Ok here's something... because it is already something BEFORE it is
imposed with the name 'drawing', therefore the Giraffe remains a
giraffe, it neither intends to be a drawing or accepts the imposition
of the title 'drawing'... but of course we could also say this of
graphite and paper,
and i would say tattooing an animal falls under "whatever takes a mark"
On 21 Jul 2006, at 13:31, John Stell wrote:
> The markings on a giraffe are as good a 'found drawing' as any,
> but more deliberately an artist could in principle become a
> breeder of giraffes with the intention that the resulting animals
> are marks in the environment.
>
> Is this really all that different from
> collecting footprints as drawings, or dropping ink onto paper
> and having the splashes be a drawing?
>
> Artists have certainly tatooed animals and people and the
> results can be seen as drawings. Maybe another way a giraffe
> is a drawing is a like a blank sheet of paper (and someone
> must have claimed that for a drawing decades ago).
>
> John
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Rob Appleby wrote:
>
>> A Giraffe!
>>
>>
>> On 21 Jul 2006, at 12:52, John Stell wrote:
>>
>>> Challenge: find one thing that is definitely not a drawing.
>>
>
|