Yes, but this is taking a philosophical approach or
semanticity to the extreme....definitions are often
quite very useful in conducting any type of research
as starting, progression or end points (they are never
just one rigid definition which was started
off with), any researcher would agree that they are
'flexible' concepts or tools to work with and
to expand!
The definition of definition once again!
--- Garry Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
---------------------------------
RE: In Response
The fact that any definition of drawing can be
challenged, isn't as interesting as the potential for
any definition to be a point of departure for
practice. The use of the threads of argument are in
helping define parameters within which certain types
of drawing based activities can actually be practiced.
Invention often occurring when trying to operate
within narrow constraints.
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Peter Hall
Sent: 30 August 2006 15:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: In Response to Barker, Appleby et all
Suppose a defintion of drawing were available,
what purpose would it serve?
(I am used to defintions that allow theories to be
constructed).
* * This email and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This
email represents the personal views of the
author/sender. The author/sender has no authority or
delegation to bind Leeds College of Art and Design by
this e-mail and Leeds College of Art and Design
accepts no responsibility whatsoever for its contents.
Please note that any reply to this email may be
screened. **
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
|