Drawing and Visualisation Research
TRACEY:  journal | space
 


contributions

home
back

  • QUESTIONS

  • What is (a) bad drawing?

    When does a good drawing go (deliciously) bad?

    Are the classic virtues of the draughtsman the dry echoes of a visual establishment, a museum form? What is the value of tradition in approaches to drawing?

    Is there a virtue in the functional but unaesthetic?

    How do we learn what good drawing is? What are the prevalent values and where do they come from?

    What criteria and judgements are used in 'expert' evaluation?

    Does the worth of the drawing reside in the viewer? Does it reside in the context of the production or use of the drawing?

    Is there such a thing as a 'clumsy line' or a 'crude mark', and if so, how might such terminology indicate aesthetic merit?

    Do famous artists ever make lousy drawings? Who's going to tell them if they do?


  • EDITORIAL

  • Simon Downs

    Editorials are about opinions, they are by definition opinion pieces. As a reward for being this issue’s editor I have been gifted an editorial: and this editorial is largely about opinions.
    Part of the reason I joined TRACEY in the first place was that the journal’s editorial group represents a cohort possessed of wildly dissonant opinions about drawing, and yet who were not averse to the opinions of others (or blindly partisan in their personal beliefs). They founded the journal on the principle that your voice, the voice of the drawing community, is worth hearing.
    When this issue’s co-editor (Mark Harris) and I first corresponded about the idea of a ‘Good/Bad’ issue of TRACEY we were both very excited; confident, not to say, blithely optimistic, of a huge response . The DRN mailing list seethes with debate: we felt that if only a small portion of that energy could be tapped we would be looking at the biggest issue ever.
    How wrong we were.
    Weeks went by without a single post-modern call of ‘value is in the culturally disposed eye of the beholder’. The silence became oppressive.
    Perhaps there were no opinions within the drawing research community to be heard on the issue?
    Spinoza tells us that there is no Good or Evil, but rather he says there is Good and Bad. A subtle difference but a vitally important one. He suggests that nothing by its nature is evil; but through unsuitable compositions some things weaken us. He calls this ‘bad’. By contrast some compositions increase our ability to act, he sees this as the very definition of good. An image, technique or subject may compose to become a good drawing in one circumstance while in other it may fail or be actively destructive. Spinoza specifically suggests that good things increase our possible range of actions, that bad things reduce us. Having a deeply held opinion and not expressing it reduces us.
    In my heart of hearts I knew that opinions about drawing existed; both among drawing practitioners and theorists. Something was inhibiting the discussion: perhaps people were nervous about becoming mired in the trenches of the old debates around formal aesthetics versus expressive language? Perhaps as a disparate group of practitioners we fear explicit discussions of our work?
    And then, finally, a slow trickle of artwork and papers began to arrive the TRACEY office: and they were good, and brave, and willing to take up the challenge of debating ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ in drawing.
    I commend the contributors to this issue, one and all, for their bravery in having informed opinions; and their daring in making them heard.