42 TEACHERs COLLEGE COLUmbIA UNIvERsITy
Philosophical Dimensions of Drawing Instruction
functions like logic, mathematics, and language
skills typically taught in schools.
Because Edwards believes that such functions
impede observational drawing, her initial exercises
are designed to get the left-brain to shut up and let
the right brain do its job. One such exercise involves
copying a Picasso drawing of the composer Igor
Stravinksky upside down! A similar exercise has
students draw the outline of the object without
looking at their paper.
Whether such methods are justified on the
basis of contemporary neurobiology, or Romantic
notions like seeing with “the innocent eye”, the goal
of these drawing activities—accurate observation
and representation—is more closely aligned with
the objectivity of science than the subjectivity usu-
ally associated with art. In fact, through the 19th
century, representational drawing was a fundamen-
tal tool used in natural science to document flora,
fauna, geography, etc.
In the 20th century, another approach to draw-
ing emerged which also was associated with sci-
entific methods and principles. This time, it was
experimental, as opposed to natural science, and the
epistemological paradigm was pragmatism. Where
empiricists acquired knowledge primarily through
observations and induction, pragmatism as defined
by C.S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, pic-
tures knowledge as the result of experimentation.
The most articulate spokesman of the approach in
terms of drawing was Kimon Nicolaides, in his clas-
sic text on figure drawing, The Natural Way to Draw
(1941).
According to Nicolaides, drawing the “natu-
ral way” requires more than just seeing. Rather, it
involves “physical contact with all sorts of objects
through all the senses,” including especially tactile
and kinesthetic sensibilities. The difference is signif-
icant in theory and practice. As an example, Nico-
laides, like Edwards, has students draw the edges of
objects without looking at their papers. Moreover,
both authors prepare students by engaging their
imaginations as they study what they are about to
draw. However, Edwards is concerned that students
see, not the three-dimensional forms before them,
but their more easily replicable two-dimensional
shapes and, following Ruskin, the “negative” spaces
around and between them. Therefore, she asks stu-
dents first to envision their subject as if it was made
up from pieces of a child’s jigsaw puzzle where each
edge circumscribes a particular object: tree, sky,
cloud, house, etc.
By contrast, Nicolaides thinks the purpose of
contour drawing is to wed sight with touch. So, he
directs students to imagine their pencil is actually
touching the edge of the model’s three-dimensional
form, and to reflect this imagined tactile sensation
as they draw. This exercise reflects the pragmatists’
view that perceiving, and learning, was a matter,
not of passive input of sensory data as the empiri-
cist would have it, but rather of active and reflective
engagement.
The pragmatist’s paradigm of knowledge acqui-Figure 3. Kimon Nicolaides, The Natural Way to
Draw. Gesture drawing.