THINKING THROUGH DRAWING: PRACTICE INTO KNOWLEDGE

THINKING THROUGH DRAWING: PRACTICE INTO KNOWLEDGE 43

seymour simmons, III

sition was thus the scientific method. It begins
with a question or problem to be solved. This is
followed by gathering data, sensory and otherwise.
Reflection on this data then leads to formulating
a hypothesis about a possible solution that is then
tested through experimentation, leading to further
observations and reflection, then, possibly, addi-
tional experiments. John Dewey (1910) explained
the process more simply as a matter of trying some-
thing out and undergoing the consequences, which
he claimed was the way creative people thought and
worked, whether in science or art (1934).
The best example of doing and undergoing in
Nicolaides’ book is the ever-popular gesture draw-
ing (Figure 3). The exercise begins with a quick
sketch to capture in a few lines the action or energy
of the model’s pose. This initial “hypothesis” is then
continuously checked and corrected, based in part
on seeing and measuring, but more on empathetic
identification with the model’s position and mood.
Compared with both the analytic and obser-
vational methods, Nicolaides supports more indi-
vidualized approaches, encouraging expression
and experimentation. Still, he focuses on represen-
tational drawing of the human figure. There is no
room here for non-objective imagery. This, how-
ever, is allowed for by a fourth approach to drawing
instruction, which, incidentally, is also aligned with
pragmatism, this time in its focus on semiotics as
defined by C. S. Peirce (Short, 2007). Here the sim-
ple formula is that “marks have meanings,” whether
or not they are intended to represent some concrete
substance.
Drawing, so conceived, is a symbol system, and
as such, could be compared to other notational sym-
bol systems such as written language, mathematics,
and musical notation. Indeed, drawing is arguably
more sophisticated than these three, because they
are largely a matter of conventional signs, while
drawing involves conventional vocabularies as well
as completely invented ones, and everything in
between. Moreover, drawings can signify, in Peirce’s
terms, in multiple ways: as icons (resemblances),
indexes (indicators), and symbols (conventional
interpretants), even functioning sometimes in all
three ways at once!
Reflecting the Bauhuas principle that “less is
more,” Paul Klee’s Pedagogical Sketchbook (Fig-
ure. 4) sketches out how even minimalist abstract
drawings (like his own) can communicate mean-
ings of various kinds. A comprehensive approach

to drawing instruction, based on similar principles,

was developed by another Bauhaus artist/teacher,

Josef Albers. Albers’ method (1969, Horowitz and

Danilowitz, 2009) bridges the gap between abstract

and representational imagery by beginning with the

most simple elements, dots, marks, lines, shapes.

These are initially explored as skill-building tasks,

then explored as design problems, and finally

applied to drawing from natural and man-made

objects, the figure, as well as landscapes.

Although he did not specifically site semiotics,

Albers situated his approach in the context of sym-

bol systems by referring to drawing as a “graphic

idiom.” And, indeed, many of his exercises involved

the representation of letters and words. Among the

first exercises of the course, students learned to

“draw” their signature, normally, backwards, upside

down, and upside and backwards. Other exercises

involved drawing/designing letter forms and pro-

jecting these onto three-dimensional forms. Toward

the end of the course, students did “typofacture”

drawings—depictions of newspaper pages using

marks that resembled the particular newspaper’s

typeface in ways that looked realistic but involved

no actual text.

Just as the philosophical foundations underly-

ing the three previous instructional methods could

serve to align drawing with mathematics, natural

science, and experimental science respectively,

Albers’ semiotic approach connects drawing with

written language. There is a logical connection here,

because, as Tversky (2009) indicated, visual com-

munication, of which drawing is central, “not only

preceded written language but served as the basis

for it.” Continuities between written and graphic

language, to name but a few, include graphic novels

and illustration, graphic design and typography, as

well as schematics and diagrams that complement

even philosophical discourse. Examples include

Figure 4. Paul Klee: Pedagogical Sketchbook