|
Marvin,
"You can't BS good drawing." Hear, hear!
But if the essence of good drawing involves conveying "the artist's full understanding of his/her subject matter to the viewer", then we have some variables to consider:
1. The artist's understanding.
2. The subject matter
3. The viewer
What I am trying to contribute here is a breaking of the circular "we all know what good drawing is" line of thought.
If an artist's understanding is on the traditional western perspectival model and refers to a visual world translated into two dimensions, we have one form of drawing. If the artist's understanding of the subject includes other visual possibilities, we have a second .....and so on. Is isonometric or axonometric technical drawing "bad" because it isn't "perspective"? Is an "exploded" view bad drawing for the same reason? And so on......
The subject matter: suppose the subject of a particular drawing is, say, space or form as such.Or suppose the subject is emotion, as such. What would then constitute a good drawing?
The viewer: we all of us bring to bear on any perception a set of preconceptions and experiences. Thus for a person raised in impenetrable jungle the idea that something looks tiny when seen from afar has no meaning. How would such a person interpret a landscape painting by an eighteenth or nineteenth century artist? The example is extreme but the principle still holds for more subtle differences.
I'd be interested to see what people think about this.
Lon,
Good to see someone actually mention line. Anyone care to comment on line with reference to "good drawing"?
Jim,
Interesting points about brush drawing.
Another line of inquiry: if drawing is illusionistic, then what is the nature of the illusion? Are Rembrandt's brush and pen drawings good drawing? Why? Or why not? Are they "accurate"?
|