Dear Lizzie and others......
this debate has been lovely to read, but I was perturbed by some of the
comments about drawing/intention making humans different from animals.
i've just read a LOVELY book by Elizabeth Grosz called "art, territory and
Chaos" where she explores Deleuze's and Darwin's ideas on creativity and
animality in order to come up with a really refreshing account of what
art, arhcitecture and music are and could be.......
Briefly - she gives a metaphysical account of art as something that humans
and animals SHARE: with creativity being something that is part of the
excessive fecundity of nature, sexuality and life.......
I'm uncomfortable with drawing an implicit distinction between the tracks
made by animals, birds nests, toilet grafitti and Leonardo da vinci's
cartoons....... while we can attribute levels of intentionality or
linguistic depth to the latter - in many ways the sheer wonder and delight
of beautiful drawings - for me - sets up a sensory intensity that IS as
exciting and affecting as birdsong, or watching animals in the wild....
According to this - i guess Deleuzian - conception... drawing could be
regarded as a Territorializing and a Deterritorialising movement..... to
draw; marks off areas, delineates contours, describes forms or generates
symbols - but at the same time there are always the points where a drawing
takes the makers and the viewers out of what is known and into something
else...... even if it's a scribbled doodle, a shopping list or a
map....and these points of excitement or delight are often way outside the
intentions of the 'drawers' - whihc is why collage has been such a shocking
and exciting strategy.....
so I think my answer is "no" - I don't think people/beings whatever have to
"know" what drawing "is" in order to generate a set of marks or traces of
movements that other beings find interesting......
good luck with the dissertation
cheers
Margaret Mayhew
PhD Candidate
Deartment of Gender and Cultural Studies
University of Sydney, Australia
Quoting lizzie chubb <[log in to unmask]>:
> The definition used is along the lines of ' anything that makes a mark
> on anyhing that takes a mark placed with intention' thus making drawing
> a human or 'minded' process
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:54:48 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: input please
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Hard to answer the question Lizzie, without knowing what definition of
> drawing your thesis comes to.
>
> Damian Fennell ARBSsculpture and drawing
> http://www.artfennell.com
>
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 15:29, lizzie chubb wrote:You are correct in saying
> this and a definition will have been established by this time in the
> essay to get to this question. Therefore, assume that a definition of
> drawing has been established, whatever it may be and consider the
> question.
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:11:21 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: input please
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> To say that somebody is 'able to draw' you have to at least be able to
> define what 'drawing' is, otherwise the statement is meaningless.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM, lizzie chubb <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> Hi Everyone.
>
> I am currently writing my dissertation on a drawing topic and would be
> interested in your response to the following query.
>
> Do you need to have an undertanding of what drawing is to be able to
> draw? Please give reasons for any answers.
>
> I will be grateful for any responses and input.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Lizzie Chubb
>
> Student at Loughborough University.
>
> Get the best wallpapers on the Web - FREE. Click here!
>
> For the best free wallpapers from MSN Click here!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Win an Xbox 360 or £200 Top Shop Vouchers
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454062/direct/01/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
|