming end of drawing:
You can stop saying that now. It’s meaningless, serves no purpose; you’re accomplishing nothing by saying it. You can stop embarrassing yourself. Just stop. Please.