THINKING THROUGH DRAWING: PRACTICE INTO KNOWLEDGE

THINKING THROUGH DRAWING: PRACTICE INTO KNOWLEDGE 131

Ian mc Innes

Albeit based on verbal protocol analysis, this was
a helpful reference after the symposium to mea-
sure my own level of thinking during the task, as I
remembered it.
When narrating the presentation of the Drawing
Robot I returned to a similar structure and the same
yarn types as the keynote presentation. I aimed to
capture the drawing motion of the robot with com-
plete rows of black lines of fine viscose yarn cross-
ing the cream wool in stocking stitch as the ground
(Fig 4.) At intervals I knitted triangles of contrast-
ing texture and tone, to represent the interventions
and asides of the speakers. By knitting into only
part of the row at ever decreasing stitches, the effect
developed a distortion to the overall form of the
structure and at the same time created a different
rhythm in the knitting motion. My intention was
to replicate the broad movement of the robotic arm
and contrasting this with it’s shorter movements in
building up tone in the drawing being created by
the robot.
In response to the presentation about cities and
people and the every day drawings they subcon-
sciously make in the environment through move-
ment and actions, I was reminded of Paul Klee’s
idea of “taking a line for a walk”. I decided to make a
linear structure that was stripped down to the essen-
tial components of an interlocking structure with
contrasting yarns to emphasize length, direction
and purpose. (Fig 5.) This was the point at which my
work transformed. The knitting began to emerge as
a mark in itself when placed on a paper-covered sur-
face and latterly when suspended in space. It became
the gesture, the mark, a three-dimensional drawing

within the physical space. The drawing took on a

tactile and physical quality which evolved depend-

ing on whether it was suspended from a single or

multiple points or held in tension. I felt a strength

emerging in the work where I was exploring line as

a structure in itself, gesturing with the constructed

line through a physical space (Fig 6.)

I recognized that each presentation stimulated

different responses. Although a framework for

the task had been established, there was sufficient

diversity of materials, tools and processes to provide

alternative and complimentary approaches. It was

not possible to summarize the presentations in a

very literal way. Each structure was triggered by a

word or phrase and aimed to capture the essence or

snapshot of the presentation. The scope of the activ-

ity led to pieces that were to some extent ambigu-

ous in their communication of the presentation,

but were nonetheless interesting linear structures in

themselves by using the presentations as the stimu-

lus for their origination.

Scottish contribution

I relayed key words from the pre-symposium

presentations (Farthing’s The Bigger picture of draw-

ing and Betts’ A New Curriculum, a New Pedagogy)

by email to senior students and the knit production

technician in knitted textiles in the School of Textiles

and Design, Heriot Watt University, Scotland. They

made selections and responded to them through

hand machine and production machine knitting.

Being remote from the symposium proposed dif-

ferent, but complimentary responses. The work-

ing environment is very well resourced, secure and

Figure 5. ‘Drawing bodies’ Figure 6. ‘Suspended loop structure’