What future for Descriptive Geometry? This question is the starting point for a reflection on the role of this discipline in contemporary research and education, focusing on one of its founding objectives: the study of the geometric properties of figures and their implications in the genesis of designed form. Starting from its mongian origins, the discipline is reinterpreted not as a science of representation, but as a science of form, in which the speculative dimension and design application are interwoven through the heuristic value of drawing.The analysis is grounded in several invariants - the centrality of form, the relationship between geometry and construction, and the cognitive role of representation - which run through the discipline’s historical transformations while preserving its relevance. The main recent transformations that have redefined tools and fields of operation are then examined, ranging from the constructive-topological revolution of the twentieth century to the digital turn, up to the current opening towards artificial intelligence.These transformations have led to a progressive fragmentation of knowledge, outlining a “grey zone” in which Descriptive Geometry appears to be losing its role, becoming articulated into autonomous disciplinary fields. In this context, the need emerges to recompose these competences within a shared theoretical framework that recognises research on form - and its pedagogical implications - as its privileged field of inquiry, recovering the historical roots of the discipline and reaffirming its role in relation to generative design processes.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.12
In the evolution of the relationship between architecture and representation, the traditional centrality of manual drawing has progressively been challenged by alternative methodologies within the design process. Starting from the emblematic cases of Walter Gropius and Oscar Niemeyer, this contribution shows how an architectural idea may emerge even without an im mediate graphic transcription, through mental prefiguration, physical models, or collaborative design processes. The concept of “drawing in absentia” is explored through the experiments of Antoni Gaudí, Frei Otto, Sergio Musmeci, and Frank O. Gehry, whose hanging-chain models, elastic membranes, and study maquettes anticipated many principles of contemporary digital and parametric modeling. The paper investigates three current directions in architectural representation that no longer depend on conventional drawing: immersive Virtual Reality (VR), parametric computational design, and generative Artificial Intelligence. VR enables designers to sketch directly in three-dimensional space through immersive and haptic interaction. Parametric environments such as Grasshopper, Dynamo, and Houdini replace lines with operational diagrams and algorithmic relationships, making the project the outcome of flexible computational processes. Finally, ma chine learning systems, including deep neural networks are transforming image and model production through automated generation, three-dimensional shape recognition, image-to-model conversion, and text-prompt-driven rendering. These developments reveal a progressive transition from drawing as a direct representational act to new forms of design mediation in which the architectural project emerges through simulation, computation, and intelligent generative processes.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.18
Mitchell (1994) highlights how the current era is characterized by the ‘pictorial turn’, that is, a growing interest in visual culture. The pictorial turn and the digital turn — fostered by the development of ICTs and by social practices of ubiquitous, real-time interaction and communication — go hand in hand in a process of changing modes of intelligence, correlated with a shift in ways of knowing: we have witnessed a gradual transition from a learning model founded on a culture of books and writing — which favoured alphabetic vision and a type of intelligence characterized by sequence — to one that integrates listening and non-alphabetic vision, typical of a simultaneous mode of intelligence. Consequently, the cognitive paradigm has evolved: we have moved from a system based on linearity to one dominated by the simultaneity of stimuli and their parallel processing.In this context, vision and drawing take on a central role. It emerges how representation can serve as common interpretive keys for different disciplines, each of which operates according to different theories, methodologies, and tools, and in relation to diverse cultural frameworks.In this sense, the sciences concerned with visual representation explore drawing not merely as a technical-productive issue, but as an all-encompassing sphere of vision, thought, and action. It follows a reflection on the nature and role of those disciplines founded on the graphic sciences: they possess profound disciplinary characteristics, yet at the same time, they appear as a meeting ground for scholars from various sectors.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.aw3
Francesca Fatta in conversation with Giancarlo CarnevaleGiancarlo Carnevale is a scholar and designer whose work has long explored the role of drawing within ideation and design processes. Situated at the intersection of representation, design theory, and the authorial dimension of the mark, his research foregrounds drawing not merely as a tool, but as a form of thought.This conversation examines the evolving role of drawing in the age of artificial intelligence, distinguishing between representation—currently undergoing profound transformation—and drawing as prefiguration, an autograph and atemporal space of design thinking. While AI dramatically expands the capacity for variation and formal proliferation, it does not replace the critical act of judgment: selection, synthesis, and authorial responsibility. The discussion identifies a longstanding fracture between exhibited drawing and intimate drawing, the latter conceived as an auroral field of morphemes, figurative obsessions, and non-linear logics akin to Matte Blanco’s “symmetric thinking.” Immersive technologies, while redefining representation as experience, risk saturating the productive ambiguity essential to design. What emerges is a possible shift: from tools of definition to environments of exploration—immersive Wunderkammer in which designers curate constellations of possibilities. In a future shaped by the exponential multiplication of images, authorship will reside less in production than in the capacity to select, order, and withhold. Drawing-for-oneself—imperfect, slow, and accountable—may thus reassert itself as a critical anchor. Not because it is purer, but because it remains irreducibly human. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.aw1
The disciplines of Drawing, as defined in the sec tor’s manifesto, in their broadest sense, are con cerned with understanding formal structure, and with analysing, conveying, appreciating and disse minating existing values, both tangible and intan gible; from this derive its main fields: the scienti fic-technological and the social-humanistic [1]. For some years now – almost coinciding with the ‘digital revolution’ – we have witnessed an ever-increasing volume of scientific output that is more closely aligned with one aspect of the first sphere – the technological sphere – rather than with the second sphere or the scientific aspect of the first. Naturally, there are exceptions, but it is deeply concerning that these constitute a sub stantial number; for example, to mention just the content of some of them, what emerges is more a description of tools and procedures than a ge nuine analysis of the subject under investigation and its necessary documentation.It may seem paradoxical, but it happens, for instance, that in a study of an architectural ar tefact – such as a survey – the representations relating to the plan, elevation and section, upon which architecture has built its foundations, are absent, whilst screenshots of digital processes are presented as if they were convincing, the reby distancing both the reader and the author themselves from an understanding of the archi tectural ‘thing’. It also happens, in certain cases – whilst acknowledging the ethical value of interdiscipli narity – that studies from the disciplinary field of ‘Topography’ are presented as studies of ‘Dra wing’, thereby signalling a loss of the very mea ning of the discipline itself; furthermore, terms such as ‘resilience’, ‘panglossianism’ and ‘post pandemic’, by contrast, are thrust into the fray with the aim of ambiguously emphasising—in a flight of fancy—a possible value of drawing.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.aw2
The rapid evolution of digital surveying technologies and AI-based tools is reshaping discretisation processes in architectural representation, introducing new modes of data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. In this context, however, the construction of knowledge remains inseparable from a methodological framework grounded in hierarchisation and interpretation that are intrinsic to surveying and representation. Whereas in the analogue tradition these operations were embedded within the very act of drawing as a discrete practice, in digital processes, they become fragmented and therefore require explicit critical and epistemological clarification. Within this framework, automatic segmentation emerges as an effective tool for the local classification of surfaces; however, it reveals significant limitations in reconstructing the geometric, spatial, and constructive relationships that shape architectural language. This contribution addresses these critical issues through the application of deep learning models for the semantic segmentation of masonry textures, focusing on the case study of Palazzo Costabili in Ferrara. The model, trained on datasets generated through supervised annotation processes, aims to evaluate its capacity to recognise and organise recurring morphological characteristics in masonry structures. One the main research questions is related to the chance to reconstruct, through segmentation, complex configurations as organised systems, leveraging on interpretative choices embedded in the annotation process, analysing automatic recognition and classifications towards a critically meaningful structure of graphic representation and knowledge drawing.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.5
The contribution proposes a critical reflection on the role of architectural drawing within the contemporary digital ecosystem, shaped by the integration of CAD, three-dimensional modeling, BIM, XR environments, and generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The paradox “The Drawing is dead, Long live the Drawing!” does not announce the end of drawing; rather, it highlights the Drawing’s transformation from a productive practice into a cognitive device for controlling and verifying the project. The paper frames the evolution of AI by distinguishing between Artificial Narrow Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence, and analyzes generative models based on machine learning and deep learning, emphasizing their probabilistic nature and the gap between visual plausibility and semantic understanding. In this context, the designer is no longer only the author of the sign, but also responsible for the conditions that guide image generation. Through a comparative analysis of traditional tools and AI applications, structured around the main phases of representation, the contribution shows that these technologies are particularly effective in the exploratory and communicative stages, enabling the rapid production of alternatives and visualizations. However, limitations persist in terms of geometric control and design coherence, highlighting the distinction between a plausible image and a technically and semantically coherent design.The contribution concludes that AI does not replace drawing but redefines its functions, reaffirming its role as a critical practice that mediates among conception, representation, and the project’s cultural responsibility.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.1
Ephemeral architecture developed under extreme environmental and logistical conditions requires design methodologies capable of integrating spatial, structural, and constructional constraints within a unified and adaptable framework. This paper investigates the role of parametric geometric modelling as an operative infrastructure for the design and construction of ephemeral architecture, focusing on its capacity to mediate between design intent, technical resolution, and on-site assembly processes.The study presents a parametric workflow developed in Rhinoceros and Grasshopper and applied to the design and construction of an ephemeral architectural installation for the Burning Man Festival. The proposed method integrates geometric consistency, material constraints, fabrication logic, and assembly sequencing within a single generative model, enabling continuous feedback between design decisions and construction requirements.Through the analysis of the design process and the resulting built artifact, the paper demonstrates how parametric modelling can function not merely as a form-generation tool, but as a cognitive and operative structure that supports decision-making, coordination, and adaptability in contexts characterized by uncertainty and temporality. The results highlight the suitability of parametric geometric models for managing complexity in ephemeral architecture, particularly when conventional BIM-based workflows prove insufficient.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.2
Generative AI is often framed in architecture as a faster rendering engine, able to turn sketches, models, and prompts into persuasive images. uch a view collapses two distinct operations: rendering and semantization. Rendering concerns appearance; semantization concerns the process through which geometry becomes meaningful, legible, and recognizable as architecture. Building on this distinction, the article proposes three regimes of semantization: natural, anticipatory, and intensified. While natural semantization emerges through use, material identity, and time, and anticipatory semantization is associated with architectural rendering, intensified semantization names the condition introduced by GenAI, in which meaning is accelerated, thickened, and partially destabilized through probabilistic image formation. Methodologically, the paper develops sequential protocols through two case studies. The first starts from a deformed carton package and follows its transformation from everyday object to neutralized meta-object, then to anticipatory architectural rendering, and finally to three branches of intensified semantization: typological, atmospheric, and affective. The second begins with the Barcelona Pavilion and subjects it to controlled semantic displacement in order to test thresholds of recognizability and defamiliarization. Across both cases, the article introduces semantic inflation as the failure mode in which intensification becomes overcoded, literal, or cliché-driven. The paper concludes that GenAI should not be understood only as an instrument of improved visualization, but as a semantic laboratory for architecture. It enables branching, iterative, and comparable transformations through which architectural meaning can be produced, displaced, and evaluated.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.9
The contemporary transformation of graphical sciences is inseparable from the progressive integration of digital, immersive, and intelligent systems into processes of representation, interpretation, and design. Within this shift, architectural education emerges as a field of experimentation, where the disciplinary legacy of drawing encounters new cognitive and technological conditions. This paper reflects on the evolving role of graphical sciences in architectural education, interpreting augmented reality (AR) as a spatial, cognitive, and interactive environment capable of redefining how students observe, understand, and construct architectural space.The contribution develops along two complementary lines. First, it frames the current transformation of graphical sciences as a transition from static representation toward immersive, context-aware, and experience-based modes of knowledge production. Second, the paper discusses the educational potential of augmented reality through the lens of architectural pedagogy, focusing on its capacity to strengthen spatial understanding, reduce the interpretative gap between two-dimensional abstraction and three-dimensional experience, and foster more active and situated learning processes.The reflection is supported by a critical review of recent literature on AR, XR, immersion and spatial cognition, as well as by teaching experiences based on student work developed through augmented reality environments. The paper argues that the future of graphical sciences in education lies in the construction of new pedagogical frameworks able to integrate representation, interaction and critical awareness.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.8
Sensory maps are increasingly used to support navigation of unfamiliar environments, particularly for individuals with sensory sensitivities or impairments. Typically rendered as simplified floor plans with color overlays and symbols, these maps help users anticipate conditions such as noise and light intensities, anticipated crowd densities, or temperature variations. Yet conventional sensory maps remain limited in their ability to convey the complexity, variability, and embodied subjectivity of lived sensory experience.This paper argues that communicating diverse sensory spatial experiences requires expanded, multisensory approaches to architectural representation. Drawing on precedents from environmental mapping, atmospheric visualization, and architectural practice, it examines how designers have translated invisible qualitative and quantitative sensory phenomena into legible graphic forms. Case studies—including bioclimatic mapping, olfactory cartographies, infrared microclimate drawings, motion intensity heatmaps, and tactile models—demonstrate both the potential of these techniques and their limitations when produced from singular perspectives.Emphasizing participatory practices, the paper analyzes representational tools developed with and by individuals with sensory impairments and sensitivities. Through interviews, sensory audits, tactile notational systems, and co-produced graphic artifacts, it shows how inclusive representation can extend architectural thinking beyond vision-centric norms. It concludes that multisensory representational tools created collaboratively with disability and neurodivergent communities not only enhance communication of sensed spatial conditions but also inform more inclusive design processes from the outset, reshaping how architecture is conceived, represented, and experienced.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.10
BIM models are increasingly used also for the representation and management of Cultural Heritage (CH). However, while BIM models effectively integrate geometric, technical, and material data, they still struggle to represent more interpretive historical information derived from archival research. This is essential when representing architectural elements whose meaning extends beyond their physical and material features. This paper explores the use of Semantic Web technologies to experiment with structuring and connecting historical information and interpretive relations and correlations to BIM models. The methodology is tested on the case of the balcony frescoes of the First IRE Building in Padua, designed by the architects Francesco Mansutti and Gino Miozzo during the post-war reconstruction period. The results show how directly observable data, contextual relations, and interpretive information can be flexibly structured within semantic graphs and linked to BIM elements by converting both into the same data model. The experiment demonstrates the potential of these technologies in enriching the semantic nature of Heritage BIM models (HBIM), making explicit different epistemological levels of historical information, from directly observable data to documentary evidence, contextual relationships, and the resulting interpretations. The study concludes that semantic technologies can extend traditional HBIM-based representations, opening new perspectives for a more critical digital representation of the historical, cultural, and interpretive dimensions of architecture.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.14
Graphic representations today encompass an extremely wide variety of products created using both analogue tools and advanced digital technologies. These outputs can be physical or virtual, static or dynamic and animated, and are designed to fulfil a vast range of functions across countless traditions and geographical contexts. This diversity calls into question the conventional categories and definitions which, until now, have delineated the scope of knowledge relating to graphic production.While the core subject of other sciences is clear to experts and non-experts alike—with consistent terminology across international literature— the situation is quite different for Drawing as a scientific discipline. Although generally associated with traditional modes of representation, it actually ranges from freehand drawing to advanced 3D modelling, from digital surveying to visual communication, and from graphic design to the use of AI for generating images and visualisations. This article proposes restoring the resemblance between language and the objects it names. In this sense, graphic sciences can be conceived as an overarching term capable of encompassing the entire field of scientific research and teaching related to image production. Rather than a monolithic discipline, this expression identifies a multifaceted, dynamic, and plural disciplinary landscape with which to address the future challenges of research.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.3
This article investigates the contemporary transformation of drawing from a technical instrument of representation into an active device for the interpretation, mediation, and communication of complex information. Within the post-digital condition, where analog and digital dimensions converge into integrated environments of knowledge production, drawing no longer functions merely as a tool for reproducing reality but increasingly operates as a critical and interpretative practice. The study develops an interdisciplinary framework situated at the intersection of visual semiotics, visual studies, digital humanities, and the ethics of images, analysing how diagrams and data visualizations shape the perception and understanding of social, environmental, economic, and political phenomena.Particular attention is devoted to the rhetorical dimension of visualization and to the ethical responsibility embedded in graphic languages. Through references to the theories of Jacques Bertin, Edward Tufte, Alberto Cairo, and Johanna Drucker, the article discusses how visual variables, selection processes, and representational strategies influence both the readability of information and the construction of meaning. Historical and contemporary case studies –from ISOTYPE to recent exhibitions such as Diagrams at Fondazione Prada and Inequalities at the Milan Triennale– demonstrate the central role of graphic sciences in fostering critical awareness and visual literacy.The article argues that contemporary drawing possesses a form of agency: it mediates between informational complexity and human understanding while actively influencing social behaviours and decision-making processes. Consequently, the future of drawing lies in the development of an ʻethics of the sign,’ grounded in transparency, accessibility, and intellectual honesty, capable of contributing to a conscious and democratic visual citizenship.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.4
This contribution reflects on the future of the graphic sciences by understanding Drawing as an epistemic artefact: a graphic-visual form capable of making relations, measurements, structures, processes and intentions knowable, discussable and verifiable. It seeks to define the disciplinary field of Drawing at the intersection between Graphic Science and Visual Science, without reducing it either to the technical production of graphic artefacts or to the broader study of visuality. Starting from the contemporary transformation of visuality, digital models and generative artificial intelligence, the text distinguishes visual construction from knowledge structure. Drawing is interpreted as a natural, cultural and translinguistic language, but also as a heteronomous disciplinary field, whose unity does not depend on a single technique, object or method. Its specificity lies in its capacity to integrate cognitive-perceptual, geometric-configurative, operational-communicative and historical-cultural domains. The proposed model is not a rigid taxonomy, but a critical grid for evaluating images, drawings, models, visualisations and immersive environments according to the knowledge they activate, support or make explicit. In this perspective, the future of the graphic sciences will not consist simply in adopting new tools or multiplying visual outputs, but in distinguishing plausibility from representational validity, automation from control, simulation from documentation, and visibility from knowledge.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.6
The rapid transformation of image acquisition and processing has weakened the traditional link between visual representation and the observed phenomenon, requiring a reconsideration of Drawing within contemporary heritage research. Images now emerge from multisensor systems that generate complex and multilayered visual forms. Understanding them means understanding the conditions and operations that structure them, distinguishing what derives from the phenomenon from what results from sensors, software or modelling procedures. Vision becomes a mediated process whose internal plurality must be made visible to allow critical interpretation.In this framework, Drawing acquires a renewed centrality. No longer a mere figurative translation, it operates as a method of organising visual knowledge, selecting and correlating heterogeneous information into legible configurations. It constructs relations, guides interpretation and defines scales and frames that data alone cannot decide. From this perspective, the layered image is introduced as a visual form that integrates measurement, geometry, semantics, verification and contextual information, making the genealogy of representation explicit.Complex architecture reveals the limits of automation: irregularities and stratifications show that computation can align but not interpret. Generative models further expose this ambiguity, producing plausible yet unfounded images. Drawing, by contrast, transforms data into knowledge and orients automatisms rather than merely accepting them. Data-driven imagery therefore reinforces the need for a graphic science capable of guiding and interpreting an increasingly information-rich reality.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.13
This text examines collage as a visual epistemology capable of activating spatial forms of thought that are especially relevant in architectural education. Based on the hypothesis that collage is not only a technique of assembly but a mode of knowledge that articulates analysis, interpretation, and creation, the research shows how its practice reactivates the materiality of the graphic process in a context dominated by digital immediacy. Operations such as cutting, juxtaposing, and layering emerge as critical gestures that allow reality to be decomposed and recomposed from new perspectives.The study is grounded in a teaching experience in which first-year architecture students reinterpret fragments from Georges Perec’s Life: A User’s Manual through analog collages. Through this exercise, the research observes how the translation from text to image activates a narrative and speculative form of thinking that transcends mimesis. The methodology unfolds sequentially: attentive reading of the fragment, identification of atmospheres and spatial relations, material exploration through montage, and collective discussion of the results. This process reveals how collage operates as a device that generates visual hypotheses on inhabitation while making visible the pathway of thought.From a theoretical and methodological perspective, the article situates collage in an intermediate territory between recording and invention, between memory and anticipation, aligning it with approaches that understand drawing as a research instrument. In its pedagogical dimension, the results show that collage fosters interpretive autonomy and critical thinking, consolidating itself as an experimental laboratory for rethin¬king the relationship between representation, knowledge, and creation in contemporary archi¬tectural education.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.17
Architectural representation is not neutral. It carries values, power structures, and cultural hierarchies that often exclude non-hegemonic knowledges and non-hegemonic ways of thinking, producing, and inhabiting space. This article shifts the focus from built architecture to graphic representation systems, arguing that technical drawing, while necessary, complicates access toarchitecture for those unfamiliar with its codes. Based on a qualitative analysis of drawings produced by children and young people from a public school on the periphery of São Paulo, Brazil, the research contrasts the abstract, objective logic of technical drawing with the figural, subjective, and relational modes of representation found in students’ drawings. The theoretical framework draws on Bourdieu, Freire, Santos, Silva, Quijano, and Escobar to articulate how schools and universities reproduce cognitive and social exclusion through standardized graphic language patterns. The findings show that students’ drawings express spatial complexity, affective ties, and concerns with security, use, separation, and sharing of spaces, dimensions largely absent from conventional technical representation. The article concludes that rethinking drawing is a political task. A pedagogy of difference is necessary, one that includes multiple representation systems and questions the structures of value attribution, promoting dialogue between technical and popular knowledges, contributing to a more inclusive and democratic architectural education.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.7
This article analyzes a pedagogical workshop ex¬perience conducted in the Architectural drawing with laboratory course at University of Trento (ba¬chelor’s degree in construction engineering and architecture). The research advocates for analog techniques and freehand drawing as epistemic tools for analyzing and reconstructing the design genealogy of the great female architects of the 20th and 21st centuries. The core of the project is based on a corpus of 100 drawings by the six Prit¬zker Prize winners (Zaha Hadid, Kazuyo Sejima, Carme Pigem, Yvonne Farrell, Shelley McNamara, and Anne Lacaton) and other key figures, tracing the graphic evolution from the rigor of the floor plan to the abstraction of the diagram and atmo¬spheric perspective or Egyptian axonometry. The methodology is structured around three stra¬tegies: i) Feminist Atlas, based on Aby Warburg, identifies non-linear formal interrelationships; ii) Exquisite Corpses as a surrealist technique to fo¬ster collective creation over individual authorship; iii) Collective Deconstruction, through an exerci¬se in hybridizing systems to generate new spatial narratives. The theoretical framework draws on Griselda Pollock’s (1988) Vision and Difference to challenge dominant structures of gaze. It integrates critiques by Beatriz Colomina (1999) on collaboration; Lori Brown on the body and po¬litics; and Despina Stratigakos (2016) on systemic sexism. The workshop proposes a new, inclusive, and collaborative architectural historiography, in which drawing serves as a tool for critical thinking and political engagement.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.15
Today’s architectural schools operate in an accelerating world of visual stimuli that has placed drawing within the realm of performance and created cognitive overload and diminished depth of attention. The intention of this study is to determine how we might be able to teach representation of the environment as cognitive and restorative practice by incorporating graphical thinking with Attention Restoration Theory (ART). One of the key components of ART is its identification of four contributing components for restoring attention; however, little has been understood regarding how these components are relevant to representational pedagogy. Using a qualitative, theory informed pedagogical approach, this study uses drawing-based learning activities in an architectural studio to operationalize these four components through two sequential tasks. Through analyses of student work, short reflections, and studio observations, this study concludes that drawing based upon restorative principles supports students in exhibiting sustained attention and an increase in perceptual awareness and reflective engagement. Finally, the study suggests that these findings provide a human-centric basis for reviewing the graphical sciences and environmental representations within visually stimulating educational environments.DOI: https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.36.2026.16
