Howard Riley has won the 2nd Drawing Research book prize sponsored by Ken
Friedman. Howard won not because he was the only entry (which he was), but
because his entry made a suitable attempt at defining a set of drawing
research questions.
It would have been nice to have seen other interpretations of the
competition guidelines but for whatever reason this competition on drawing
research failed to inspire drawing researchers. I think one of Ken's
objectives in sponsoring the competition was to promote the email exchange
of ideas about drawing research. We've seen some good threads of
discussions on this list recently but given the rate of one entry to one
prize I guess we won't see a third competition with a book as a prize.
Steve Garner
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riley, Howard [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 22 April 2002 15:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Entry for Ken's competition
>
> Forgive me for reminding everyone that I still have Plato's inscription
> No-one enters here without Geometry above the door of my drawing-teaching
> studio. I take it to mean that without an understanding of geometry, the
> process of drawing will be that much more problematic. I still fondly
> assume
> that those leaving the studio will have at least recognised the usefulness
> of geometry of all types to their visualising in drawing form aspects of
> their experiences.
>
> My first proposed problem is in two parts:
> 1 How to teach drawing as a process of transformation from the primary
> geometry of the scene to the secondary geometry of the drawing itself.
> 2 How to raise students' awareness of the multiplicity of geometries that
> have been used across cultures to realise, to make visible, aspects of
> those
> cultures' belief structures.
>
> My second proposed problem comes in bits, too. The general theme is to do
> with students' expectations and criteria of evaluation:
> 1 How best can we elicit fine arts students' expectations of a course in
> drawing?
> 2 What should we be evaluating when we assess students' drawings produced
> on
> an undergraduate fine arts course?
> 3 Can the answers to question 2 be made compatible with students'
> expectations?
> 4 Assuming that one of the answers to question 2 will be an expansion in
> the
> students' awareness of their own and others' ontological constructs, and
> how
> those constructs affect the ways in which we visualise and draw our
> perceptual, emotional and imaginational experiences, what method is best
> suited to the evaluation of such expansion? Of course, Likert sets,
> semantic
> differentials, and tools such as Kelly's Role Construct Repertory Test may
> elicit useful data, but shouldn't we be developing a method of analysing
> the
> drawings themselves for evidence of such expansion?(My money's on a
> systemic-functional semiotic model, such as that elaborated by Michael
> O'Toole in his 1994 The Language of Displayed Art London, Pinter Press.)
>
> Dr Howard Riley PhD MA(RCA)
> Coordinator for Postgraduate Research
> School of Art & Design
> Swansea Institute
> Townhill Road
> Swansea SA2 0UT
> UK
> Phone +01792 481285
> Fax +01792 205305
> email [log in to unmask]
|