Drawing: what is it and why has it traditionally held a special place in the Art Programme?

J U D I T H D I N H A M Drawing: what is it and why has it traditionally held a special place in the Art Programme?

This essay seeks to clarify why drawing traditionally holds a central place in the art school programme, by examining what is meant by the term ‘drawing’ and how ‘drawing’, stemming from the Renaissance art tradition, is characterised. Reference to the Oxford English Dictionary indicates that ‘drawing’ and its deriva- tives encompass a range of meaning, including to pull, attract, extract, and to protract. It also means to trace, delineate, make (pictures), represent (objects). It is ‘drawing’ as understood by this second definition which is the focus of this essay. To elaborate on this definition: the term describes a range of activities whereby a person uses a moving point-usually a mark-making tool-to create a pattern of marks on a surface. Whilst we understand ‘drawing’ defined as pulling, attracting, extracting and protracting to be of another order, these interpretations of drawing also make a subtle contribution to the understanding of the ‘making pictures’ kind of drawing. Words such as drawn out, drawing lots and horse-drawn describe actions which have a linear quality-the movement from one point to another. In common usage the ‘making pictures’ kind of drawing is understood in the same way -essentially linear marks created by pulling a mark-making tool across a surface.

‘Drawing’ is also a noun. When we draw, we create drawings. On the drawing continuum, maps, diagrams, plans, cartoons, children’s drawings, and the work of draughtsmen and artists are all represented. So are images executed in the sand with sticks and circles drawn on fogged windows. There are drawings which are essentially utilitarian-executed to clarify and communicate information; drawings which are enquiries about the nature of things; drawings which I are a celebration of draughting skill; and artistic works which we recognise by their subjective synthesis of form, content and meaning. Some activities are identified as specialised forms of drawing. For example, the O E D begins the definition of ‘diagram’ with ‘drawings that show.. .’. However, there is still a wide variety of drawing forms which are simply grouped and labelled under the general term ‘drawing’.

Under this umbrella label, the drawing ‘event’ ranges widely in terms of process, purpose, form, content, demonstrated skill and value. However, there are some common denominators which can and should be identified. This is not for the purpose of defining drawing, but rather to provide a framework within which one can examine and compare how different types of drawing are characterised.

Journal of Art & Design Education

Vol 8, No 3, 1989

317

J U D I T H D I N H A M Drawing in the Art Programme

It can be said that all drawing events involve the creation of products which are formed as a result of intention and which visually present information to the viewer by means other than the written language system. This information can be figurative and/ or non-figurative and/or a system of graphic symbols and devices. The configuration of marks used to convey this information gives the drawing its visual form. We may also understand these products to have been executed by the process of drawing. In claiming that these are the common denominators, it can be anticipated that all drawings, including those that are specialised forms of drawing would be (a) products which have (b) visual form and (c) have been intentionally created by (d) the process of drawing. In such a spectrum of activity, the common denominators cannot be stated more specifically. Besides demonstrating Wittgenstein’s argument that to attempt a definition via this route would have been folly, it can also be seen that there is really more to set drawings apart than to link them together [l].

All the same, people generally feel comfortable using the term ‘drawing’ to describe the process and to identify a whole range of products which they would call drawings as opposed to paintings or prints. This in itself would not be of any great concern if terms clarifying more specialised branches of the process or product were more prevalent. Whilst there are terms like ‘diagram’, ‘graph’ and ‘architectural drawing’ which describe specific types of drawing, there are other equally specialised drawing processes and products which are not dignified by definitive terminology. The problem which arises is that the general and all encompassing use of the term predisposes people to assess and interpret specialised and complex forms of drawing in the most general and superficial terms. One of the outcomes of this is that these specialised forms of drawing are laid open to being trivialised and debased and ultimately, to having their dynamic life stunted.

It is for this reason that I would like to examine a specialised and complex area of drawing which has suffered to some degree through not having a definitive label-unless one adopted ‘drawing drawing’ which might be heard in discussion, thus: ‘I don’t mean that sort of drawing, I mean drawing drawing!’ By examining the peculiarities of product, process and intention I would like to distinguish it from other types of actions and outcomes sharing the ‘drawing’ label, particularly those which so closely and mislead- ingly resemble it. The drawing to which I refer is that which has grown out of the Renaissance art tradition. It is regarded as an art form-not simply a process or a skill-and has a history spanning 600 years. Over that time certain traditions have grown around this type of drawing from a mixture of theoretical and pragmatic bases. These traditions though removed from their origins in chronological, contextual and conceptual terms, contribute significantly to the shape of our cultural understanding about this order of drawing and therefore are central to the following examination.

Drawing’s predominant attribute is its form-its visual appearance or configuration. It is after all, the means by which drawing

318

communicates with the viewer. The first significant tradition of form that should be noted is that, from the time of the Renais- sance, drawing in Western art has been tied to an image-making role whereby the three-dimensional world of space and form is reconstructed on a two-dimensional surface. The elements of the visual language such as line, value, shape and texture therefore have been used in the service of creating images and to give the illusion of three-dimensional (sculptural/plastic) form and space. Further, as Elderfield [2] notes, the relationship between image- making and the creation of sculptural illusion has been perceived as mutually dependent, and never seriously questioned until the Post-Impressionist period when artists were forced to confront the issues raised by Impressionism.

The concern for image-making which grew out of the Renais- sance interest in, and enquiry about, the nature of things led to the development of certain systems for describing the external world, its forms and spaces, on a two-dimensional surface. One of these, linear perspective, was developed as an exacting and rigorous discipline which is still the primary perspective system used by Western artists today. Its principles are overlapping forms, dimin- ishing size and converging lines. Linear perspective was very much a Florentine invention. While space had been, and continues to be, portrayed in other ways, such as a horizontal oblique projection system used by the Egyptians and orthographic projec- tions used by architects, the Florentine system constructed on quasi-mathematical principles had the attraction of being both consistent and related to the way space is perceived by the eye.

Other related systems developed at the same time and used to reinforce the appearance of three-dimensional form and space on a two-dimensional surface were aerial perspective and chiaroscuro. Aerial perspective is based on the observable effects of atmosphere on the appearance of objects over distance, and chiaroscuro on the way light and shadow models form. These systems are accepted conventions and basic to the way Western man portrays and reads the representation of form. However artists since the Post-Impres- sionist period, and in particular, Cezanne have re-examined the image-making role of drawing and the associated conventional perspective systems. Their work heralds the most recent identi- fiable phase in drawing’s evolution.

The second tradition of form is the essentially linear quality of drawing marks. Line is the first and fundamental drawing mark. As Goldstein in a 1984 interview said,

In drawing, line is really the queen element. . . try finding the border between drawing and painting. There isn’t one! But if we don’t know where their borders are, we know where their capitals are; with painting it’s colour, and with drawing, it’s line. [3]

To understand how line achieved this status, one needs to appreciate the Renaissance concept of drawing within the context of Renaissance thought. The Renaissance artist was consumed by the question of man and his destiny in the universal scheme of


319


Facing page F I G U R E 1. William Dobell (1899-1970): Costume Study, 1935; pencil; 24.3 X 17.6 cm. Reproduced by permission of the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne. The artist has used value to describe the form of the dress and the nature of the fabric.

things and sought to come to terms with his world through the newly emergent and consequent disciplines of anatomy, geometry and perspective. Drawing was the means of gathering information and sorting it into systems; it was regarded as basic to a scientifi- cally accurate grasp of objects as seen or envisioned and therefore formed the basis of most representational art. In this context, line was regarded as being the heart of art because it was a superior analytical device and means for giving form to ideas or percep- tions. For the creation of images, line could be used to delineate and also to create an illusion of three-dimensional form and space and perhaps most importantly, it enabled the artist to select, summarise, notate or detail at will. Line proved to be a visually concise device for communicating many kinds of information and for generating and ordering images. So for the Renaissance artist, who saw drawing as the means by which he could clarify and disclose his perception of and relationship with the world, line was the valued and primary device.

This perception of drawing and the concomitant perception of line as the superior drawing mark were not universal. The Vene- tians in contrast to the Florentines preferred tonal systems and colour effects, and later, in the seventeenth century French theo- reticians and artists debated the relative values of line and colour. However it is the Florentine perception of line as being the fundamental drawing mark which has survived the passage of time, and I would suggest that this is because the concept of drawing which validates this view is as relevant today as it was then.

Whilst the linear mark is seen as the primary drawing mark, the tonal passage is also used extensively in drawing to model form and space. In the visible world of colour, value is not immediately revealed to the viewer. It is however an inherent quality of any colour-as a black and white photograph will readily reveal-and in drawing therefore, it is regarded as more of a colouristic device. Both Seurat and Redon are noted for their use of black to convey qualities normally attributed to colour. Value is the means by which the artist describes the effect of light and shadow on form. It is the tool for modelling from with light and also for conveying information about the inherent qualities of the form in question: its local tone (lightness or darkness), weight, solidity and texture (Fig. 1). In a system devoted to image-making, value has been established as a respected tool.

The usual and expected form of a drawing therefore, is that it consists of linear and tonal passages used to delineate and/or give the illusion of three-dimensional form in three-dimensional space. Besides having this depictive role, the marks are also understood to make a contribution to the drawing’s character and meaning on an abstract level. The inherent qualities of marks-their length, tonality, direction and clarity, and the visual energies created through the interaction of these marks-contribute to the visual experience. In master drawings, one would see that these abstract actions would reinforce the depictive meanings of the marks, and

320

F I G u R E 2 . John Passmore: The End of the Picnic (purchased 1956); pen and wash; .39.4 x 49.8 cm. Reproduced by permission of the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The nature of this scene is conveyed as much by the inherent qualities of the marks as by the subject-matter they describe.

often necessarily evoke the qualities in the subject that elude mere description (Fig. 2).

The marks found in drawings do not necessarily cover the whole surface of the ‘page’, but they do account for it. This accounting for the surface is an important element in the form of a drawing. Unlike a painting where the surface is traditionally subservient to the application of paint and the related artistic achievement, in a drawing, the surface is always a consideration in the process of artistic creation-even when in the end, the original surface might be completely covered by marks. Claude Debussy said that music is the space between the notes. In drawing, the same sort of thing might be said about the unmarked sections found within the physical boundaries of the drawing (Fig. 3). Certainly, in oriental art, the concept of ‘nothing which is some- thing’ is fundamental to an appreciation of calligraphic and painting forms. Whilst not necessarily an overt concern in Western art, it is none-the-less appreciated as an integral part of the artist’s concern when drawing. One therefore can expect this to be evident in the work created.

322

Intimate scale is another traditional aspect of the form of F I G U R E 3. Fred Williams: drawing. This has been dictated in part by the widespread use of paper which, when made by hand, was limited in size by the process of production. It is also, and more significantly, a corollary to intimate purpose; that is, drawing being created for the value of the making and an expected audience of one-namely the artist. In the last decades this notion of scale, along with the connected ideas of purpose and product have been consciously re-examined. Drawings with dimensions such as 279 x 364 cm and 286 x 648 cm challenge the tradition [4].

In terms of the visual form of a drawing then, the traditions can be identified as firstly, a concern for image-making and the consequent use of perspective procedures for rendering the effects of three-dimensional form and space; secondly, drawing marks which are essentially linear and/or tonal and which primarily describe the figurative content but also act at an abstract level; thirdly, the integral nature of the drawing surface in a drawing; and fourthly, an intimate scale.

Landscape, 1976. Reproduced by permission Ofthe Arr Ga l l ey of Western Australia. In this work it is clear that the artist regards the white of the page as an integral part of the drawing,

323

J U D I T H D I N H A M hawing in the Art Programme

The best way we know drawing is by its visual form. However, the traditions of form which enable us to identify drawings have their genesis in ideas and concepts about drawing as a process. With the type of drawing in question, the process is not only a physical act, but also an intellectual one. In drawing, the artist physically creates and organises marks on a surface. These marks not only depict but, to paraphrase Goldstein, also reveal a personality mainly derived from the artist’s aesthetic and intuitive attitude to the marks in general and his visual and expressive responses to a subject in particular [5]. In post-Renaissance drawing, this subjectivity has been valued as an integral part of drawing. By contrast, in the medieval tradition, drawing was diagrammatic, impersonal and anonymous in spirit. As drawing departed from these medieval traditions in the fifteenth century and began to move towards personal expression, the skill of the individual evolved into a personal graphology and as Rose says,

Personal touch distinguished one artist from another and established hierarchies according to the quality of the ‘handwriting’. [6 ] (Figs 4 and 5)

This changing perception of the artist’s personality was part of a changing perception of the nature of drawing in general. To the medieval mind, drawing was to do with manual dexterity. To the Renaissance man, drawing came to be seen as an activity originating in the intellect; and thus, as Vasari, the famous historiographer of Italian art writing in the mid-sixteenth century describes it, drawing was an act of creation-a direct emanation from the creative idea that was formed in the artist’s mind. The Renais- sance perception was that this act had divine overtones, in that the creativity of the artist was believed to be the re-enactment of the creation of the universe. Articulating the drawing aesthetic of the High Renaissance, Vasari describes drawing as being a spiritual process: the interplay of the intellect and observation (spirit and nature). Thus the drawing, whilst originating in the intellect as an inner image, is inspired by the contemplation of nature. This concept of drawing which includes the notion of idea and creation, is described by Kenin as being ‘the union of theory and idea with execution’ [7]. In Renaissance terms, drawing can be regarded as having two major forms-its conceptual and its graphic. Accord- ingly these are interrelated-two parts of the whole.

Since the Renaissance, where our understanding of drawing has its roots, drawing has been regarded as the founding discipline of the Western artist’s creative activity. In the sixteenth century, the theory of art saw all the fine arts deriving from drawing. In art schools, where we find the concept institutionalised, drawing traditionally has been the fundamental and central subject in the curriculum. The centrality of drawing to artistic practice hinges on the Renaissance idea that drawing has a conceptual dimension. The form that this takes is also important. To elaborate, Goldstein distinguishes drawing from painting or sculpture by claiming that ‘drawings are acts of enquiry whereas paintings and sculptures are declarations, expository statements’ [8], and Klepac states

324

‘A drawing is an experiment which opens further possibilities’ 191. To be considered a founding discipline, drawing must be understood in these terms-i.e. to be a process of enquiry, analysis and evolving of ideas. In this, it is the means by which the artist addresses his individual perception of the world and comes to terms with his personal expressive intent.

This important dimension of drawing is often not understood, even though it underpins and validates many of today’s accepted traditions and practices. Instead, drawing tends to be understood in very superficial terms. Klepac writing in the Introduction of the 1977 Perth International Survey of Drawing catalogue describes the situation thus:

[we] cannot discriminate between the superficial and the significant [and we continue] to applaude and call draughtsmen those who exploit the trite elements of drawing with a virtuosity worthy of conjurers. Illusionism, cleverness and accuracy and empty description are prized above profound visual fact [as against optical notations].

The distinction he makes between this kind of activity and that which more correctly should be called drawing is that drawing ‘taps the inner meaning of things as it formulates visual meta- phors’, whereas the other type of activity is to describe by line and tone ‘what the eye records on the retina’. [lo]

Klepac’s comments are inspired by a valid concern for the distinction between activity which is focused by a superficial concern for graphic facility and activity which is essentially an act of enquiry. He states that

A true drawing is an intention of which the conclusion is uncertain. A clever or ‘fake’ drawing is a ‘performance’ which has been rehearsed; its purpose is not to seek after truth and discovery but to impress. [ 1 I ]

Klepac, in taking issue with this subtle debasement of drawing, notes how language has contributed in part to this situation: the term ‘drawing’ fails to discriminate between a wide range of products and processes and, unlike the Italian equivalent, ‘disegno’ and the French ‘dessin’, it does not include the notion of design/ invention of a concept.

However, there are other factors which can be identified. Kelly [12] notes how in the nineteenth century, drawing in the hands of academies during their waning years took on the aspect of an outmoded ritual. The teaching of drawing succumbed to reliance on technical mastery and formulae, and, whilst it served to teach skills, the prime focus had been lost. The resultant disenchant- ment with drawing was of the same order as that which led to the birth of Modern Art. The seeds of this movement were planted towards the end of the nineteenth century by a growing dissatis- faction with the vulgarisation of representational art and by the advent of photography. In seeking to redefine itself, modern art looked to the qualities which characterised its forms. For painting, it was the two-dimensionality of the surface, the materials and their application in relation to the surface. In this context, the


325


Facing page FIGURES 4 and 5. John Brack: Model with Black and Red Rug, 1975; and Walter Richard Sickert (1860-1942): Just a Pint: Alpha and Omega. Both works reproduced by permission of the Art Gallery of Western Australia. Typically, Brack’s lines are knitted together in an orderly way to describe the forms in the drawing. By contrast, Sickert’s hand produces generous strokes that move with ease and energy across the paper.

distinctive and traditional graphology of drawing drew attention. Awakened interest in the drawing mark and the drawing product promoted a distinction between drawing’s conceptual and graphic traditions. Subsequently, in the 1960s, Conceptual Art rigorously distinguished between the graphic and conceptual nature of drawing by denouncing the aesthetic of drawing graphology [13].

In the distinction of these two major forms and the exploration of the potential autonomy of each, drawing began to develop a new dimension. Until this time, drawing had been regarded as a conservative discipline. Based on Renaissance principles, the para- meters defined by the end of the seventeenth century had re- mained virtually unchallenged for the three hundred years that followed. The conceptual and graphological aspects of drawing were understood to be mutually dependent, and drawing as a discipline was regarded as subservient to other art forms. Through the conscious re-examination of drawing and its traditional forms and functions, drawing is now seen as having the potential to be regarded as a major art form within the terms of its own graphology (Fig. 6 ) . This recent interest in drawing’s visual form and the development of drawing along these lines has probably also inad- vertently contributed to prevailing superficial interpretations of drawing.

As art and artists seek to understand drawing in this new role, it is necessary to reaffirm the continuation of drawing’s traditional functions. These functions need to be clarified and seen as separate, (though not disparate), from current preoccupations. Nevertheless, the current developments have implications for the traditional enquiry role of drawing. For example, should drawing as an act of enquiry be linked exclusively to its traditional form? With the steady progression of technology, the artist has at his disposal a range of hardware, such as computers, photocopiers and cameras which are inviting tools for the investigation of the visual world and the generation and development of ideas and imagery. Similarly, changing attitudes to knowledge, the artist’s role and his relationship to the world suggest the need for appropriate alterna- tive approaches to enquiry.

For the art school, the validity of drawing as a central art discipline is founded on the Renaissance concept of drawing as the wellspring of artistic understanding and creation. The continuance of this place for drawing in the art programme necessitates an examination of drawing’s traditional procedures and forms within the context of the art school in the late twentieth century and twentieth century art. Since traditions and preconceptions often obscure a number of real issues by the way they blinker vision and channel thinking along familiar paths, and wield influence often out of proportion with their significance, I have attempted to identify, examine and explain them within the context to which they relate. The intention has been to establish a firmer footing than otherwise for a focused examination of the ‘drawing’ programme in the art school of the nineties.

326

F I G u R E 6. Fred Cress (193%): Harbourne Series No 6 , 1976; charcoal; 68.0 x 50.5 cm. Reproduced by permission of the National Galley of Victoria, Melbourne. In this work the artist has been concerned to exploit the ‘graphic’ qualities of his medium.

328

References 1 Cf the definition of ‘work of art’ posited by KENNICK, WILLIAM quoted

in: H.G. BLOCKER (1977) Philosophy of Art. New York, Scribens, p. 205.

2 ELDERFIELD, JOHN (1983) Modern Drawing: 100 Works on Paperporn the Museum of Modern Art. London, Thames and Hudson, p. 14.

3 DINHAM, JUDITH (1984) Unpublished transcript of an interview with Nathan Goldstein. Boston.

4 See MORRELL, TIMOTHY (1986) Big drawings, A n and Australia, 23, 3, Autumn 1986.

5 GOLDSTEIN, NATHAN (1977, 1984) The Art of Responsive Drawing. New York, Jersey, Prentice-Hall, p. 41.

6 ROSE, BERNICE (1976) Drawing Now. New York, Museum of Modern Art, p. 10.

7 KENIN, RICHARD (1966) The Art of Drawing: From the Dawn of History to the Era of the Impressionists. London, Paddington Press, p. 81.

8 Ibid [3]. 9 KLEPAC, Lou (ed) (1977) Contemporary Drawing. Perth, the Western

Australian Art Gallery, p. 6. 10 Ibid p. 7. 11 Ibidp. 6. 12 KELLEY, WILLIAM (1986) Introduction to MCKENZIE, JANET (1986)

Drawing in Australia: Contempora y Images and Ideas. Australia, Macmillan, p. vii.

13 See ROSE [6] for a detailed discussion.


329

Drawing: what is it and why has it traditionally held a special place in the Art Programme?

Documents

Transcript of Drawing: what is it and why has it traditionally held a special place in the Art Programme?