part 2:The language of drawing

In the first part I studied the fundamentals (trivia ) of representational rendering. I was not arguing against Mani - because I agree with him in much- but I was worried that the points he wants to make are lost in the flamings and naïvite of his writings. I apologise the group that I provoked him to interfere.

A map is a drawing about a landscape. It is of immense value, if you need to find the best route to some awesome rapids. However accurate, The map does not give a hint if the the rapids are worth of the trouble of going there.

To draw the beauty of the rapids requires quite different language that can speak to our emotions. There is an example from the renaissance era. If I remember right it was Vasari who noted that the scetches of the great artists were often more vivid that the meticulously finished pieces. If the rapids are rendered photorealistically, something may be lost as Vasari said.

In the 1970's Tom Pittman wrote a Tiny Basic for the homebrew computers.

Fighting with the memory restrictions, he decided to include only two error messages; 'what' and 'how'. The former pointed an error in vocabulary and the latter in syntax. I had an opportunity to point out the missing third, the semantic 'why'.

The why in art is more important to me than the what and how.

I am disturbed by the poor quality of in Magritte's This is not a pipe. A vivid photo of a pipe might have worked better. The language we use in artworks must comform with what we are saying.

You can try a three stage excecise: 1. Draw a car 2. Draw the speed of a car 3. Draw the exitement of driving.

There's an even simpler exercise one can try. In a single black line made with India ink, express those three things - stasis, speed, and excitement.

Then go on to depict happiness, anger, angst, horror, adventure, boredom, etc.

Poor quality of what?

with one's materials. As an after thought I will add that readers may wish to consider the idea that one does not so much draw an image as express an image through a medium.

I had an industrial design course once and an assignment was a 'humorous mobile.' The only constraint was that we couldn't resort to Disney type colors and symbols to achieve 'humor.' It was pretty challenging, and we had to really get into the concept of humor, what it is and so forth. The assignment elicited some pretty impressive responses from us students, I thought.

You mean like singing before each studio session: 'I talk to my flats, but they don't listen to me.' (sung to the tune of 'I talk to the trees'. But don't fret, I think you have a good point here. I was watching Thiebaud work once, it was pretty amazing. He had so much paint onboard, and his brush operated like a little bulldozer pushing it around. The look of ecstacy on his face was remarkable. He was really having fun, and it was obvious why he loved painting.

Jaysus, Thur, that's really a misrepresentation of what Keith wrote. He said 'readers may wish to consider the idea that...' But you use the term 'one' as a springboard to build a classic strawman argument.

But you're argument is good, I'm not saying that. But you shouldn't hold Keith responsible for it.

I suggest you take a high colonic of cadmium red. It will do much to enhance your empathetic relationship with your materials.

Tired of Modern Art? See-

Indeed one shouldn't hold Keith responsible for his Artspeak. He's still a beginner. Tired of Modern Art? See-

And exactly where did he say that?

We don't use language in artworks.

My whole point is that you better acquire the knowledge that is necessary to draw point 1 because if you don't you won't be able to proceed to 2 and 3.

Or as I put it somewhat metaphorically, its best to learn to draw the chair on which she sits on before you start on the model. Tired of Modern Art? See-

Yes, if you follow it with an Artspeak lecture. True most of today's artwork in museums is about that interesting.

Tired of Modern Art? See-