Drawing like its cousins in communication, verbal and written languages,
operates in time and each type of drawing could be said to inhabit a particular
tense. Drawing’s paradox is that at its best it operates in the present tense,
it creates an experience of nowness of presentness and yet it is often a study
of the past, or more accurately the pastness of the present, whilst it also attempts
to construct a presentness of the past.
Drawing is what I do as an art practice. Every time I make a drawing I
am aware of the decision to make it, the decision to approach it in a certain
way and an experience of making the drawing. Each is conceptually, emotionally
and physically different and each aspect slips from beneath my understanding as
I try to focus on it. The more I draw the less I understand how it works. I’ll
try and explain.
John Berger points to three distinct types of drawing; the study and
question of the visible, the communication of ideas and the capturing of
memory. He observes that each type of
drawing speaks in a different tense and that the viewer will respond with a
different capacity of imagination to each approach. Berger by setting
out these differences suggests that all drawings can be in some way timed. My own experience of drawing is that like all languages you use a very specific mode, such as description, when you are explaining to
someone else what something looks like and yet the same language can at another
time be used within a different mode of address, such as poetry, where what
perhaps started as descriptive text, now reconfigures itself to suggest metaphoric associations or a changed rhythm of delivery. We use language very differently when having an informal chat in the pub, to having to deliver a speech at a formal occasion.
Drawings I do in response to direct observation are very different to one's done from memory, it's the encounter with the world that counts. However the encounter with what’s out there for the drawer is an enigma. On the
one hand you are recording an observation, you are recording that observation
within a certain period of time and you have a sensibility that attunes you to
certain things. On the other hand you are forced to abstract, you are not
mimicking nature or creating an illusion of the real, you are developing a
trace of the mind’s eye as it decides what is of interest and what is not. Each
mark made, even though it is made in response to something seen, is though
itself immediately an active shaper of what is being shaped. If for example a
particular type or character of mark is used to represent a point in space, or
an edge to an object, it will itself then activate the imagined space of the
surface on which you draw. In response to these decisions, the next mark you
make is going to be stronger or weaker, higher or lower, of a different
directional nature, has a family of resemblance or difference; you can’t avoid
the fact that previous marks are going to dictate future marks’ position and
nature. Therefore at some point in the process of looking, the objective regard
for what is out there becomes suffused within a subjective response to the
process of a drawing’s becoming. It is as Yates explained, ‘I made it out of a
mouthful of air’, it happened as it arrived. The sentence I used to explain
something in that hurried conversation on the bus just came to me, even so, it
still communicated something, one word seemed to trip out another and I speak
so often that I no longer have to think about it.
But this is still an encounter. You look down at what you have drawn and
up at what you are drawing. Questions are asked. Have I managed to capture
anything of the nature of this experience? If so, what is it? It may be very
abstract, the nature of the space or rhythm of perceptual encounter. It may be
to record a particular shape or set of associations discovered. If it is going
to be a drawing you continue with, the process needs a focus. Not all drawings
find this focus at the time and it may only be some time later that you notice
where the drawing could take itself.
Cezanne
In this drawing of trees by Cezanne, you feel that what he is really looking at is his experience of the space between the trees. Each mark is a tentative grasp of what he is searching for rather than a depiction of a tree. The drawing doesn't have a conclusion, it simply seems to be waiting for another decision, the space arriving as you yourself begin to read Cezanne's attempt to realise his experience. In this way this small drawing always appears to be 'in the now'.
So what’s there when you stop, when you ‘finish’ an observed
drawing? Sometimes the decisions of looking are balanced so delicately in
relation to the physical decisions of the drawing, that the result in some ways
forces you to stay there forever. The
enigma of the looking can be frozen in a material encounter, which you are
forced to unpick in the present tense. It is a present tense in the sense that
the observer is forced to re-create the moments of looking, the palimpsest of
the drawings surface presenting traces of action as a diagram of simultaneity
for the observer’s eyes. However if I
had to nail down this sort of drawing into a type of tense it would be
something that suggested that a finished action has an influence on the present, thus it would have to be
the present perfect progressive.
Some drawings are long term encounters with the physicality
of the making of a drawing itself. There is no observation of something else,
what is observed is what is encountered as the drawing evolves. Artists that
use systems and follow ordered processes often work in this area, something I
have never really done, I’m too scatty and easily bored, but when done well I’m
aware it can be a very powerful engine for the production of work. Systems are often used in order to visualize the transformation
of materials over time. If you look at the work of an artist like Katie Lewis,
you will see her engaged with documenting and recording her actions as well as
the actual doing and making. When you encounter the work it is finished,
documented and recorded. So although the actions in making the drawings reflect
a considerable amount of time and effort, it is as if we are putting an emphasis on the final result, which in the English language would
be the present perfect simple. Lewis
states,
“I invent and
implement systems in order to visualize the transformation of materials over
time. I compile data such as physical sensations in the body, the number of
steps taken each day, or the manner individuals traverse through a landscape. I
devise methods of data visualization using limited materials such as paper,
thread, sewing pins, or graphite. The process of physical repetition within a
system transforms the materials into intricate visual accumulations. Pins amass
on the wall into clusters or swarms, thread weaves into a chaotic web, graphite
numbers layer into a black mass, and punctured holes overlap until a surface
can no longer hold itself together.”
She regards all the various approaches to drawing as methods of data
visualisation. Whether using sewing, pins or drawing with graphite, she is
visualising data and this is something I have touched on before Lewis operating at the much more physical end of the data visualisation
spectrum.
450 Days. pins, pencil; 234″ x 108″ x 1.5″
730 Days. pins, pencil; 56″ x 292″ x 1.5″
In Lewis's drawings time is embedded in her titles as they are part of the recording mechanisms used.
Drawing from observation or responding to an ongoing data
collecting process is very different to visualising what’s in the mind’s eye.
Working drawings that set out a scene or plot an idea are about the dreaming of
ideas and dealing with visions and future what ifs. This is about action that
might take place, the conditional simple tense. Plans and diagrams may be seen
as belonging to the future tense as they are indications of what could be
built, but drawings of visions, those realisations of images that just arrive
out of their own making, these are about becoming. The future simple tense is
about decisions made for the future. There is a distinct difference however
between those images that project an idea of the future, for instance one of Christo’s drawings for wrapping the Reichstag and a drawing that is a
result of its own becoming, something that has risen out of the process of
seeing an image in the marks, which could be seen as a spontaneous decision, part of the future simple tense.
Cristo
Christo: drawings for wrapping the Reichstag
Picasso: Sketchbook page
Christo's drawings for the wrapping of the Reichstag include plans and positions on maps. They are a clear vision of a possible future, whilst Picasso's sketchbook page is a drawing discovering itself. There are no plans here, simply a hand responding to what is going on, each set of marks implying a new image; the spontaneous future simple tense. However as a drawing like this evolves, it can go through the same set of decisions as a drawing from life. If for example a particular type or character of mark is used to represent an idea, or an emerging image, it will itself then activate the imagined space of the surface on which you draw. In response to these decisions, exactly as is the case in drawing from life, the next mark you make is going to be stronger or weaker, higher or lower, of a different directional nature, has a family of resemblance or difference; you can’t avoid the fact that previous marks are going to dictate future marks’ position and nature. Therefore at some point in the process of invention it becomes inseparable from the process of a drawing’s becoming.
I sometimes draw from memory. This is of course about a past tense. The
past perfect progressive, I had been experiencing something. However when I
recall the past, it is perhaps the past progressive. I slip between tenses as I
get lost in my own wanderings, knowing that what I’m really looking for are
drawings that seek a universal time, I’m looking for a summery tense, a time
that can host a drawing situated intelligence, where drawing was is the
medium through which thought is received as concrete expression. Drawing from memory is both a process of simplification and distortion. As always for an experienced drawer the feel of the drawing at some point takes over as you begin to 'see' things in the marks you make. Reinventing the past is something we all do, so its no surprise that drawings from memory also do this. I like the way Gianluca Gimini set up a very basic situation for people to look at, a bicycle, and then reversed the process, making bikes from the drawings people did from memory.
Bike drawn from memory
Below is a table of tenses as used in the English language. We rarely think
about tense when speaking, we just use the language. It’s only when you learn a
foreign language that you are asked to stop and consider how and when you use
different tenses. As you go through these different tenses you begin to feel slippage between them, (well I do) and I get a sense that time is very personal, one person's present may be another person's past, for some an imagined future is a reality for others an impossibility.
A: He
speaks.
N: He does not speak. Q: Does he speak? |
Action
in the present taking place once, never or several times
Facts
Actions
taking place one after another
Action
set by a timetable or schedule
|
always, every …, never,
normally, often, seldom, sometimes, usually
if sentences type I (If I talk, …) |
|
A: He is speaking.
N: He is not speaking. Q: Is he speaking? |
Action
taking place in the moment of speaking
Action
taking place only for a limited period of time
Action
arranged for the future
|
at the moment, just, just now,
Listen!, Look!, now, right now
|
|
A: He spoke.
N: He did not speak. Q: Did he speak? |
Action
in the past taking place once, never or several times
Actions
taking place one after another
Action
taking place in the middle of another action
|
yesterday, 2 minutes ago, in
1990, the other day, last Friday
if sentence type II (If I talked, …) |
|
A: He was speaking.
N: He was not speaking. Q: Was he speaking? |
Action
going on at a certain time in the past
Actions
taking place at the same time
Action
in the past that is interrupted by another action
|
when, while, as long as
|
|
A: He has spoken.
N: He has not spoken. Q: Has he spoken? |
Putting
emphasis on the result
Action
that is still going on
Action
that stopped recently
Finished action that has an influence on the present
Action
that has taken place once, never or several times before the moment of
speaking
|
already, ever, just, never, not
yet, so far, till now, up to now
|
|
A: He has been speaking.
N: He has not been speaking. Q: Has he been speaking? |
Putting
emphasis on the course or duration (not the result)
Action
that recently stopped or is still going on
Finished
action that influenced the present
|
all day, for 4 years, since
1993, how long?, the whole week
|
|
A: He had spoken.
N: He had not spoken. Q: Had he spoken? |
Action
taking place before a certain time in the past
Putting
emphasis only on the fact (not the duration)
|
already, just, never, not yet,
once, until that day
if sentence type III (If I had talked, …) |
|
A: He had been speaking.
N: He had not been speaking. Q: Had he been speaking? |
Action
taking place before a certain time in the past
Putting
emphasis on the duration or course of an action
|
for, since, the whole day, all
day
|
|
A: He will speak.
N: He will not speak. Q: Will he speak? |
Action
in the future that cannot be influenced
Spontaneous decision
Assumption
with regard to the future
|
in a year, next …, tomorrow
If-Satz Typ I (If you ask her, she will help you.) assumption: I think, probably, perhaps |
|
|
(going to)
|
A: He is going to speak.
N: He is not going to speak. Q: Is he going to speak? |
Decision made for the future
Conclusion
with regard to the future
|
in one year, next week,
tomorrow
|
A: He will be speaking.
N: He will not be speaking. Q: Will he be speaking? |
Action
that is going on at a certain time in the future
Action
that is sure to happen in the near future
|
in one year, next week,
tomorrow
|
|
A: He will have spoken.
N: He will not have spoken. Q: Will he have spoken? |
Action
that will be finished at a certain time in the future
|
by Monday, in a week
|
|
A: He will have been speaking.
N: He will not have been speaking. Q: Will he have been speaking? |
Action
taking place before a certain time in the future
Putting
emphasis on the course of an action
|
for …, the last couple of
hours, all day long
|
|
A: He would speak.
N: He would not speak. Q: Would he speak? |
Action
that might take place
|
if sentences type II
(If I were you, I would go home.) |
|
A: He would be speaking.
N: He would not be speaking. Q: Would he be speaking? |
Action
that might take place
Putting
emphasis on the course / duration of the action
|
||
A: He would have spoken.
N: He would not have spoken. Q: Would he have spoken? |
Action
that might have taken place in the past
|
if sentences type III
(If I had seen that, I would have helped.) |
|
A: He would have been speaking.
N: He would not have been speaking. Q: Would he have been speaking? |
Action
that might have taken place in the past
Puts
emphasis on the course / duration of the action
|
