Doctor's explanation to patient of 'toenail problem'; courtesy the author

"DRAW WHAT YOU SEE, NOT WHAT YOU KNOW TO BE THERE!" This was bellowed at us across the studio by the tutor in drawing classes I attended as a student. I can still hear it. Another expression was, "draw as if you are seeing something for the first time!" There were, I am sure, many more which were meant to carry the same urgent advice. I think I tried to do these things in a kind of blind faith because, whilst I believed somehow that it was good for me to try and "see things afresh," I was puzzled by being confronted with situations which were impossible to accept as first-time experiences either for me, the other students or for the tutor! - still life, the model, a shoe, the street, the station, the hills, etc. There was also a tacit understanding that the set-up being observed was somehow neutral to 'learning to draw', except that drawing from the figure was somehow revered as being more poignant than working from anything else. The positive act of choosing something to draw as a consequence of natural curiosity did not enter into the equation, not at this stage anyway. I presumed also that we had all seen drawings of these things and drawings which we considered good or had been led to believe were good and so it was very difficult to avoid attempting to 'mimic' these drawings or aspects of them. Of course, these prejudices were exactly what the drawing classes were attempting to dispel. The highly selective probing activity of drawing is what makes both the act and the product so powerful!

Accompanying the encouraging mantra about what we were supposed to try and see and try to ignore, somehow simultaneously, were similar ones about the thing you were trying to draw with - i.e. the pencil . "It's only a tool!"; "don't be concerned with the technique" - and then almost in the same breath came, "...look at the quality of the marks"; "...look at the way the lines are drawn." This was all very confusing. On the one hand one I was to ignore the thing in my hand - pencil, brush, charcoal - and concentrate on the information I was trying to convey, whilst on the other, I was to appreciate the quality of the marks which were a direct consequence of the thing in my hand and indeed my hand ! Whilst in reality drawing is a subtle blend of the two and contextually both the drawing act and the drawing product can flip their status between that of neutral vehicle for conveyance of information and object to be beheld aesthetically and/or intellectually, it is difficult to consciously focus on both aspects simultaneously - like trying to see both sides of a coin at the same time! So in varying degrees of proportionality we 'flip' between the two states both in the act of drawing and in the perception of the product and process itself. We 'flip' between looking at the drawing and through the drawing.

The drawing 'class' is a contrived occasion for practising this process of concentration, self-consciously and deliberately. It is a self-conscious attempt to focus on the activity itself which is a kind of equation linking the drawer, the drawing and the drawn. We have moved on from the traditional master-pupil relationship when the role of the pupil was that of an apprentice, a pupil of the master. Now the role of the 'master' in the drawing class is more that of chair of a very subtle conceptual debate. The so-called skill of drawing is now much more to do with an elegance and sensitivity of contribution to this on-going debate rather than an ability to mimic styles or visual phrases. In this metaphorical context it is relatively easy to comprehend the interdependence of the medium, the message and the messenger; the drawn, the drawer and the drawing.

Drawing turns gazing into 'looking'

The beguiling gaze is by definition relaxing and passive, "a charming diversion from toil," to quote the dictionary. The toil of ' looking'! Looking for and looking at are proactive events and drawing or note-taking points to what one is looking for or at. Drawing traces this proactive adventure through real time and this is true whether one is trying to explain something or describe something. And this is 'toil', hard work! making something work by pointing to something very specific and isolating it from the generality of things both in the drawing and in the subject/object-matter. Also, in order for something to be looked at or for requires someone or something to do the looking. Drawing self-consciously arrests the 'gazer' as well as the gaze, providing a sensory arena in which to engage with the tussle between the subject and the object; the drawer, the drawing and the drawn; the cognised and the re-cognised; habitual practices and new information.

Drawing 'with'

One usually associates a simplicity of means, such as the humble pencil with the process of drawing. This simple extension of the hand provides what is perceived as a relatively uncomplicated interface between the drawer and the drawing. However, what is also built into this interface, sometimes imperceptibly, are the habitual rituals related to the use of the pencil as a piece of equipment - style, pictorial conventions, gestural habits, tacitly agreed rules of procedure and production, preconceptions of the drawer and the expectations of viewers, etc., as well as the physical range or limitations, depending on one's point of view, of the equipment - line quality, size of the pencil, nature of the paper, etc. In certain contexts the proactive nature of the interface itself is not so much ignored but put out of focus or neutralised in order to deal directly (objectively?) with the subject of the drawing. In other contexts the nature of the interface becomes the subject of consideration, i.e., the drawing itself is emphasised or 'pointed to', thereby neutralising, though not ignoring the subject-matter. Attention to the behaviour of the interface is normally a self-conscious act. Just as when banging in a nail we would only notice the hammer when the head comes loose, likewise when the pencil itself breaks or makes an unexpected mark it leaps into focus even though it has been there all the time, inseparable from the drawing act. What makes technically assisted drawings as opposed to so called free-hand drawings more obviously interface-conscious is the relatively complex and cumbersome nature of the equipment rather than anything else.

Familiarity with procedural methods and equipment endows drawing with the status of ritual. The tools of the trade and familiarity with their use are 'ready to hand' and are natural extensions to the hand and mind unless consciously brought to the forefront for consideration. Many things can be used as 'tools' to draw with - burnt stick, toe in the sand, stone on another surface, etc., but pencil and paper is 'drawing equipment'.

'Dead Reckoning'

When trying to hit a bulls-eye with a dart there is a calculation or judgement before and up to the dart leaving the hand. Once the dart has left the hand all influence on the flight of the dart ceases. The thrower then resorts to any idiosyncratic kind of mental coaxing he or she believes may influence the flight of the dart to the bull, knowing full well that from the time the dart left the hand the dart's accuracy has been at the mercy of prior assessments and judgements, i.e., 'dead reckoning'. Re-assessment can only be made as a consequence of the landing of the dart. Compare this with say the lunging of a sword towards its target. Checks, adjustments, alterations, 'fine tunings' can be exercised all the way to the target or to the 'miss'. When constructing a line on a piece of paper 'free-hand' with a pencil, say, then 'checks, adjustments, alterations, 'fine tunings' can be exercised all the way to the target' . In this case the target is the anticipated length, position, strength, quality, etc. of the line and this situation is similar, though probably having more variables, to the 'lunging of the sword!'. If, on the other hand, a ruler is placed on the page, adjusted carefully and then a loaded pen is pressed against the edge of the ruler, pulled, stopped and lifted off, then to a large extent decisions concerning length, density, position are 'preloaded' into the action of the line by the position of the ruler and the consistency of the ink in the pen, etc., up to the point of drawing the line - 'dead reckoning'! Although this represents a more relative form of the 'dart/sword' analogy the principle is the same. The use of any mechanical aid or interface brings the drawing act closer to a 'dead reckoning' judgement. The closer the interface is to the 'nervous system' of the body, e.g., the finger dipped in paint or in sand, the closer the act is to the 'lunging sword' analogy. Again, in practice drawing is a very subtle blend of sensitively and consciously being aware of where one is on the relative scale between 'hand-done' and 'tool-assisted.' As well as mechanically assisted drawing one also has 'rule- and/or convention-assisted' drawing. Peter Cresswell suggests in his essay Towards a more convivial perspective that ' freehand' means 'rule-free' .

Part of the enriching challenge to the process of drawing is being confronted with what can be considered as a drawing (noun) and as drawing (verb). Drawings can be used as well as simply looked at. They can be produced without being in control of the context in which they may be used. A street map of London is meant to be used as a piece of navigational equipment. This does not exclude the possibility that the same piece of paper can be framed and hung on a wall to remind one of a holiday or used to swat a fly at the table whilst enjoying coffee! Same 'drawing' exactly, different status . A photograph by Boubat, La Defense , shows a surface covered in what appear to be chalk marks on the ground. A figure, a child, gives a pertinent clue as to the status of this drawing. The child leads us to the point of the drawing (probably for a game, something like hop-scotch), isolates the relevant marks amongst all the other marks and separates the visual information from the visual noise . Without the figure there is less reason to suppose that one group of marks is any more relevant than another - the array of marks and lines would be much more ambiguous. For the people who made the drawing knowledge of what is supposed to be there is enough to clarify the 'status' of the drawing. The potential use of the drawing determines other essential variables, namely the drawing must be horizontal and of optimum size, i.e., 'hoppable-on', usually by a child. The people who made the drawing were probably not conscious of the 'look' of the drawing and had probably never attended a drawing class! The drawing still serves its purpose; it still 'works' contextually and locally.

The drawing class has always seemed to hold its position educationally as some how central to one's visual training - believed to be a veritable foundation for future art and design engagements. Whilst there are tremendous advantages in 'naming' an occasion for focusing one's undivided attention, it is vital that this naming clearly refers to the localised occasion when the real-time variables are brought into sharp focus rather than a prescribed collection of rituals serving no more purpose than the self-gratification of mimicry. Because of the range of variables it would seem obvious that the notion of the drawing 'class' must go beyond the conventional view of a group of people collected together in a room. Not all drawing problems can be confronted or even noticed through this ritualistic procedure or format. Indeed there is reason to believe that the predetermined context or format itself can and does prejudice what one sees, looks for, anticipates, etc. It must be remembered that the value of training is in how one trains oneself more than how one is trained. A particular time and place to do this is very necessary - and not just for art or design students!


Joe Wilson is a lecturer at the National College of Art and Design, Dublin; more here .