Suppose a defintion of drawing were available,
what purpose would it serve?

(I am used to defintions that allow theories to be constructed).




> 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
>
>
>