________________________________
From: The UK drawing research network mailing list on behalf of Maulfry Worthington
Sent: Sun 06/02/2005 13:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Are all visual rerspesentations 'art'?
Dear Drawing Research members,
I am currently looking at the relationship between ways in which society and education categorises childrens marks and drawing (e.g., 'art', science, mathematics, music, writing). Since young children do not percieve drawing in terms of 'subjects' we believe the un-natural boundaries between such categories as 'art', and visual representation in other areas of their thinking present false dichotomies. Such boundaries surely were more fluid in the Renaissance? Last year I attended the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition and was particularly struck by the gallery with drawings by non- artisits - by surgeons, scientists, choreographers, architects, musicians and so on.
My questions at the moment are:
* 'Is all visual representation drawing - and if it is, is it also 'art'?
I CONSIDER ALL VISUAL REPRESENTATION TO BE DRAWING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ART. DIAGRAMS, INSTRUCTIONS, PLANS, IDEAS AND EXPERIMENTS NOT BEING 'ART'
* If visual representations can be viewed as belonging to both art and to other disciplines, then surely this implies a need for educators and society to value the whole range of marks and drawing young children make, whether for 'art' or not?
AGREE TOTALLY
* What criteria should we use to define the drawing process - and also to define an individual drawing - as 'creative'?
HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE LONGER! BASIC THOUGHT IS THAT IF ITS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT, ITS A PROCESS AND THEREFORE CREATIVE
BEST WISHES LEO DUFF
Maulfry
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
|