Well, hubris has struck in the shape of an Internet fault just when I was getting used to having Broadband – nay, relying on it. Now I'm in the Public Library with 3 minutes to go and too much to say. I had a fascinating visit to the Welcome Institute in London at the beginning of the week, more of which later as there isn't time now – So, just a scrap about drawing www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey
has a discussion section about good/bad drawing which is worth looking at, although a bit scanty on contributions. There's also an archive of found drawings – I have lots of these, really must get them organised, do something with them (along with all the other things which should have been done by yesterday)
I've just got back from a really good, thought provoking all-day symposium at the Regional Print Centre in Wrexham, timed to coincide with the Wrexham Print International 2009. There was a particular focus on the role of artists' blogs with Andrew Bryant from a-n and Pam Newall and Don Braisby from the Regional Print Centre. The general consensus among bloggers was that blogging can really help your practice as an artist, although it is definitely addictive and can sometimes be another layer in the woven fabric of prevarication, stopping you from actually getting down to making the work (someone suggested that "incubation" was a better word than "prevarication" in this context.) Well, anything which encourages reflection and consideration is a useful tool providing it doesn't paralyse you completely – a "good servant, but a bad master".
I've been thinking about "good" and "bad" drawing lately, and whether there's any such thing. It's difficult to define: there are so many things to take into account, so much art-historical and philosophical and post-modern baggage. An art tutor once said to me "A good drawing should look like a battlefield", but does it follow that a drawing which doesn't look like a battlefield is "not good"? Surely not. See last year's Jerwood Drawing Prize. See Raphael.
I got out my old sketchbooks to find examples of "bad" drawing for the blog: what struck me more than the quality of the work (mostly OK) was the consistency of my interests over the last forty years. Alright, more imaginative/imaginary/illustrative stuff when I was a teenager, but pages of little figures drawn from observation – some of them not too bad at all (and it's amazing how scanning them into the computer improves them!). But some nasty overpencilled landscapes done at the age of fourteen. Tut, tut.
Earlier this week, I went out to the general area where Colin the votive figure was found, and did some drawing around the holy well on the cliff. A remarkable spot, up among the sheep and the ravens; surrounded by wild flowers and attacked by the wind. Saw an amazing beetle hiding in a tiny scrape in the grass – my insect book identifies it as the male Minotaur beetle (appropriately classical). It has wonderful "horns", and armour. See image on wildaboutbritain.co.uk. Can't work out how to set up a link in this box.
The holy wells in this part of the country have a long history, and some bear the signs of being looked after well into modern times. This one is reputed to cure "mental problems", and required a proxy sacrifice in the shape of two quartz pebbles. The whole thing is open to the sky, and the chambers are silted up. Water still flows out, down the pasture and into the sea. It's a bracing experience getting to it, and the view is really uplifting. I certainly came away feeling cheered and relaxed (even though I didn't have the requisite pebbles to offer.)
Having polished off "The Making of Mr. Gray's Anatomy" by Ruth Richardson, I am now tackling her "Death, Dissection and the Destitute". It's rather hard going – not because of her writing, which is good and clear – but because of the subject matter, which is extremely grim. However, I shall persist in the name of Research.
The research continues…..
I suffered a medium-sized panic last week while surfing "medical humanities" – its' proponents seem to have carved out a real niche for themselves, and while it's great that there's a journal and a proper discipline to the study it makes it a bit forbidding for "outsiders". I don't have a qualification in Medical Humanities; there are lots of people out there who have degrees in the subject (I know some of them); am I poaching on their territory? etc etc. But calm down – what I'm actually being asked to do is to teach a drawing-based module to medical students, I can certainly do that and I wouldn't have been asked if I wasn't thought to be up to it (would I?….here we go again..)
Had a lovely talk on Wednesday with my old tutor from art school: she's very supportive and has made several very helpful suggestions. On her advice I have downloaded the QAA benchmark on fine art teaching – it looks surprisingly approachable, but then I haven't read all of it yet. She reminisced about doing life drawing with a 4H pencil – don't fancy it myself. Henry Tonks was keen on it too, and he was a surgeon as well as professor at the Slade. Now here's a whole topic on its' own: medics as illustrators: name doctors who were also artists, artists who were anatomists, etc etc.
I've been trying to find out a bit more about votive figurines, but can't find anything that exactly corresponds to "Colin". What is he holding in his right hand, and why doesn't he have any feet? At the moment I don't know what sort of proxy sacrifice he represents – it would be nice to think that he has some healing role, but of course he might be a good luck token, or something totally unpleasant. At least he still has his head. I don't know exactly where he was found, but according to the OS map there's a holy well in the same area – although nominally Christian, a lot of these places are in fact much older. I think I might take a trip out to his (approximate) finding place tomorrow, do some drawing and look around a bit.
