I am on my way back from a conference in Porto, entitled "Drawing Across Along Between University Borders". It was designed to bring together drawing professionals responsible for the future of drawing as an academic discipline and was held over three days, 16th to 18th of October.
I haven't been to a drawing conference for a while, but I had been to Porto before, as it was the venue for my last week of work for the Leeds Arts University before I retired, or at least thought I had retired. I had previously delivered a workshop that was designed to last for a day, looking at how people from any discipline could begin the process of visualising feelings, whether these were emotional or physical, such as a particular pain. This time I was back in Porto to deliver something similar, but in a much shorter timeframe, I had just one hour to communicate my idea and to add on to it a further concept, the idea that an embodied visual language could be used to illustrate intellectual ideas as well as embodied feelings and that the two were intimately related.
Conferences are always structured in such a way that you have to make choices as to what talks and workshops you will attend, therefore any one person's view or experience is shaped by the path they take through each day. My reflection on what I experienced will therefore be very personal and coupled with the fact that I am prone to be interested in some things more than others, my reflections are therefore totally biased, but hopefully they might give a reader a sense of what was driving the conference's agenda, and offer a glimpse of my own personal agenda for wanting to attend it.
Throughout the conference there was the reassuring presence, thoughtful remarks and background support of Paulo Luís Almeida and without his energy and commitment to the project it would have been a far less rich and enlightening event and he was always there to introduce the various hosts and speakers, including of course opening remarks.
Day one
There was an opening performance, whereby Silvia Simões, the drawer, and Lucas Oliveira, the saxophonist, responded to each other, or perhaps the drawer mainly responded to the saxophonist, I wasn't sure. A live feed using a camera directly overhead of the paper on which a drawing was orchestrated, was projected on a screen that was central to the stage on which both performers operated. The saxophonist to the left and the drawer on the right.
Silvia had taped graphite sticks to her fingers and thumbs, so that they operated as extended nails and as the saxophonist changed pitch or rhythm, she responded by making marks on the white paper sheet set out horizontally on the table in front of her. Beginning close to her body, as louder marks were made her hands moved into the spaces further away from her body. Gradually as the event continued, certain marks would begin to indicate particular types of repeated rhythms, marks clustering together to form energy patterns. However the light reflected off the paper into the camera lens was uneven, and the marks at the top of the drawing disappeared into the light's reflection and I began to wonder if this was on purpose or not. If it was on purpose, its use it seems to me was to remind us all of the media specificity we were experiencing, which was as much about the video camera, screen and lighting, as it was the two participants, saxophone and drawing materials. If it was an accident due to a failure to test the lighting beforehand, then like all accidents, perhaps it could be worked with as an integral aspect of the next performance. This issue was something that for myself set out a sort of question that would begin to open out as the event unfolded, how much learning was I going to get from the conference that was orchestrated and intended and how much of the experience was going to be embodied via unintended actions and serendipitous events?
In this case I was reminded of one of the moments I was planning for my own workshop, which was a brief introduction to sound and shape interrelationship, the kiki / bouba effect and I immediately began questioning how well that was being illustrated by the performance.
The first workshop
The first workshop I attended was under the umbrella of 'Hybrid knowing spaces, between art and science'. Maria Manuela Lopes introduced us to issues surrounding 'Drawing the Genome'. I think there are about 3 billion DNA letters in the human genome and they are combinations of four letters adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). The order of these chemical bases, or nucleotides, in effect defines our genes and encodes all the information needed for our cells to function. I was given a single sheet of code, one of the many that would be needed to be printed off if the full sequence was to be made available. It was a daunting task, not only to imagine 3 billion letters in various combinations, but to even think that in a short period of time an artist like myself could contribute anything to the problem of awareness of the complexities involved. But this is what we were asked to do. I simply scanned the page and let my intuition decide on three short sequences, two that I scanned horizontally and a third that took my attention as a vertical line, which I sort of realised went against the grain of reason but as these actions were totally intuitive, I thought why not go with the flow. I picked four different colours to represent the four letters and simply reproduced the lines of code as coloured dots. I then thought about the 'resonance of clustering'. By this I decided that one letter on its own would have a certain 'energy'. Two together would have more. I don't know why but it felt right, and so I then redrew the lines of code changing the spacing between the dots depending on my intuited energy changes. All of this was totally illogical but it made me aware that no matter how difficult or incomprehensible our experiences are, we will always attempt to interpret them and that this was perhaps what Maria was trying to extract from the session, not an answer to the problem of how to use visualisation techniques to explain the genome sequence but to explore how a group of visual professionals would respond to a seemingly impossible task.The keynote was followed by parallel sessions.
As he talked I remembered seeing Kurt Vonnegut explaining stories on a blackboard, he showed us how to graph the shape of a story by drawing two axes: one representing the story's chronology, and the other representing the protagonist's fortune. He then went on to graphically sum up several fairy tales, an event that must be now from over 40 years ago, but he was so engaging and funny that everything from that session stuck. I'm afraid as I reminisced I spent more time drawing. Not that Dean's presentation was not interesting but that by now I was getting mentally tired and drawing always helps me to refocus.
Michael was then using the rules developed for this previous work's formal language, as a way into his own investigations into sound/visual interaction. For example the higher up on a vertical line a shape may sit, the higher its pitch might be. The interesting issue here was what now emerged from a practice that was using digital technology to re-visit a piece of work made before digital technology was available. He was interested in machine learning, which trains a model on known input and output data to predict future outputs, and we were presented with some examples of the sounds that had been generated as a byproduct of this research. I thought this work felt as if it was in its early stages and that the shape/sound interrelationships were as yet very crude, but the potential is very interesting.
I was already looking forward to day two, my reflections on which will form my next post.
See also:
Notes on a previous conference, with links to other conferences attended at the end.


































