communityvoices.post-gazette.com: Opening the DRAW2014 symposium back in February, John Carson, head of the Carnegie Mellon School of Art, asserted that “over this weekend we will see how far we can expand the definition of drawing”.
This comment became more weighted throughout the weekend last month as a number of lecturers and panelists admitted that they “didn’t draw” but instead saw themselves as painters or printmakers. This observation caused me to question, “If we expand the definition of drawing to include painting, dancing, printmaking, etc., when do we realize that we are no longer discussing drawing and ignoring those that still practice and identify with the process and product of drawing and illustrating? Does illustration and caricature have a place in fine art when contemporary critics and academics favor and shift focus towards concept and process based art?”
3 comments:
I feel like the definition of drawing can be expanded to mean a variety of things, but once we reach a definition where dance is considered drawing, I think that is where too much is being included. I think dance is an art form, but I do not believe it is drawing. Drawing could be painting (to some degree) and it could be illustration, but once you are no longer using a dry, wet, or computer medium on a surface to create a visual (usually two dimensional), then I think one should not consider that to be drawing.
This is really interesting and I wish I had been more aware of these lectures while they were going on. The idea of expanding the definition of drawing is very strange to me. I don't really see why things like dance or printmaking need to fit under the definition of drawing. They are what they are, under their own titles. Something doesn't need to be drawing to be a form of art. I think being open to all forms of visual communication is extremely important, but I don't see the benefit of placing them under the title "drawing".
I agree with both Emily and Sydney in that drawing ought to be considered a sort of entity in itself -- as in it is its own form of art -- but it seems to me that the distinction here is really only one of practical use and not really a debate about art. Defining drawing as drawing is only to differentiate its medium, and not really to question much how it relates to art. Also, in the same vein I would think that drawing is better defined simply as a tool, and that the purpose of it isn't important to be distinguished -- it can be a means to an end or an afterthought or a tactile process or all of the above.
Post a Comment