I'm not one to talk too much about drawing - preferring instead a
dialogue about drawing being to make or identify a drawing in
response to another. The definition of drawing is something that
interests me because it is often avoided - especially by researchers
in drawing - which seems a shame because it allows an 'everything is
permissible' ideology that can collapse quickly into a historically
or socially derived post-hoc examination rather than one that might
be intrinsic to the thing itself. The operable definition (and one
I've found workable) I use for C4RD is "the exercise of the human
imagination on line" as it is one that permits access for many
approaches whilst at the same time being particular from design or
compositional factors; it is also a retreat from a 'traditional
application or medium' definition. More importantly it highlights the
human interest in drawing: just as in mathematics, where two points
make a line, the capacity to appreciate the appearance and
intersection of line is intrinsic to human consciousness. The idea of
a continous and stable (linear) consciousness is embedded in our
experience (and our experience of time), and I believe a parallel
experience (stronger than analogy) of this quality is embedded in
drawing.
Andrew
On 21 Jul 2006, at 13:43, Jill wrote:
> This discussion seems to have turned into a search for an absolute
> definition of drawing. There is surely no such thing. Definitions
> arise
> from use. The meaning of 'drawing' derives simply from the way the
> word is
> used in different cultures and contexts.
>
> Jill
>
|