I am also quite curious, about the potential of drawing. In particular, in my current work place, for engaging students in looking at archives using drawing. I also have a background in drawing and painting, so its something that relates, in an indirect way, by my own practice. I might be bias in this regard, in that I still think drawing, in its different forms, is a useful thing for students to explore at art school.
The idea that Michelle introduces, of drawing being used for its mnemonic potential, made me curious. The process she describes of ‘recording’/encoding; ‘storage’ and ‘retrieval’, actually sounds a lot like the processes involved in an archive.
But I have a question in the activity about what is being learnt/encoded: I have come across other instances of mnemonics where it is about storing and remembering facts. But this is rarely the aim with creative arts and design teaching. It is not just a behavioural/psychological experiment for Salamon. The exercises she describes seem to emphasise, or at least test, the challenge of remembering an object when it is not in front of you. But it also might shows how observational drawing helps us to remember something. By extracting and distilling the essentials about a thing, it helps us to remember it. In doing this, it helps to recall the object later. It is not an excercise in learning to draw, but an excercise in what might we need to commit something to memory.
I haven’t carried out the exercises she describes. But when I imagine them, it also suggests to me that it raises awareness of the vulnerability of memory. That we have a tendency to try to fill in the gaps to make a coherent “picture”. This might have positive or negative potential. It also brings the matter of “truth” (as Grout had also demonstrated in an archival context) into question.
On the other hand, it does seem to suggest that nevertheless, observation could be important. It may not be “neutral” or unbiased. But bringing careful attention to something (by drawing, in this case), can help us to arrive at a better understanding of the thing when one tries to reproduce it. One can “grasp” the thing better. Of course, I don’t think Salamon is suggesting this should limit students practice to the fidelity of reproduction. One could, for example, then play in creating an artwork, between fidelity and attempts and deconstruction/interrogation/reinvention of the object. But it is noteworthy that she chooses to make the case for drawing, including drawing from observation, in art school, as a starting point.
There are real historical reasons why drawing as an activity at art school may have fallen out of favour. And one of these is, I think, since the 1960s, or with postmodernism, there has been an attempt to break down the canon of perceived “Western” “Academic” art education with its roots in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Perhaps for similar reasons that Grout (2019) argues, we should challenge and dispense with canonical ideas of the archive.
It’s tricky though. On the one hand, these histories still haunt us. On the other hand, students continue to investigate these methods in different ways, suggesting that perhaps they might still appear to have some uses for students, even if we might also encourage students to bring a critical lens to them. It might not be an either/or question, it might be something that needs working through.
Grout, H. (2019). ‘Archiving critically: exploring the communication of cultural biases,’ in Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4 (1), pp.71-75
Salamon, M. (2018). ‘Drawing laboratory: Research workshops and outcomes,’ in Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(2), pp. 131-141