For me, still, one of the most profound works on this subject is Paul
Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook. As the title implies, we may all learn
about drawing from this.
David
On 28 Jul 2005, at 18:14, pmh wrote:
> I think that one very good reason to look for a "grammar" is because
> such
> a grammar is likely to relate to the way we percieve the world: that
> is by
> discovering the grammar we are also discovering laws of perception. Of
> course, the word "grammar" here is stretched and generalised way beyond
> its normal meaning - but the idea that elements are somehow structured
> remains intact.
>
> The fact that children draw sticks and circles, and we can still see
> humans in that, is a very powerful clue, I think. This tells us that
> the
> way parts are arranged into a whole is much more imporant that their
> particular shapes of colours - much more important than
> linear and colour perspectives, more than accurate renditions of light
> interacting with surfaces - all that is physics and though important is
> not sufficient to explain perception. My favourite example that shows
> this is the colour purple. There is a physical wavelength of light for
> all colours, red being long waves, blue short. Well, not quite, there
> are
> no "purple" waves - it is a pure construct of perception that is well
> understood by neuro-psychology.
>
> Gestalt (invented in and around Germany in the 1920's and which since
> is
> being used to teach computers to "see") sets out to explain the way
> simple
> elements (lines, circles) are organised. Recently, computaional
> psychologists has used drawings to train machines to use Gestalt. In
> this
> sense drawings do have an underlying grammar, it's just different from
> English grammar (and French, German, Chinese....) [That said Gestalt
> helps
> exlain too how we hear, and from this natrual lnaguage grammers *might*
> come, in this sense natural grammars are secondary artefacts of an
> underlying grammar - ie a primitive process to organise]
>
> best
> Peter
>
>
>
>> I admit I'm interested to take a look at the Kress book -- however --
>> I'm at a loss to understand why there need be such discretion here. I
>> agree that we cannot be too parochial about drawing -- then the
>> creative
>> effort becomes something entirely different: unnatural, contrived.
>>
>> I cannot approach a work surface with any literal context in mind --
>> instead, I must free my cerebral self -- clear my mind of extraneous
>> things, or structure, if you will. And I achieve this - surprise - by
>> initiating a lengthy session of free drawing. But even though I seek
>> freedom of mind to work, I do depend on the underlying structure that
>> my
>> formal education/experience has provided me, thus validating my
>> efforts.
>>
>>
>> So I believe that yes, there is absolutely a structure to drawing,
>> most
>> of which, I would say, is learning to deal with perspective, both
>> naturally and through higher education. Young children draw from their
>> developing perspectives, in a very primal sense, of what they
>> experience
>> -- for instance, the 'motherhead' that universally all children depict
>> in their first drawings (a round 'body' with stick arms, legs and eyes
>> and mouth). It is unstructured, but it is true perspective and yes,
>> communicative. Formal studies of the fine arts give us a means to
>> create
>> visually from that primal point that which can be recognized as a
>> standard. True creativity comes when we are able to break through the
>> learned standard and imprint ourselves into our work (much as the
>> child
>> naturally does).
>>
>> Is it a language? Perhaps. Definitely a communication. But why try to
>> break it down into 'grammar', etc? The elements are different.
>>
>> -Kate Beck
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:01 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>
>> Peter, regarding the 'grammar' of drawing, Kress has written an
>> interesting
>> book entitled 'the Grammar of Visual Design'
>> Maulfry
>>
>> Original Message:
>> -----------------
>> From: pmh [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:40:32 +0100
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>
>>
>> All - and I mean *all* - communication requires information to be
>> structured in some way such that is is understood by the sender and
>> reciever.
>>
>> (If there is not structure there is only chaos, and in chaos there is
>> no
>>
>> information)
>>
>> A "general language" is a set of structures (ie relations
>> between primitive elements) that enable communication.
>>
>> In so far as drawing communicates it be a language.
>>
>> In the case of a specific natural language such as English, the
>> elements are words and the structure is the grammar (but full meaning
>> requires context: "Howe told Hesseltine he should resign" - who is to
>> resign?)
>>
>> For drawing -in general- it is much more difficult to see what the
>> "grammar" might be. We can posulate that such structure -must- exist,
>> otherwise drawings would not be able to communicate and would be
>> meaningless. We might then speculate that whatever these structures
>> are,
>>
>> they are common to all langauges, whether spoken, written, drawn etc.
>> This
>> speculation is a generalisation of Chomsky's principle that language
>> is
>> innate.
>>
>> This is not making a poltical statement in any way.
>>
>> It is simply not possible that drawing is older than language.
>>
>> Gestalt, by the way, is centrally concerned with GROUPING disconneted
>> lines, marks etc. It has nothing to do whatever with "breaking open a
>> space".
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> I find this aspect of the discussion (regarding the etymology of the
>> word
>> "drawing") of some interest. For those of us who struggle with
>>> our drawings, the notion of drawing imagery out of the chaos of our
>> visual environment onto, or up to, the surface of our page, seems
>>> appropriate. It is important not to get too parochial about language
>> though, Heidegger casts some light on the idea of struggle in making
>>> imagery in his discussion of the German word "riß" which I
>>> understand,
>> as
>> a noun includes among its many meanings - a drawing, but
>>> also refers to a rift or a breach. Referring to that consummate
>> German
>> drawer; Durer, Heidegger uses this link to talk about the strife-
>>> ridden aspects of making in art/drawing as in wresting, pulling (as
>>> in
>> the English "drawing") and even (in terms of Gestalt), tearing and
>>> breaking open a space. In this I think of Frank Auerbach's drawings.
>>>
>>> With regard to the debate around the idea of drawing as language I am
>> somewhat suspicious, as in my career as a lecturer in fine art the
>>> assertion of drawing as a language was mostly used in political terms
>> to
>> counter the dominance in higher education of exclusively
>>> linguistically bases models of knowledge, (in the context of the
>> phenomenon of academic drift in art education) . Drawing is for me
>>> simply that; drawing, a practice older than language and every bit as
>> valid. The whole current debate around the validity of practice
>>> based research degrees and PhD.'s in higher education in fine art is
>> depressingly mired in such apologetic language and stance. -
>>>
>>> Dr. Tom McGuirk ANCAD BA. Fine Art, PhD.
>>> Vulkangade 7 st. th.
>>> 2200 Copenhagen N. Denmark
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Katherine Beck Whittemore" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:55:22 -0400
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find it difficult to abstract from these words my personal
>> association
>>>> of 'well' as likened to a depth of knowledge. That's what hits me
>> first.
>>>> So I consider 'drawing from' as extracting from a depth beneath the
>>>> surface in order (in my case) to reach and expose the surface of the
>>>> work -- like swimming up from a depth -- because my paintings and
>>>> drawings are about surface and the audience's reaction to it. The
>> result
>>>> of the depth is brought to the surface, and actually becomes the
>>>> surface.
>>>>
>>>> -Kate Beck
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Haley
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:22 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>>>
>>>> Getting warm ... look at the Old English - draught and a myriad of
>>>> possibilties and metaphors open up.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jul 2005, at 00:48, Mike Metcalfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like this one! (drawing from a well) because it makes you ask
>> why
>>>> the
>>>>> same word is used, what is drawing. The dictionary lists numerous
>>>> types
>>>>> of drawing. As in, PICTURE, MOVE, ATTRACT, PULL, CHOOSE, EQUAL,
>> MAKE,
>>>>> TAKE OUT, USE, INTO, CAUSE, MONEY...
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume they all about 'taking out' so picturing would be taking
>> out
>> of
>>>>> a scene enough lines and shapes to recognise whatever. With water
>> you
>>>>> are taking out the drink from the hole.
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rachel
>> Pearcey
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 4:57 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about drawing water from a well?
>>>>>
>>>> David Haley BA(Hons) MA FRSA
>>>>
>>>> Research Fellow
>>>> MA Art As Environment Programme Leader
>>>> SEA: Social & Environmental Arts Research Centre (MIRIAD)
>>>> Manchester Metropolitan University
>>>> Postgraduate Research Centre
>>>> Cavendish North Building, Cavendish Street,
>>>> Manchester M15 6 BY
>>>>
>>>> Tel: +44 (0)161 247 1093
>>>> Fax: +44 (0)161 2476870
>>>>
>>>> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you
>>>> should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email
>>>> disclaimer available on its website
>>>> http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> http://mail2web.com/ .
>>
>>
>>
>>
David Haley BA(Hons) MA FRSA
Research Fellow
MA Art As Environment Programme Leader
SEA: Social & Environmental Arts Research Centre (MIRIAD)
Manchester Metropolitan University
Postgraduate Research Centre
Cavendish North Building, Cavendish Street,
Manchester M15 6 BY
Tel: +44 (0)161 247 1093
Fax: +44 (0)161 2476870
"Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you
should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email
disclaimer available on its website
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
|
