Please find below an extended posting on the subject of an agenda for drawing research. If you would prefer to receive this as a pdf file then please email me at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  with the words 'agenda paper' in the subject field and I will forward a copy to you. 

Feel free to use this DRN conference to discuss any issues arising from this posting (if you do, please consider selectively copying parts rather than recirculating the whole of this long posting).

Regards to all

Steve Garner

 

Towards an agenda for drawing research

For a while now, I've been thinking about what might constitute an agenda for drawing research. Like many readers of this Drawing Research Network forum I've gained insights about what might be our research priorities from various sources including attending conferences, visiting exhibitions, talking to people active in drawing research, reading what others have written and from being engaged in making drawings and making research. Of course, the email forum of the DRN presents a living agenda - ideas emerge and get modified, contributors tell us about what they are working on, problems are articulated, suggestions for investigation are offered. But there is no significant consensus about what constitutes the current agenda for drawing research. Some may say this is not a problem; that prescribing a research agenda could stifle an emerging field such as drawing research. However, I take the contrary view and I'd like to offer some thoughts on this forum. First I'd like to discuss why we need a research agenda and then I'll go on to discuss what such an agenda might address. 

 

At a basic level an agenda is a list or programme of things to be done or considered. Since the first use of the Latin term Agendum it has come to mean a device for controlling and limiting group activity, typically discussion in a meeting, and I think this may not sit comfortably with the present-day drawing research community's understandable pursuit of independence and innovative thought. However, agenda in the context of a modern-day research grouping is less about controlling and limiting and more about externalising shared understandings from group reflexive thinking. Drawing research is a relatively young discipline and although there is a considerable body of published work available we, as a drawing research community, are not very good at critically evaluating this work, defining the merits and value of the various contributions, sharing our opinions and building innovative new work on that which has withstood interrogation. Without this sort of activity our research agendas remain personal and inward looking - relevant to our own particular sub-groups of drawing research but not helping to build bridges to other drawing researchers. This is not to say that creating a group agenda is easy. Drawing research is informed by other disciplines, for example, art, design, psychology and there might be natural tensions arising from the diversity of these sources of research cues; we feed on the stimulus provided by drawing practitioners who may have very different agendas to any we might collectively define; our work is often exploratory, personal and tentative and this can act to suppress our confidence in disseminating outputs towards building a group agenda. But we are not alone. All research fields, to a greater or lesser extent, exhibit these characteristics and have their research agendas influenced by disparate external and internal forces. 

 

A research agenda is what we consider to be valuable future actions in the context of what we perceive to have been valuable past actions. This doesn't preclude new and innovative work - in fact, reference to previous work is an important way of revealing newness and innovation in research outputs and proposals. 

 

So why should we seek to have a drawing research agenda? Well, partly, as I say above, a research agenda encapsulates a community's individual and group reflexive thinking at any given point in time. It is a measure of a community's capability for analytical thinking and an indicator of maturity. For those who seek to raise funding for drawing research - either their own work or the work of research students - knowledge of the current research agenda is surely vital if new work is to be placed in context. Without knowledge of a shared research agenda evaluation of the value and merits of any given proposal for future research must rely on subjective interpretation by the reviewer.

 

And so we come to what might constitute the elements in an agenda for drawing research today. This is by far the most difficult part of this note to write. A research agenda evolves. It is never fixed. Issues emerge, flower and wither. Even issues that might seem to be bedrock issues such as research methodology either fall by the wayside or get subsumed by broader concerns. I offer the following thoughts as stimulus to the continued debate. They are in no particular order:

 

What is drawing?

There has been some discussion on the drawing research forum around definitions. The question 'what do we mean by drawing' (as verb and noun) arises regularly. Clearly definitions can assist critical thinking. For example, Pam Schenk has developed and applied her taxonomy of drawing during 20 years of drawing research (see, for example, Schenk 2005). There have been various attempts to establish wikis for drawing and it seems likely that these will develop to support community-wide participation in the development of shared understandings of drawing and drawing research matters. But definitions can be a double-edged sword. I have a concern that, for the unwary, the search for definitions can turn into navel-gazing. It has rarely led to agreed conclusions and it can suppress forward momentum. Drawing is a multidisciplinary phenomenon and our agenda might be better directed at sharing knowledge and understanding between the arts, sciences, humanities etc., - especially if this might lead to more robust definitions. We might investigate drawing as inquiry, assertion, expression, preparation etc; its ability to support constructive thought (and analysis and deconstruction); its ability to convey notions of movement, time, place, and mood; drawing as act and output. This broad theme shades into inquiry into media and technique. There is growing public interest in, and knowledge of, drawing. Drawings are part of our environment (e.g. graffiti). The role of drawing as private preparations for art and design outputs is accepted as is the production of drawings as end product. There is no easy demarcation of drawings into either 'design' or 'art' since both are concerned with 'drawing as process' and 'drawing as product'. 

 

What is drawing research?

Can drawing activity be drawing research? Is inquiry the same as research? This extends the discussion beyond the established contrast of research into drawing and research through drawing.  It would seem that drawing researchers could make a significant contribution to the debate on practice-based research. There is a need to explore how others have framed and answered such questions - perhaps redefining drawing research through the negative spaces left by others. There are opportunities to discuss the applicability of research methods and data collection tools. There is already a large body of drawing research (albeit widely distributed) for someone to make a systematic review of what has been published, cited and developed and thus inform the community about our own history. And speaking of history, we are overdue a comprehensive history of drawing education which might range from school teaching since the Victorian era, teaching drawing in colleges of art and polytechnics, and more recent international drawing projects based in universities.

 

How should we teach, supervise and examine drawing research students?

There is a lot of good postgraduate training and education taking place in institutions around the world. We need to share best practice. For those responsible for leading research students there is much scope in the debate regarding practice based research and the challenge to current systems and awards (such as the PhD). Perhaps we might make a case for examining drawing research in new and innovative ways? A few years ago Terence Love argued that the traditional 5 chapter model of postgraduate dissertations was flawed. He proposed that the traditional grounding of the model in 'research methodology' should be replaced by a model where candidates have to account for their ontological and epistemological perspectives before they offer a methodological perspective on which their research methodology (and then the particular research methods) is based. In drawing research we should be applying and developing this type of analysis.

 

We need to ask questions about the purpose and manner of drawing education today, from the earliest years to postgraduate. We need to examine our notions of teaching and learning. Partly this concerns an historical awareness (what Deanna Petherbridge recently called 'a knowledge of the contemporary in a continuum'). But partly it concerns the questions 'what is drawing and what learning are we trying to support?' If drawing has something special to offer educational processes, particularly education outside of art and design, then we need to articulate this. Is there such a thing as bad or lazy drawing? What is good drawing, successful drawing, mature drawing? How do we present students with 'authenticity' in drawings in the age of internet digital databases? Is drawing subversive and, if so, how do we teach this? Do we, or should we, value 'technique'. In recent decades the issue of drawing 'skills' in art courses has proved contentious, heated and divisive. To what extent is drawing concerned with mark-making and to what extent can drawing extend beyond this? Are there responsibilities for developing new curricula or cross-curricula working? Do we need to reinvent the university if successful drawing education is to be achieved?

Students often have difficulty distinguishing evidence from content and context. There is a need for research training that deals with reading, interpreting and valuing images; reading narrative in drawing; interpreting conundrums. In fact, we still need to know what it is that we need to know!

 

Drawing, thinking and computing

The relationship between drawing and thinking offers a potentially important topic for a drawing research agenda. Just how drawing supports cognitive processes, particularly creativity and the emergence of ideas, has been much discussed but little evidence has been used to construct a foundation of knowledge on which we might all build. In 1996 Michael Fish submitted a great PhD titled How Sketches Work but this is rarely cited. There are opportunities to examine drawing as metaphor, analogy and mental liberation. An examination of drawing as a means of embracing challenge; confronting the unknown; the deliberate and controlled rejection of the comfortable. 

 

One might assume that developments in computer and communications technologies have acted to suppress awareness and development of drawing skills and knowledge but the converse is true. We see increased participation in traditional and digital drawing and increased public inquisitiveness about that most fundamental human capacity of the hand and brain to devise and construct meaningful marks and images with various media. Drawing offers the potential for a deliberate vagueness or incompleteness and this has been shown to support creative thinking. Knowledge of how this works can inform new generative computer tools with the extended potential of offering sketched 3D rapid prototypes. As well as design, an understanding of drawing might have applications in information building, knowledge building, systems building.

There was an interesting thread of discussion on the Drawing Research Network earlier this year regarding the idea of 'groundlessness' - digital drawing that exists between the tool and the ground (and is thus groundless). Also, there is clearly a growing population of people who use internet resources to make, edit, store and share images such as photographs (e.g. Flickr) and video and audio (e.g. MySpace). The integration of drawing with the creative selecting, capturing, and manipulating of other types of data might offer a rich current topic for investigation.

 

Drawing as individual and group activity

Drawing has mostly been considered as an activity undertaken by individuals. Where groups have been involved, for example, in some fields of design, their drawing activities have usually taken place serially rather than in parallel. Research into group practices and team working in design since the 1980s, reveals the value of 'shared' drawings in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Fine Art can also point to drawings conceived and made by more than one person. What are the issues and opportunities in collaborative public and professional drawing? Especially considering the opportunities presented by on-line multi-user environments such as those of the computer gaming industry.

 

 

A drawing research community is emerging, partly consolidating around universities offering art and design education, partly around organisations such as museums, galleries and other organisations concerned with public awareness or the promotion of professional practice. This community has many indicators of maturity; there are international drawing conferences, journals, professors, PhD students. There are links between this community and other, more established research domains. But the drawing research community also displays characteristics of immaturity. In some ways it resembles design research a few decades ago in the disparate nature of its knowledge, the lack of common reference points, and the variable quality of analysis and articulation. A community too often constrained by repetition rather than liberated by development and progression. What is needed is an agenda that not only consolidates our current understandings and relationships in drawing research but which charts a stimulating range of options for future activities. 

 

There's a need for an agenda for drawing research aimed at drawing makers, drawing users and drawing readers today. A drawing research agenda should offer a framework of reasoned possibilities rather than a definitive and inflexible list or programme of things to be done. It should aim to be authoritative and enlightening, one which maps out uncharted or scantly-populated territory as well as achievements. It must be provocative and challenging. It is important that such an agenda is optimistic and creative. It should make readers want to engage in drawing research (e.g. drawing practice, investigation, reflection, theorising, and experimentation). It should stimulate the reader to explore their own agenda and to become engaged in inquiry, which we might currently define as drawing, research or both. 

 

References

Fish M (1996) 'How Sketches Work', unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University

Love T (2002) 'Multiple Theoretical Perspectives in the Long Thesis PhD: A Foundation Problem in PhD Education',

http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2002/2002%20Herdsa%20theo-persp%20longPhD.htm <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2002/2002%20Herdsa%20theo-persp%20longPhD.htm> 

Petherbridge D (2006) Quotation from a presentation titled 'Drawing as subversive practice', given at Drawing Board, a research workshop held at Lincoln University, 7-8 July.

Schenk P (2005) 'Before and after the computer: The role of drawing in graphic design', Visual:Design:Scholarship, Vol 1 (2) pp11-20. ISSN 1833 2226 http://www.agda.com.au/vds/vds010202.pdf <http://www.agda.com.au/vds/vds010202.pdf>  

 

 

© Steve Garner, 2006