Dear Kate B W
:-)
Rachel
On 29/7/05 1:56 am, "Katherine Beck Whittemore" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response, and am intrigued by your
> reflection. Still, as a professional, although my intellect is
> stimulated I feel that there is a part to this diatribe that is 'over
> the top' for me. To create art, or to 'draw', I believe one must keep
> the intellect at arms length, if you will. Your arguments are
> supportable and interesting, but how actually relevant they are, in
> light of creating art, is still of question to me. But I have more to
> consider now, so thank you.
>
> -Kate
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of pmh
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>
> 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/ .
>>
>>
>>
>
|