I really agree with you about clarity when using words. Otherwise everybody
talks at cross purposes and communication is impossible.
As for the word 'form', in artschool, in the 1970s, when talking about
drawing & painting, it was very widely used and understood. Depending on
context, it either meant the physical form of an artwork, such as Painting,
Sculpture or installation - (artforms) - or it meant the visual language
within an image and how it represented form, as in 'form & space'. It was
the form of the work rather than its content.
I think it was easier to talk about 'form' when there was a shared visual
language derived from painting; people certainly used to argue a great deal
about the treatment of space and form in painting, but there tended to be a
shared understanding of terminology, which held the argument together.
Without shared terminology, it seems possible to have a really peculiar
argument, where all parties fail to understand each other, but nevertheless
want to communicate.
I think that drawing underpins such a wide range of practice and visual art
is so subjective, it gets very difficult to find areas of shared
understanding.
I don't know what the answer to this is, but knowing what a particular word
means, would help - especially when there are acres of text floating about.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to communicate in such circumstances?
Or maybe I'm unusual in finding it such a problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Stell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why draw?
> The issue of whether 'formal problem' means something different from
> 'problem' may well seem silly but in the context of a network devoted
> to drawing research is actually significant.
>
> Drawing research very often involves writing about drawing as well as
> practical drawing itself. If this writing is to communicate successfully
> to its readers we have to ensure that the terminology used has a clear
> meaning. I appreciate that artists may justifiably use texts to perform
> other functions than straightforward communication in a rational way.
> However, there is a need for clarity at least on some occasions.
>
> I have heard the phrase 'formal problem' on a few occasions in the past,
> and I hoped someone might be able to explain what it meant.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David Haley wrote:
>
>> With the greatest respect, given that this has generally been (in my
>> opinion)
>> a very interesting exchange, this is now getting a bit silly - am I meant
>> to
>> respond to 'Why draw?', or 'formal problems', as 'opposed to a problem'?
>>
>> Frankly, it's too late and these questions seem to be glib reactions,
>> rather
>> than considered inquiries (don't ask me to define the difference!).
>>
>> I know, these are the things I should ignore, so please have a go, at
>> least,
>> to offer an answer, or move on.
>>
>> Good night
>>
>> David
>>
>
> --
> Dr John G. Stell room: E.C.Stoner 9.15
> School of Computing phone: +44 113 34 31076
> University of Leeds fax: +44 113 34 35468
> Leeds, LS2 9JT email: [log in to unmask]
> U.K. http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/jgs
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
|