One could also say, that the artist, pen and ground
constitute an informational pathway in which drawing
is present as a pattern. The materiality of the idea
in mind translated and modified through gesture, pen
and ground.
Andy Clark's suggestion is that our media extend us,
in favour of the situated model of cognition. My
writing and developing software frameworks is really a
way of shifting ideas about drawing out into the real
world, and having them available as tools; I term this
process reassignment, but what is most useful about
all this, is that I can be free to think and do other
things, or assign things that I would not be able to
calculate.
The whole thing is made as real time as possible, so
it all just happens as a flow in the way Bateson
describes:
Suppose I am a blind man, and I use a stick. I go tap,
tap, tap. Where do I start? Is my mental system
bounded at the hand of the stick? Is it bounded by my
skin? Does it start halfway up the stick? Does it
start at the tip of the stick (1972, p. 459)?
A similar thing can be said about the drawing process.
Mark.
--- Howard Hollands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Surely the groundless element is what goes on in the
> head (conceptually) and it becomes grounded through
> whatever technology (process/media) is being
> employed to form the idea. There can be a virtual
> ground too which is the space where your own working
> out takes place/becomes manifest, with or without
> you being directly involved, no?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
> on behalf of mark hill
> Sent: Thu 7/6/2006 9:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Groundlessness
>
> Peter,
>
> Sorry if my explanation is less than clear. Let me
> try
> again.
>
> The idea (in plainer English) is that the majority
> of
> tradtional drawing media more or less involve direct
> contact between pen and ground. In software this is
> not the case, as we have to rely on computer
> algorithms to interpret our gestures. As a
> programmer
> and artist, I indentify this as a gap: the distance
> between a gesture and the resulting authographic
> mark.
> The frameworks I have developed make use of a
> variety
> of technological apparatus and software processes to
> move drawing about in order to do things with it
> that
> you couldn't ordinarily do without assistance. While
> drawing is being shoved about in this way, I refer
> to
> it as being groundless, it's just information, and
> it
> is only when reproductive processes become involved
> that it is made into a static object again;
> intersemiosis.
>
> So really, it's about peeling drawing from one kind
> of
> surface, doing something with it (groundless), and
> then applying it to another.
>
> Is this making it any clearer, because as you say it
> ought to have a simple explanation.
>
>
> Mark.
>
>
> --- Peter Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I confess I have no idea what "groundlessness" is.
> >
> > Any idea that has merit has a simple explanation,
> > even that explanation is only by analogy.
> >
> > I am afraid Marks explanation cast no light at all
> > for me.
> >
> > At this point in time the term appears have more
> > wind
> > than substance - but I'm willing to learn.
> >
> > I would need a _clear_ explanation, rather than
> one
> > which
> > a contender for a prize from the plain English
> > society.
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|