On a more mundane point of language I would like to point out that the mailing list system does not seem to be able to cope with the 
German character eszett or scharfes S (sharp S) which thankfully can be alternatively be written as ss and so my reference in my last mail 
to the German word riss was shortened to ri, making it difficult to make sense of my point.  Thanks for the structuralist pointers Peter, but 
I wasn't really talking about communication I was talking about making art which is how we used to see the process of drawing.   I agree 
with your "by the way" point  that "Gestalt, is centrally concerned with GROUPING disconneted (sic) lines, marks etc".  A very positive 
approach, one could however come at it from another angle.  My use of th word  was in the context of Hiedegger's aesthetics, whereby in 
his essay The Origin of the Work of Art, he describes the creating/drawing/making process as a "strife". He uses the German word riss (as 
I pointed out) both to refer to a drawing and a rift, which from a philosophical point of view gives a sense of opening up in perhaps even a 
violent way, as he puts it: "The strife that is brought into the rift (riss) and thus set into the earth and thus fixed in place is the figure 
(Gestalt)".   
Something else occurs, if drawing must exclusively be concieved of in language terms then why does our processing of it, in terms of both 
our making of it and our perception of it take place in different parts of our brains than those associated with language? Tom  
----- Original Message -----
From: pmh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:40:32 +0100

> 
> 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 "ri�" 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 "
> >
> >
> >