Dear Drawing Research Network group,

This is mainly a response to Barker and Appleby's
recent contributions....

Sumerian writings, Linear A, Linear B, ancient
Egyptian hyerogliphs etc, these are some of the most
'visual' of all so-called 'verbal/written' languages
which can only be read through decoding drawn
lines/forms/images, often multiple drawn lines to form
one image/meaning.As Garry Barker wonderfully
contributed the other day (following parts of my
writing on drawing), the debate on what drawing is or
can be is infinitely and intricately intertwined with
the simultaneous debate surrounding the language of
*visual communication*, and therefore researching 
the multiple and often simultaneous convergences of
'visual' and 'verbal' langauge (in quotes for obvious
reasons) seems crucial.

By visual language we mean any language which can be
read by the human eye, which unsurprisingly, always
involves decoding, understanding or learning to see,
read, interpret lines which form signs, symbols and
images etc.

Thus written/drawn language is a type of *visual
language* and vice-versa (as mentioned before, even
when we are read a book, novel, poem etc it is always
accompanied by images in our mind; verbal language is
always accompanied by imagery, which says a lot about
the DNAesque nature of the word-image or drawn-image.

Man has certainly evolved from drawing one or several
sticks/lines onto a surface to drawing increasingly
more complex forms-images using lines. The more
complex and advanced the communication, the more
complex the lines or images become. 

What we now call the alphabet or numbers are nothing
but a set of lines (forming images), regardless of
whether they are straight or curved. It could be said
that the more man has evolved, the more abstracted,  
complex or symbolic the drawn lines (= images) have
become in writings/scriptures. The drawn bird, leaf or
olive branch in writing has evolved from stylised
images to half-visual/representational images and then
become fully 'abstracted', highly 'symbolic' or
'signed' images. Interestingly enough, this evolution
or progression mimicks the progression witnessed in
the history of drawing/painting, and therefore it is
not a coincidence that conceptual drawers-painters
also use the word-image rather than representational
or stylised image to communicate thoughts and
feelings. 
      
The passionate interest some abstract, Impressionist
and conceptual artists have shown towards calligraphy
or scripture (oriental/western) is also unsurprising,
as what they regard to be the beauty of curved or
angular form is nothing but: *DRAWN LINES*. 

The drawn line....The made mark....The created image.

Vertical, horizontal, diagonal, curved, angular....

Coming back to Eames, the *TOOL* of drawing = mark
making = writing = image making is irrelevant, we can
create vertical, horizontal, diagonal etc lines with a
pencil and paper or use a keyboard as our drawing tool
and a computer screen as our virtual drawing paper.
The same lines created/written on a physical sheet of
paper or virtual sheet on the computer is the same as
far as the act of 'drawing lines',
'making marks', 'image-making' etc is concerned.
Furthermore, since the advancements of Post-Painterly
abstraction, the notion of the invisibility of 
brushstrokes/lines means that lines/marks do not have
to remain visible to justify the occurrance of the act
or process of drawing-painting, or mark/image-making.

A sculptor produces 'drawing' by chiselling, carving
into marble, and by all definitions (traditional or
modern), s/he draws into marble in a linear fashion or
thereabouts, regardless of whether the
three-dimensional drawer is alla prima or not. It is
impossible to detect the linear drawing act or process
when we look at a polished, smooth, finished
sculpture, but during its development stages it is
possible to see the lines (linear/otherwise) drawn 
by the sculptor (Rodin, Michelangelo).

"I draw in my mind, my imagination does everything"

Many alla prima/automatic/surrealistic drawers utter
the same thing, not just classical masters. 

The transfer, lifting off, imparting, copying of the
imagined/virtual to a tangible/physical plane is
always possible, and this ties in neatly with all
technical or technological advancements in modern
drawing such as photoengraving, photography (or in the
case of Eames transferring/printing off/imparting her
'computer drawings-paintings' onto traditional canvas
using technological aids or means).

The transfer can create slight differences in imagery,
such as the difference between a D drawn with a
keyboard or a D drawn with a pencil. At the end of the
day, all drawing tools produce different effects on
the drawing/pictorial plane (same or otherwise) and
the image drawn is the same in terms of what is being
communicated. A similar analogy is that of a
'drypoint' drawing (etching) which looks different on
the metal plate it is originally drawn to when it is
transferred (and multi-copied) onto paper, another
plane. Same with photography, the eye
draws/captures/manipulates a frame from life and
depending on the format, there are variations of 
the same image.  

Dr Eames advocates that the aim of drawing research is
to expand definitions rather than restrict, and
include rather than exclude (needless to say provided
supported and/or proved by research).

The definition of definition is imperative, as it is
often assumed that the definition of definition is the
first part of its first definition, but it is
certainly not. Let us note again the second part of
the first definition and the entireity of the second
definition:
  
1)...nature or scope of something. 2 the action or
process of defining

Process of defining
Nature or scope of something

So images drawn/painted on an imaginary/virtual plane
(the mind/computer) which are then transferred to a
physical or traditional plane (whether to convince the
viewer that they are drawings/paintings or not) are
drawings to begin and end with. Drawing is drawing a
line or making a mark or creating an image. Drawing
can be any process, product or both.

Which brings us back to the question of *DIFFERENT
TYPES* of creative drawing; including architectural,
technical/computer, numerical, alphabetical,
mechanical, calligraphic etc, and the hierarchical
values attached to them in the Arts. It is so wrong to
disqualify or undermine architectural drawings or
others as 'low art' drawings compared to fine art
drawings (of nuds, landscapes, unconscious). As
mentioned in the previous essay, some architectural
(or otherwise) drawings are so fine, so high-quality
in a creative sense that they put to shame the
so-called fine/high art drawings of fine artists.
Plus, who can possibly claim that an architectural
drawing of an imagined building cannot be incomparably
more aesthetic or creative than an unaccomplished,
ordinary, so-called fine art drawing?

What makes any drawing or art 'fine' or 'high' is the
quality and sophistication of creativity.        

I have started seeing the deceptively naive- but in
actual fact not whatsover- Appleby 'found-definition'
contribution in a much stronger light, as all others
suggested so far have shown numerous semantic,
practical and technical weaknesses which can be
challenged in numerous ways.

However, I prefer to rephrase Appleby's definition
very slightly:   

"Drawing is making a mark on whatever takes a mark" 

This is by far the most sensible, sound definition so
far, although Eames' definition remains conceptually,
philosophically unchallenged and is a more complex
definition which cannot easily be understood or
appreciated by the lay mind or by all cognitive
ages/levels. 

In think that I will start using this in my teaching 
from now on, and since it was created whilst Appleby
was using typical 'suggestion' and 'two-way dialogue'
techniques when he was talking to his student, 
I certainly do not mind noting him as the author 
(or at the very least co-author) of this definition.

"...as an educator I was the instigator of the
conversation and i 'led out' her ideas..."

Appleby's precise words.

It is worth him claiming copyright over this sound
definition as it is user-friendly and cross-levels.

The beauty of it is that it includes all painting
(drawing with paintbrushes, fingers etc), sculpture
(again linear/tonal chiselling etc), printmaking
(drawing lines on metal/stone etc), photography
(drawing with light, camera's frame etc), writing,
conceptual art, and a myriad of contemporary drawing
disciplines and research practices.    

Drawing = mark making = writing = image making

The claim that verbal language is dissociated from
visual language is no longer valid and challenged by
latest researches in neurosciences, educational
psychology and art. Just because the brain has a
relative line slightly dividing it into two faint 
hemispheres doesn't mean that each side functions
seperately.

Having written a number of research papers on art
education and general educational/cognitive theory, 
I have found that the reason 'verbal'/'written'
subjects, including sciences, heavily rely on
illustration/imagery etc is because even the most
verbal of minds need to learn with visual stimulus/
support/aid/tool etc and vice versa. Both hemispheres
develop and support each other at the same time. The
degree to which depends entirely on the individual,
hence why some people are more developed in one
hemisphere rather than the other, or, as many people
seem to be unaware, some people are equally developed
in both, or, go through phases in their cognitive
development where one is more exercised than the other
(reasons which are explained below).

The most cutting edge of educational theory is now
working with neurosciences and questioning fiercely
the significance of stimuli (physical, visual and
emotional etc) in the developing of these sides, thus
there is an argument that inadequate or inappropriate
stimulation of either hemisphere can have serious
consequences on children's cognitive development. 

The brain is, after all, a very fragile area which
contains muscles (which need to be exercised from
babyhood) and a balance of reactive chemicals etc, not
to mention a set of muscles which need working.

There is now evidence to show that even emotional/
psychological stimuli, even in the discreet form of
subliminal stimuli (there is a myriad of these too)
can have profound effects on the development (poor) 
of the brain (and thus a child's cognitive areas or
hemispheres). These cutting-edge developments in
educational theory also shatter misconceptions about
genetically inherited IQ levels (it is not a surprise
that many traditional cognitive theorists still claim
that it is) and propose that provided a child, ie any
child receives adequate and appropriate stimuli
(neural, visual, verbal, psychological etc), their
natural cognitive development in all related
areas/hemispheres will happen naturally and gradually.


Quite similar to contemporary advances in drawing
research, educational research also has contemporary,
cutting edge theories (which challenge traditional, 
old theories and are not known or challenging to
many), as publications and expansive thinking are
limited as opposed to infinite amounts of written
resources on already-established theories. Hence 
the need for more support towards new reseach.       

I have received numerous responses from members of the
group and would like to thank everyone for their
marvellous contributions.


Isabella Zuhal Parla 
Artist, Lecturer, Tutor
MA Drawing [Camberwell College of Arts London] 
PGCE Fine Art [University of Greenwich London] 

Author, "Subliminal Learning Theory & Associated
Theories: A Critical and Associative Account",
University of Greenwich PGCE Research Paper 2006

All Contents: Copyright Isabella Zuhal Parla 06 























	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html