 |
 |
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:11:21 +0000 josie walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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!<http://wallpapers.msn.com/?ocid=%5BB001MSN42A0716B%5D> > > I agree that to say that somebody is 'able to draw' you have to at least be able to define what 'drawing' is. This is a classic truism. A consensus on what drawing is must first be established. But defining drawing is like defining art. Australian artist Ross Gibson says: ...you know you’re encountering art when you are engaging with an intentional act that causes surprising transformations in matter or in the moment. (Conversation II, 2008 Sydney Biennale, Art Gallery of NSW It's a very interesting topic. Lisa --------------------------- Lisa Roberts www.lisaroberts.com.au www.antarcticanimation.com Post:- Suite 326, 353 King Street Newtown, NSW, 2042