A drawing by Karen Wallis, done of myself when giving the conference after dinner speech
I’ve been away from Leeds
for a few days in order to attend an academic conference on drawing in
Loughborough. These things tend to go on behind the scenes and rarely do
students get a chance to attend. It would be good if you could, but that’s
another issue.
These are a few notebook derived thoughts on
a conference that covered many aspects of drawing, from illustration, via 3D
design, to visualising policy making, to reflections on fine art practices. I have edited out
my notes on other areas, not because they were uninteresting, but simply
because this blog is designed to help undergraduates think about fine art
drawing practice and is not about how you could theorise drawing for design.
In the first presentation Howard
Riley reminded us that for research to be undertaken you need to identify a
problem, give a history of the problem in order to outline both its importance
and to communicate why earlier approaches have unexplored issues and certain
weaknesses. Finally you need to set out a hypothesis as to how the problem
could possibly be solved. All good
advice if you are setting out to undertake higher levels of academic research,
however his bête noire, is Barnett Newman, who in 1952 stated that, ‘Aesthetics is
for painting as Ornithology is
for the birds’, and I always liked Barnett’s position. I never thought it was a
cry to leave the artist’s to their ‘dumb’ art making, I saw it as a critique of
inappropriate approaches as to how to engage with practice. The nature of an artist’s engagement in practice
can be from a highly informed and intellectually complex position, but it can
be a mistake to presume that what an artist is doing is seeking some sort of
meaning or answer to an identified problem. The artist may see him or herself
as a conduit between raw experience and its reception by others, may feel that
what they are doing is providing a space within which others can meditate on
the human condition, and of course there are many other positions that an
artist could take that are not subject to logical analysis or an academic
understanding driven by theory.
However professor Riley threw out some very interesting concepts and
suggestions for further reading. Any of you thinking about your COP3 writing
and still unsure as to which theoretical position to take could look at
Wolfgang Iser’s ‘How to do Theory’, whereby he lists a range of theoretical
approaches to problems and more importantly suggests why each one might be
chosen and how it works as a lens to highlight certain issues, but of course in
doing so you miss things too; theories by their very nature tend towards
shaping the world towards their own ends. This is perhaps my main worry about
theory, it’s a wonderful way of unpicking things and unearthing an
understanding of something, but with my own work I have to read theory and then
let it almost fade into the background before it can become useful. It’s the
threads between things that fascinate me, and how that gap in between theory
and life can generate ideas, as if from nowhere. I am however not a good
academic, so don’t think of what I do as a model for academic behavior, I’m a
bit of a barfly when it comes to knowledge, I flit in and out of things rather
than sustaining an interest.
Karl Ruhrberg’s ‘Artistic
issues at the turn of the Millenium’ which is an essay taken from the end of
the book ‘Art of the 20th Century, Part 1’ which is available
in the college library, was introduced by Riley as a key text. The rest of the book is a very general
historical introduction to 20th century art and at the end of the
book Ruhrberg tries to highlight and clarify what he sees as the key issues
facing artists now. I would suggest a couple of additions to his issues; that
art’s use value is contested and that mobile technology is eroding many of our
old suppositions about the way we think about exhibition space, suggesting a
more democratic approach to making, but who really knows?
Riley suggests exploring Wolfgang Iser’s ‘How to do Theory’ as a way to
determine which theory might support an understanding of practice and foregrounds
James Gibson’s ‘Ecological Approach to Visual Perception’ as a useful tool with
which to develop an understanding of the uses we can put to visual thinking.
Theories of visual perception are about how we see: Gibson highlights the environment
around us and where we are in that environment in relation to what we are
seeing; whether or not we are moving and, if we are, where we are going; what
things are good for; how to do things, and why things look as they do.
The basic assumption is that vision depends on the eye/brain connection.
Gibson suggests that natural vision depends on the eyes being in the head on a
body supported by the ground, the brain being only the central organ of a
complete visual system.
People look around, walk up to something interesting and move around it
so as to see it from all sides, and go from one viewpoint to another. (I responded to this very positively as I try to build these types of experiences into my large drawings) A reciprocal
relationship, it is argued, exists between an individual and their environment: The
environment provides resources and opportunities for the person, and the person
gets information from and acts on the environment. The concept of affordance is
central to this idea; the person acts on what the environment affords, as it is
appropriate. I still have some problems with this as it is another theory which
suggests that we have a degree of control over the world and I’m not
sure about this, I think we have a certain delusion of power and that if we
could only step outside of the human centric view, we would realise that we are
as powerful or acquiescent as a frog or a leaf when making decisions.
Riley abstracts ideas about how to think about drawing from Michael Halliday’s
seven functions of language. It’s interesting to see how these theories come
and go, looking at art as a language that operates in a similar way to verbal
and written languages was very prevalent in the late 1960s and early 70s when I
was at art school. The key concepts back then being the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis,
whereby the structure of a language greatly influences the modes of thought and
behavioral characteristic of the culture within which it is spoken.
Wittgenstein’s ‘use value’, i.e. if you want to determine what an aspect of
language means, look at how it is used, helped us to think about how our work
could possibly go out into the world, how it could be used. Austin’s ‘How to do
things with words’, whereby you saw language as a type of performance, was used
to highlight the way each decision we made about what we were doing was in
someway an ‘acting out’ of a role, and Strawson’s analysis of meaning in
relation to truth conditions made us aware that there was no such thing as
‘truth’ in language and that it was always ambiguous. Quine was set up in
opposition to this, whereby he proposed that higher order logic and set theory
could always be used to get a grip on the deeper structure of things. Chomsky
was often referred to because of his argument that all languages have a fundamental
set of common principles, this proposition was used to support the wider
argument that you could take ideas and theories from linguistics and apply them
to all other forms of communication. I.e. if you regarded art as a language you
could then apply language theory to art. The reason I have opened this out a
little is that if you did decide to use Halliday’s principles to support your
position in writing an academic paper, you would also need to explain the wider
context within which Halliday’s idea sits.
However back to Halliday; these are his 7 functional principles adapted
slightly so that they can be applied to an understanding of drawing:
Instrumental: Communicating
need: How would you use a drawing to let someone else know you need something?
For instance could you use a drawing to get help?
Regulatory: Telling others
what to do: You could look at road signs as examples of this.
Interactional: Using drawing to make
contact with others. In art therapy for instance there are drawing games used
to communicate people’s feelings to each other. I have posted about the use of
Indian ‘doorstep chalk drawings’. Women
draw designs every morning on their doorsteps, using rice powder or crushed
limestone. If interested look up rangoli, aripona, alpona and kolam drawings.
Personal: Individual feelings,
what you think about and how to express these thoughts. Expressionist art could
be regarded in this way.
Heuristic: Used to gain knowledge
about the environment, perhaps testing out how things are in order to
understand them. Using string to find your way back through a maze, or setting
up a simple walking and angle measuring device to determine how high a building
is. Artists that work directly in the landscape often work in this way.
Imaginative: The creation of
an imaginary environment, often to tell a story.
Representational: The use of
drawing to convey facts and information.
Adapted from: Halliday, M.A.K. (1975) Learning How to Mean.
London: Edward Arnold
Riley also reminded us of how important rhetoric is to the development
of language in use. I have touched on it before but have yet to post anything that looks at how drawing in particular could be
understood in terms of rhetoric. For Roman Jakobson, metaphor and metonymy are
the two fundamental modes of communicating meaning and according to Lakoff and
Johnson, the people who you should read if you are interested in how we build
language out of our deep awareness of our own bodies, are the basis for much of
our understanding as we develop as human beings.
Many of these theories come under what was at the time called ‘the
linguistic turn’ which focused on the
relationship between disciplines such as art and philosophy with language.
Dr. Janette Matthews gave a talk on the mathematics of knot theory,
which I was very interested in as it helped open out ideas related to several
of my other posts and cements my assertion that in order for an artist to have
a fully rounded understanding of the world they should have at least a basic
idea of how mathematics works to understand what we experience. Dr. Matthews
opened out the use of Venn diagrams to help us think about how to predict
events and reminded us of how important topology is to how we can think about 3
dimensional surfaces. However the best way for you to get an idea of what she
is thinking about is to read this article:
Corneel
Cannearts introduced us to what he called allographic machines. He was adopting
a Nelson Goodman term, ‘allographic drawing’ which is another theoretical approach to an understanding of contemporary art production. Goodman stated that all contemporary artworks are
allographic forms, therefore all contemporary art is drawing, in the sense that
these art works are examples of the type of drawing that includes diagrams
and graphic notation. In ‘Languages of Art’ Goodman suggests that much of
current practice is concerned with representation and notation and introduces
the term to distinguish between autographic – being peculiar to an individual –
and allographic meaning any other form of notation that is not autographic.
Allographic representations
are graphic records carried out by other means than conventional drawing. In essence,
allographic representation, allows for the widest possible set of variations of
a form, and includes an unlimited selection of media. Such an understanding
therefore necessitates the expansion of the notion of drawing to include
three-dimensional representations and whether a drawing is two- or three-
dimensional no longer carries any significance.
Canneart’s presentation was
actually about how to rethink the way a 3D printer can be used, and he was
hacking into the existing computer code, so that he could redirect how the 3D
printer would respond to messages received. He was arguing that by working
directly with the computer code he was able to give his drawings full
allographic status. He was reflecting
more on the way his interventions did not bear his ‘hand trace’ but I might
argue that coding itself is a language and that his ‘autograph’ is imprinted
within the new code he wrote for the machine. However the concept of encoded matter has stayed with me and I think is a way of thinking that will become more and more important.
Corneel Cannearts:
Examples of forms made by 3D printers in response to editing computer code
Canneart opened his
presentation with a reminder of the myth of the first drawing. This is central
to his idea of allographic drawing. Karl Friedrich Schinkel’s, ‘Origin
of Painting’, 1830, shows one version of the origin myth that explains that drawing
originated in the tracing of lines round the human shadow. Pliny the Elder
recounts the myth of Butades of Corinth. “It was through his daughter that he
made the discovery; who, being deeply in love with a young man about to depart
on a long journey, traced the profile of his face, as thrown upon the wall by
the light of the lamp.”
At its very inception therefore drawing is associated with a method that
in many ways circumvents autographic representation, personal feelings are
excluded because the shadow is in effect an orthogonal projection and all the
artist is doing is tracing around its edge. In order to fully capture this
representation Butades then went on to make a ceramic version from the tracing,
thus echoing how Canneart was thinking about his relationship with the 3D
printer.
Instead of using Karl Friedrich Schinkel's painting Canneart could have used this photographic image above by Karen Knorr, ‘The Pencil
of Nature’, 1994. The term ‘pencil of nature’ is taken from Henry Fox Talbot's
account of his invention of photography. (Drawing with light.) The machine, the camera, records the tracing of the shadow, another cruder earlier technology that the camera has supplanted, just as contemporary art has replaced the art of the past, represented by the Classical nude figure of a man. At the same time women are now taking centre stage, they replace the usually unclothed women that we find in Classical paintings and are engaged in rediscovering the origins of image making.
Catherine Anyango gave a
fascinating presentation on how she was using drawing to respond to ‘Last Seen’
images. By this she meant responding to images such as video clips, which
were the last known sighting of someone before they had been killed or had disappeared. She was interested in how the physical quality of a drawing could
relate to the trauma of the situation and when she passed around the original
drawings you began to get an idea of how the drawing process of working up
surface texture by rubbing in layers of graphite pencil and sharply delineating
the edges of light and dark in reverse tonality, which was then followed by
using a less reflective black chalk, could eventually both create a surface of
distress, and at the same time be able to hold an image.
Anyango’s work was a lesson
in how to process a photographic image through drawing, she was not copying;
she was re-creating. At the centre of her presentation two questions emerged,
‘how do images create a space to think about concepts?’ and ‘how can concepts
generate ideas for the creation of images?’
Her work is underpinned
theoretically by notions of ‘the other’, and Kristeva's concept of abjection. Moving from working with
Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ onto other representations of those that
have been excluded from ‘normal’ representation, Anyango was now making
animations and exploring both abstract and figurative approaches to these
issues.
Catherine Anyango
A presentation by Sian
Hindle on body limits and the skin as a boundary was centred on jewellery
design but could have been just as applicable to a fine art context. For
instance she pointed out that the wedding ring could be looked at as a metonym,
you in effect carry your spouse with you. All jewellery or body adornment sits
on the body’s boundaries and therefore is central to our ‘embodied’ identities;
we both have and are bodies. Read Bryan
S Turner’s ‘The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory’ to get a much
richer idea of these theories.
Jewellery is about establishing our boundaries and what is beyond our
borders is often ‘horrific’ or ‘abject’ to return to Kristeva’s concept.
Jewellery can be seen to also activate this boundary and it is a boundary that
is constantly changing. For instance in Victorian times human hair was often
used in mourning jewellery, but this would now be regarded as horrific by many
sections of society.
Jewellery has sometimes been described as ‘body drawing’ but in this
case the presentation was at a drawing conference because Hindle was using
drawing to explore the emotional and associative resonances around the way
jewellery could affect personality.
There were also two presentations by artists undertaking forms of
repetitive mark making. Martin Lewis was investigating how to evidence the
experiential, i.e. how could he communicate to others what he was doing? Moving
from a practice centred on repetitive mark making on paper, for instance drawing a line
and then copying it exactly, right down to any accidental glitch and doing this
over and over again, to a practice that was more performance based. He kept asking questions. How did he
feel about repeating an action over and over again? He had himself filmed
sitting at a desk whist tapping his fingers. What was he thinking of? How does
the everyday creep into any situation of this sort? How do you make an accurate
transcription of an experiential event? He was also using text on
paper, a historical lineage going back through Robert Smithson’s ‘Heap of
Language’ from 1966, via Robert Morris’s ‘’Memory Drawings’, Joseph Kosuth’s
text pieces and Fiona Banner’s ‘Life Drawings’. I reminded myself that Fiona
Banner had a piece in ‘Against Expression: An Anthology of Conceptual Writing’ and that perhaps
simply putting in a link to that was enough.
It was interesting to compare Lewis’s approach to Joe Graham’s who was
more concerned with how to illustrate a concept. He had been thinking about
freedom; voluntary and involuntary reactions. He was using what he termed ‘autonomic’
drawing to explore a post-phenomenological methodology. Post-phenomenology is
the inquiry into the ways in which technologies get embodied. Ours is a
"lived body" that is immersed in technologically designed
environments. It is as if Jonson and Lakoff’s ideas of an embodied mind and the
way we create metaphor based on living in our bodies, was implanted into
extended bodies that use technology so much that they have forgotten that it is
‘other’ or different, it is now simply an extension of our very selves.
Graham had given himself a set of rules to work to. He was responding to
different metronomic beats and building drawings by filling in sheets of graph
paper that recorded him making the same marks over and over again to the tick
of the metronome. Fast speeds meant shorter marks. Marks were locked into grids
that represented moments of time. His work was a catalogue of bodily reactions
to imposed limits of movement. I found an analogy with time and motion studies
that used to be the bane of anyone who used to work in a factory. Repetitive
actions were examined by experts and they then devised ways in which they could
be done quicker and quicker, the worker being exploited and pushed to the edges
of their capability, as owners looked for more and more products from their
production lines in relation to less and less payment for the producers. I
realise that Graham’s work was not intended metaphorically but my mind works
that way and all artwork when it reaches an audience is open to interpretation.
There were many other presentations and sometimes my notes were quite
cursory, like most people I tend to cherry pick my information, we also had
practical workshops where we actually drew and this is my drawing of a sink in
the corner of a room.
It’s good to be reminded of what it must be like to be a student,
everyone in these conferences dreads the workshops because you have to expose
yourself and make something that will be visible to all and you will probably
be unable to do what you normally do, so you will be working outside of your
comfort zone. However it's also great just to have an excuse to draw and not to have to worry about whether or not it is going to be any good.
Notes from an earlier drawing conference
