>From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The UK drawing research network mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Ego-free drawing
>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:51:06 +0100
>
>Dear Rob,
>
>The concept of ego-free drawing depends entirely on your definition of
>"ego." Since no human being can think or act without an ego as the term is
>used in psychology, ego-free drawing requires either a very specific and
>narrow definition of the go -- or you must conceive of someone who can draw
>without being able to think or act as a conscious, independent individual.
>This may be the case for certain people with specific handicaps or mental
>disabilities who can draw without being able to think -- or at least
>without being able to communicste what they may (or may not) be thinking.
>
>Ego-free drawing may be possible in some metaphorical sense, or you may
>find a way to set your ego aside in some way, but I would suggest that if
>you can undertake research and write about it, you cannot truly be
>ego-free. While this means that you may temporarily achieve a state that
>feels ego-free to you, as long as you can act from within your
>consciousness and return voluntarily from the ego-free state to the normal
>state, you cannot undertake ego-free drawing unless your definition is far
>more precise than what it would mean to be "ego-free" in psychological
>terms.
>
>I can imagine special definitions that might mean "disinterested" or
>"setting aside egotistical or selfish goals" or some other term, but this
>is different than what it would be to have no ego or to be free of the ego.
>
>To develop helpful responses, it would help to have your definition.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken Friedman

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your imput.  'Drawing without being able to think', now that's
something to aspire to.  But you illustrate a fundemental issue when dealing
with this subject.  How can you not think about whatever you are doing, let
alone drawing.  I was told that to be ego free would eventually mean a slow
descent into madness as our means of understanding  the exernal world are
chaotically mixed with our internal realities with the result that we fail
to be able to descern where 'real' ends and 'unreal' begins.  This sounds
quite attractive on paper but the reality of such a course of action is
probably too horrible to contemplate.

Your other point that we cannot be turely be ego free if we can consciously
return from this state to one of normality is logical.  But if we can
conceptually define a work of art to be anything we want it to be, cannot we
do the same with the idea of the ego and make work accordingly?  This seems
to make sense to me but the thought of being so detached from the emotive
element of image making leaves me a little cold.

I have posted my definition of what I believe the ego to be, and I hope this
helps in some way.

Yours sincerely,

Rob Birch

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger