The Drawing
Center's
DRA\TING PAPT,RS 36 ilrr sTlct0r
I RlwtG] t: GrsTl|Rr ilt I
I cI l,lTlilit'.il,,,,,,, S el ected by A vrs N ew mar C urated by C l rnenrre oe Zrexen Organi zedby Txe D nl w rre C enren and TAlf
Additionalsupportwas provided Theexhibitionwas madepossiblethrougha maiorgrantfromTheAnnenbergFoundation. and The the DedalusFoundation, the FederalCouncilon the Arts and Humanities, byThe HoraceW. GoldsmithFoundation, MichaelsFamilyFoundation. from EllenGallagherand KathyFuld. Thezooz-zoo3seasonof the DrawingPapersis madepossible,in part,by contributions The DrawingCenter'sexhibitionsand This is number36 of the DrawingPapers,a seriesof publicationsdocumenting pubticprogramsand providinga forumfor the studyof drawing.TheDrawingPoperspublicationsseriesis printedon MonadnockDutcetroo# SmoothTextand Dulcet8o# SmoothCover.
Catherinede Zegher ExecutiveDirector GeorgeNegroponte President Boardof Directors DitaAmory,Chairmon- FrancesBeattyAdler,MelvaBucksbaum,FrancesDittmer,ColinEisler,ElizabethFactor' Abby Leigh,WilliamS. Lieberman,MichaelLynne,lris Marden,ElizabethRohatyn*,EricC. Rudin, BruceW. Ferguson, C.Thayer*,AndreaWoodner Dr.AltenLeeSessoms,,eanne *Emerita DrawingCenterPubllcations Adam Lehner,ExecutiveEditor Luc Derycke,Designer AnnTarantino,Coordinator The DrawingCenter 35 WoosterStreet NewYork,NY1oo13 Tel': 2t2-279-2t66 Fax:ztz-966-2976 gcenter.org www.drawin Center @2oo3TheDrawing
36 The DrawingCenter April 5-May jt,2oo3
TIIE$I[GTOF IRltllllt G: GEST||RT IIII I cI l,lTiili'J,,,,.,, S etectedby A vrs N rw ml x C urated by C l rxenrre oe Zeexen Organi zedby Txe D nl w rl c C etr:n
andTAll
"Whatis drawing?Howdoesonecometo it? lt is workingthroughan invisibleironwallthatseemsto stand betweenwhat onefeelsandwhat one cando. Howis oneto get throughthat watl-since poundingat it is of no use?In my opinionone hasto underminethat wall,filingthroughit steadityand patiently.' -VlNcENr VANGoGHto his brotherTheo, October22,t882
Conceivably, drawingmay be the most hauntingobsession the mind can experience...But is it quite, question afteralt,a of mind? Thingsstareus in the face.Thevisibteworld is a perpetualstimulant,constantlymaintainingor arousing the instinctto masterthe outtineor the volumeof that thingwhichthe eyeconstructs. Or the desirefor a morepreciseimageof the impression in the mindpromptsus to pickup the pencil, andat oncea curiousandat timesviolentcontestbegins,in whichthis desire,atongwith chance,memory,the skill and variabteproficiency of the hand,the idea and the instrumentare all engagedin an interchange whosemoreor lessfelicitousand foreseeable resultconsistsof pencilstrokes,shadings, shapes,the appearances of placesand livingthings...in short,the work. It can happenthat this creativedesign,intoxicating the draftsman, becomesa violent,self-devouring precipitating, activity,reinforcing, and aggravating itself,an impetuousimpulserushinguponits own fulfillment,uponthe possession of whatone wantsto see. All the indeterminacy ofthe mind,likethe wholeemptyspaceto be covered, is attacked,invaded,possessedby a necessitythat growsmoreand more preciseand insistent. The soul of the mind requiresmarvelouslylittle stimulusto makeit produceatl that it envisages,and emptoyall its reserveforcesin orderto be itself,whichit clearlyknowsit is not untiI it is very different from its ordinarycondition.lt doesnot wantto submitto beingwhat it mostfrequentlyis. A few dropsof ink,a sheetof paperas materialfor the accumulation andco-ordination of momentsand acts,are al[ that is required... - Pnur VrrEnv, DegasManetMorisot
de Zegher
Newm an/ Cat her in e
Av is
Co nversatio n:
dr awin g a s " a n CdZ: You def ine c on n e c t i v i t Y in it s c ons ider ed L- Ly
9^c r
r +^
L^r - ^
ruD
â‚ŹCfmed !\
vsfrrY
-
Seem s
d- ^u+L
af 9I
+h a 'r n h f Lll'
vr r u t
"
lvu - r rur f
fh r aYr h l r- u e rnr rvu
-
gesture and the activito bodily j-n a wav to be more j-rrational
r at ional.
t han
that suggests a dichotoAN: I would not want t o u s e a d e f i n i t i o n to drawing is a say that thought in respect m v , but would r at her and connected to the organization pr oc es s of f or m u r a t l o n m lnt ar to is Merleauwhat I am alfuding of m anua l a c t s . c oor dinat ion of thought," as an operation of "vision c ons ider at ion Pont y ' s . . s ees touching, i t s e l-f . . . t o u c h e s seeing, itseff wher e t he body that self o f T h e e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f . " t o and s ens j- t i v e is v is ible to r e s p onding a n d p r o c e s s f o r m u l a t i n g o f t h e wit h is s im ult aneous The gestural wor k . Dr awj- ng al- l_ows o n e t o g o b a c k a n d r e f f e c t . is no other that r ec or d on t he page s t a g e s a m o m e n t o f e x i s t e n c e perimeters' It m om ent . I t m eas ur es a n d b i n d s a n d e s t a b l - l s h e s even o f a c t i o n that moment rethink al- l_ows one t o im aginati v e l y 'i ' i t i m e . i t s an d n t h a f s e n s e m a r k s {L r-hnr r c h i r e nes t i t ut tu J u yqu rvuYrr CdZ:
Is
it
c om m unic ati o n
with
the
seff?
of an act of reclamation AN: A dr awj- ng c an hav e t h e q u a l - i t y perceived in fleetingly thought of a " v i s u a l " t he r ec lam at ion Something can of actionS, tLha Jn t-ha rcoistration !FVere rm L L fin. r r s l, rs rrs into m i n d , brought from the depths of the be s een, r et r iev ed c an be d r a w i n g j u s t r e s p e c t I n t h a t named. and only ex is t enc e, m a t e r ial f r o m t h e m a d e o f t e n of a c t i v i t j e s , t he m os t wr et c hed preh a s m i n d t h e t h a t t h i n g s t h o s e o f r es idue s t he lef t ov er s , they signify and pieces abandoned. T o r n p a g e s o r b i t s v ious ly of a coherent the dignity without only as r em in d e r s , ex is t ed and marks s uc h ac t s l a y b a r e t h e m a n y i n d e c i s i o n s int ent ion. g e t the abann o f u r t h e r : which sometimes wor k ed ov er and ov er , n o t as s c r a p s s u c h We u n d e r s t a n d of gest u r e s . doned ef f or t s t o e x t e r nal-ize m i n d o f t h e e f f o r t o f t h e wor k s but as ev idenc e a n interit o i s a k i n d r a w i n g s e n s e i n t h a t And v ague t hought s . nr u !
rm L Lannl.dr U r r v a v 9 u sr e
sem r r r scr ! Y fdinc rrY
fn
t- hc
s r r r fac e
in
with significance ar e inv es t ed t hings we v a l - u e t h e f a i l - u r e t he ac hiev em ent . never was. t ha t I os s of s om et hing CdZ:
W hat about
c om m u n i c a t i o n
with
the
our
ac ti ons .
Suc h
j-n inverse proportlons to and the of such gestures
other?
Wh e n is always a hot potato' AN: The is s ue of c om m u n i c a t i o n have a sense of the work at a dr awing o n e c a n f r e q u e n t l y I ook ing vague sense that experience whof enes s an d c o n s e q u e n t l y lac k ing acts the gesturaf that I have always felt c om plet enes s . of f os t c o m e s t h i s P e r h a p s melanchol-ic. ar e es s en t i a l l y of dr awing or the prelack of color about bec aus e of t he c h a r a c t e r i s t j - c inconu n b o u n d ed, o f t e n t h e o r s u r f a c e ov e r dom inanc e of l_ine when w h o l e a u n i f l e d m a r k s c r e a t e c a n o u r how And edge. s t ant Marks always homogenization? t he s pac e of t he pag e r e f u s e s and invariably worked, aut onom y h o w e v e r d e n s e l y t heir r et ain a fractured thus evoking or transparency, s ugges t a loos enes s w o rked surface a and substance of t he co n t i n u i t y s pac e. wit hout
( as one woul- d e x p e r i e n c e anlrr
a
rraql-ico
qnmo
nf
painting)
in l-hina
there
Thic
caamc
is
fn
impression
the
imnl
of
r:dnw
whic h I am quit e happy to go al-ong with: t h a t t h e w o r k i s c o mpf et e in it s ind i v i d u a l state of fragmentation. To speak of comm unj- c at j- on in t h i s is therefore context to address the procedure part of our experience of dr awing. I do think of looking is in this
r ea:r d
r r ncons c i or r s
r c c nc ni ti on
r
T^
f^
^6c fr r r a
4v
tOU C h
Yvv9grv,
and
pleasure. p r i or m ak e c ont ac t , is s u c h a p r i m a r y For al-l- infants, t o t he s ens e of a u n i f i e d self there is the bodiJ-y sensation of being t ouc hed, heId, moved in space, cfothed, covered, a n d f e d. Ther e is a whol e l a n g u a g e o f c o m m u n j - c a t i o n i n t h o s e g e s t u r e s an d gr aduall- y what i s l e a r n e d is a nonverbal- communication o f s e n su p r o p o se s al- it y : W e wis h t o t o u c h t h a t w h i c h t o u c h e s u s . T i s s e r o n thet
thF
oinc
in
cestrrrc :
aS
nrimif
irra
finked
tO
mam^r\/
^f
the
jnscrinfirrc
fha
inf:nf
ac1i la
h:g
hndrlin
itS
Ori-
nianoq
!.la
rre
ts+vvvv.
wr it es t hat t he d e s i r e to mark and inscri-be arises from a time (of the self) when t he "or igina l scattered sensory centers are c onnec t ed t oget h e r on the surface of the body," I would make a c onnec t ion bet we e n t h i s thought, associated with fragmentation, and that of reenactment in Lhre Fort-Da anal-ogy of the Freudj-an f igur e s c hild t hat the pl-easure/unpleasure experience of l-oss The chifd, who repeatedl-y throws the toy out of and r et r iev al. t he c ot f or it t o b e c o n s t a n t l y retrieved, stages the tragedy of t he l- os s of t he o n e w h o n u r t u r e s and whose intimate t o u c h s a t i sf
i oq
t ion f ully
nrrr
orzarr;
Tl -
i
c
t r ac es
in
of in
its
t hes e ^r'6rt'
m :tpr i al
histories -^oisfrafion
+L - f Lrrdu
d 6 <{rr^ yso L ur!s
o ^
t hat not o n l y d o f e x i s t , ex per ienc ed in relation
elem cnt:r w
fian ufvrv
naad
of
^-
fL r rhca
r a nvyr n n nr ri !cu
-
but that my exi-stence can onfy be to another. B e c a u s e d r a w i n g i s so
i z afi nn-
that
â&#x201A;Ź;
^; ^-; - f( j r r fr fcD
fhe
are t-nrrch
ev e
r e:di
pl-ayed out on
thc urrv
lv
in
n^dp tsqYU
s ees
every Fs qu
the
the
inflecaCCUmU-
l- at ed r hy t hm of m a r k s m o v e s f r o m l i n e to line a c r o s s a n u n c h a r t- t he e y e r e p e a t e d l y ed s ur f ac e loosening the image only to r edis c ov er it bv means of a different and r e t r i e v e route. CdZ: I ndeed, one c o u l - d s a y t h a t t h e g e s t u r e o f t h e h a n d i n d r a w i n g s eem s t o par af lef t h e p r i m a l g e s t u r e o f r e a c h i n g o u t t o t h e d e p a r ting m ot her . Enac t i n g t h e m a r k i n g g e s t u r e , the child foll-ows the mother' s movement as she l-eaves. And Iater, considering the outcome of his or her ge s t u r e , the child identifies with the trace, which t his ac t ion leav e s o n t h e p a g e . D r a w i n g i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a c a s t in g out and a r et r ievi n g , acted out in the tracing of this separation, whic h t hen, par a d o x i c a l l y , all-ows through the trace not onl-y the binding t o t he s e f f b u t a l s o t h e c h i l d s independence. Is drawing real-l-y this 'tin-between" space where everything happens at once: separating and binding, sensation response and comingand thought, into-being each time over and over again? AN: The t r ac es o f t h e p a s t s u g g e s t f o r c e s m a r k i n g o u r g e s t u r a l acts that are compel-J-ing and complex enough that we shoul-d not f eel t hem t o be i n d i f f e r e n t , but rather to be the bedrock of our pas s ions . I n Ar t a u d s meditations on the work of Vincent Van Gogh, he r ef er s t o t he v i o l e n c e o f V a n G o g h 's g e s t u r a l - a c t s - h i s " b 1 u d geoned s t r ok e" - as reactive. A r t a u d a d d s t h a t V a n G o g h 's a c t i o n s ex is t staggering "as if und e r t h e t e r r i b l e blow of that force of iner t ia whic h t h e w h o l e w o r l d t a l k s about ... I and cause him to] nev er c eas e s t r ik i n q al-I forms of nature and al-l- obiects." ft is a
AvIsN E WMA N , Meri d i ansvlll,lggs.Acr yllcandchalkoncanvas.
l oox l oox z 3l 5\n.oAv i s N ew m an/T ate,London2oo3
l-i-fe l-acking the lndifference of j-nertia, and the terror that that holds , t o whic h A r t a u d r e f e r s . He evokes a double attack on our senses, conveying the "staggering blov/' l-eveled on Van Gogh whil_e rnanaging a "bludgeoned stroke" in the form of his own gestural ons l- aught ont o t h e c a n v a s , t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f w h i c h " n e v e r c e a s e s,,/ eit her . Ar t aud co n j u r e s t h e p r i m a l states of mind that are infused j- n ges t ur al- ac t s . B e c a u s e t h e s p a c e o f d r a w i n g i s s o e l e m e n t a l _ i n bot h m at er ial an d a c t i o n , it seems to suggest itself as a domain wher e "an ons laug h t o f r e p r e s s e d j o s t l i n q " and "ocufar coll_i_sions taken from l-ife" act as the raw substance of the works, and to whic h m ar k s ar e m e r e l y a t e s t i m o n y . CdZ: W hat happen s i n t h e s p a c e b e t w e e n t h e g e s t u r e m o v i n g a w ay f r om t he body , t o w a r d s e v e r y t h i n g that is outside of the self, and it s landing as a trace on the page? AN: I was t hink ing of the way the transmission of thought can depend on the hand and eye, and how this refates to the psychic s pac e in whic h t h e m a r k e x j - s t s a s a p o t e n t i a l i t y . The effort of t he m ent al and p h y s i c a l act of projection o u t f r o m t h e b o d y , a wa y f r om t he body , f i r s t l y into the air - an act that pitches the hand ac r os s t he s p a c e o f t h e p a g e t o s i t e the mark where one int ends - is quite a p r e c i s e act: the most thoughtfuland deliber at e of ac t s , which I would speculate harbors a necessary t hought J - es s nes s , i-n the sense that the certainty of coordinated ac t ions is alway s i n s o m e w a y p r o v i s i o n a l and as such relies on t he v igilant c oo p e r a t i o n between eye and hand. Paul_ Val_6ry writes that the act of drawing "endows the eye with a power of command whic h m us t be s u s t a i n e d by the wil-l." And where the will falters is in t he ps y c hic space of inattentlon. I would make an analogy here between how we experience unconscious emotions i_n the repetit ion and ac c um ula t i o n of marks (irrespectj-ve of what is being dr awn) and t he in t o n a t i o n , hesitations, a n d i _ n f l _ e c t i o n s o f s p e e ch , all of whj-ch hofd a complexity of messages and can be at odds with what appears to be saJ-d, but which nonetheless determine meaninq. ft seems to me that thi-s occurs j-ndependent of sight, as t hat whic h is ge n e r a t e d b y t h e m i n d a n d m e d i a t e d b y p e r c e p t i o n . CdZ' . Dr awing m ay a l s o b e a r e c o v e r y a dis c ov er y f or t h e e y e . . .
of
the
gesture
that
allows
AN: To r et r iev e the gesture in a drawi-ng is to translate the mark bac k int o t he ac t i o n o f t h e h a n d . I t i s v e r y p l e a s u r a b l e t o r e c o ver t he ges t ur e in t h a t w a y a n d 1 n s o d o i n g t o f o l l o w the action of making. I think that that experience i-n a drawj_ng is very precise. CdZ: Bec aus e on t he paper
t he e y e m a n a g e s t o d i s c e r n from a gesture in the air?
what
has
b e c o m e a t r a ce
AN: Yes , t he m incf s e y e . P e r c e p t i o n becomes an act of reconstruct ion t hat m ov es u n o b t r u s i v e l - y between interior and exterior. CdZ: I s t her e something intimate in gesture that. always comes pr ior t o t he s y m b o l i c i n c o m m u n i c a t i - o n ? Wh e r e a n d w h e n w o u l _ d j-s a coming-into-language? y ou loc at e t he g e s t u r e that Is it oc c ur r ing eac h t i m e y o u d r a w , a l - m o s t l i k e a performative act?
Conv ers a t i o n
occurs that to is not something AN: W hat I am r ef er r ing I am referIanguage' or "after" eit her "b e f o r e " s equent ially it: the unconwith simul-taneously r ing t o t hat . whic h oc c u r s of physj. n t h at i t b e whether when action, our hj- s t or y s c ious s u c h, cona s l a n g u a g e not symbolj-c ges t ur e or ut t er an c e , ic al memory a a s e x i s t s t h . i s I n d r a w i n g , b e i n g . t he m ode of s t it ut es of a c t i o n t h e w h i c h c o n d i t i o n s i s t h a t m ar k and i_n t he t r ac e than performed' is act e d o u t r a t h e r t he m om ent - it has named with what JuLj-a Kristeva c an I m ak e an equ a t i o n c dz i n language' with the "symbolic" coexists as it t he "s em iot ic " was i n t e r est h e r t h a t it s ee m s n o c o i n c i d e n c e r egar d, I n t his A r t a u d . t owar d als o dir ec t ed she of Artaud, about the writj-ngs t alk s AN: W hen Kr is t ev a genotext." s om e as c om i n g c l o s e t o b e i n g " u n b l e n d e d des c r ibes so potentfy forces That is t o s ay , t he a J - m o s t u n i n t e l t i g i b f e a nd not from from the drives issue in his lang u a g e ac t ual_iz ed which " p h e n o t e x t," t h e gr am m at ica l constraints t he c ult ur al m o v e m e n t t h e i t i s t h a t She suggests is of t he s y m bolic . bet ween t he t wo, and t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e o n e o r t h e o t h e r of language' and products the nature det er m ines is ev idenc ed about his own was abl- e t o m a k e t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s Ar t aud and poetic clarity with an extraordinary and ac t ions t hought s from the cfash, quot es A r t a u d : "And from this power . Kr is t ev a b o rn in a a r e p o t e n t i a l i m a g e s aff of t wo pr inc iple s , t ear ing t hr us t c.1 7 ..! uu!
It is
s t r onger T h :f
is
t han
rv ulr Je r v
al- way s engages t he is s ue.
a ground
n o r qni .rroi l s
Hvlvr
wit h
swel1-" -
drawinq,
Br:t
s
l et'
even
in
retufn
your
to
painting
youf
w ork:
drawing
My concern myself a painter. considered AN: I hav e nev er r eally space t h e c o n c e p t u a l t o more closely in m ak ing im ages r elat e s parp a i n t i n g ' I n t h a n c i r c u m s c r j b e d is l e s s of dr awj, ng, whic h jn t o c o m e s e d g e o r t h e b o u n d a r y w h l c h m anner t he t ic ular , in drawing. order different t he wor k is of a c o m p l e t e l y def ine occur does not itself t he idea of j - n s i d e a n d o u t s i d e I n f ac t , across the surface a positj-on in t he s am e way . The m a r k s d e f i n e the As a result to L j-mits. in rel-ation and ar e not r egj_s t er ed u n c e r t a a nty v a g u e a l e a v e can of borders am biguous nat ur e of t en i m a g e . of the as t o t he s t abilit Y whil-e t he s p a c e j 's o p e n - e n d e d a n d u n f r a m e d , CdZ I n dr awing, can you elaboover tj-me and in time. t he m ar k s ar e ar t j- c ulate d of boundary? notion dif f er ent r at e on t his AN: Ther e has nev er be e n t h e n e e d f o r t h e k i n d o f c o n c e p t u a l and framing of the artwork t he b o u n d a r i e s debat e c onc er ning p a i n t i n g or in the conw i t h a b s t r a c t f or ex am pJ _e, em e r g e d t hat , w hich tradiw o r l d , t h e o n w j n d o w t h e a s f r am e t he of v ent ion an i1l-usion This view creates the pi-cture. int er naliz es t ionally in the sense that there is of looking, of t he unique ex per ienc e consistency illusory c oher enc e t o t he im age . T h e r e i s n o t t h a t open-ended j- n dr awing, as t he s p a c e a n d i m a g e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y is a m a r k m a k ing o f inclination The n a t u r a l and s pec ulat iv e.
r elefionel
or deniz ati on
of
i ns er i nfi r z c :c ts .
i ndi v i dual
w hi eh
is
worl-d. I am thinking not an ex pr es s ion of a unitary of some of t he wor k s we ha v e i n t h e e x h i b i t i o n , as different as the drawings of Kur t Sch w i t t e r s and ?he Handel- Cefebration in W es t m ins t er Abb e y b y H e n e a g e F i n c h A y l e s f o r d . Even when the im age is s ugges t i v e as a representation that has its correspondenc e in t he wo r l d o f o b j e c t s , the boundaries of forms are open. Cons equent l- y , their l-ocations in space are not absol-utely fixed which is not defined. The "frame" in r elat ion to the surface, is not in plac e, we do not experience and therefore the sort of r eas s ur anc e t hat framj-ng woul-d give. The unframed interferes we mlght have of ordered lj-mits wit h any ant ic ipa t i o n or complet ion, and s ugges t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y that something is missing and will It alway s elud e o u r a t t e n t i o n , because it cannot be framed. is t he unc er t aj- n t y of the edge and how it meets the real that I f ind f as c inat ing. CdZ:
Dr awing
,.,.i wr L+L n
.i
is
t.hus not
ri n-fr l- n rn.i L e +a spa-- ^-.a ' itsa ifth c cr o rrnd-
Aq
to
manf
qnecc
: s
perceptual
do with al
nnc<.il-r.i
nf
e Fs v v
vr
l.i
f rr
T<
illusionism, f ha
bu t
.l
-..-
-raw l ng
franSi enC e?
AN: That is a ve r y i n t e r e s t i n g observation when one considers how dr awing c an b e e n c o d e d i n t h e i d e a o f s p e e d a n d s w i f t n e s s . O ne im agines t ha t some marks "escape" the thing because there is no dy nam is m t o u n d e r p i n the possibility of internalcohesion. Ther e is no pr es s u r e from the outside inwards,' in drawing, it is And the idea of boundary al- I pr es s ur e from the inside outwards. i t o n t o th e t hen bec om es pr o b l e m a t i c , our boundary as we project wor k . The phy s ic a l - s t r u c t u r e of a drawing is always conditional-, and when one l- o o k s , f o r e x a m p l e , a t t h e d r a w i n g b y J o h n L a t h a m, 2002) (Tine Signature O ne- Sec ond Dr aw i n g ( L 1 " 5: 1), the work it s elf is def ies any possibility of framing because the action with only em bedded in t he p u r e s e n s a t i - o n o f t j - m e . We a r e l e f t t he ef f ec t . So t h e i d e a o f f r a m i n g a s a w a y o f " c o n f i r m i n g " t he -
rsnacF paus
fhis
CdZ: But wel 1?
is
AN: I n t he s et s lim it s . r r er r r
nli
is
is
boundar ies
rnof r vL
that t his
nar f
I/o !
thev
of vr
L
r il qrwaw u r r r vi ne'^
are
unlimited
r ^- ^" ^- ^
f
D
-f t^l r s
d r l 9 u a 9 s.
c ondi ti on
of
dissolvabl-e. space
of
drawing
not
threatening
as
s ense t h a t t h e u n b o u n d e d i s t h r e a t e n i n g . Cohesion In the activity of drawing, certain thoughts of
m ifir r e
fnr c es
oc c r r r :
tr r r
fhei r
natl tr e
thev
hav e
tO
be
c ont ained, bec au s e t h e y a r e e l - u d i n g t h a t p a r t o f o n e 's e x i s t e n ce is s o f r ight e n e d In a way, I think, t hat of being uncontained. I t c a n n o t b e c e nt her e is s om et hi n q t h a t h a s t o b e c o n t r o l l e d . i ar
c l 2da
i n p a r t t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t h e m a r g l n a l J - ty CdZ: W ould t his explain of dr awing? For a v e r y l o n g t i m e t h i s m e d i u m h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d to other discipJ-ines and pushed aside in the museum. s ubs er v ient much l-ower than painting, Al- s o i- t s v al- ue o n t h e m a r k e t i s s t i l f phot o g r a p h y . . . s c ulpt ur e, AN: You c ould of dr awinq as
there say that is an act that
is a sort contai-ned
of socj-al- categorizing 1n the marqins.
{(l -
lo :J
t.'
*---:-
--*/ .-.*f" ?t'''
"{';
#
Av ls N Ew MA N, 5 ensible Ettipseof Lost Origin, 1985-6. Mixed media on canvas. 1o9 z I 5 x t57 9/ro in. @ Avis Newman/Tate,London zoo3
c dZ: obv ious ly , this arso connects to the idea of uuLr y rr _r ^i ec ^^^^ es . ,, I t s e e m s , h o w e v e r , - r pr that drawing m or e wlt h f r agm e n t a t i o n , pai_nting while is trying or m ak e it whole. rrr..nj,,
the Lacanian is dealing to cover it
AN: I t is v er y in t e r e s t i n g to observe how..present dal/, art pr ac t r - c e enc our ag e s t h e h y b r i d i z i n g of disciplines where previous r y one had exi s t e d as the dominant mode of expressron, capabl- e of endles s e l u c i d a t i o n . This now seems not the case. The c ul- t ur al- c ondit ion s of fragmentation and di-spersal, the idea of lac k and t he des t a b i l i z e d sense of existence a s w e l f a s t h e p h enom ena of gr eat er and greater amounts of information, el-iminate t he pos s ibilit y of such closure. The fractured, open-ended, and i- nc om plet e t hat a r e i n h e r e n t characteristi-cs o f d r a w i _ n g p r a c E . r _ ce s eem v er y per t i- nen t as materia]izations of our present experi-enc e of t he wor ld . rt is that space of anxiety and fragmentation r n c ont em por ar y practice that r would say offers a potential of inf init e div er s it y , CdZ: I c an s ee w h y t h e y t he end of phot og r a p h y , hav e nev er hear d o f t h e
would talk about the end of painting, and the end of film. But actually, I end of drawing. It, s not an issue.
AN: No, y ou do n o t s a y t h e e n d o f t h o u g h t . I think it is a r ec or d of t he wo r k i n g s of thought that we see embedded in the dr awn, in t he s en s e t h a t it is both the action of which va16ry s peak s as ' t a - which, wille d attention,, though he referred to it in r elat ion to the perception of things, stands for the reci- pr oc al nat ur e of t h e w o r k i n g s o f m i n d , â&#x201A;Źy â&#x201A;Ź, a n d h a n d - a n d a m edit at ion by t ' a s e l f regarding consciousness,,, where cons c i- ous nes s is und e r s t o o d as a process. rt figures a state of ex is t enc e. I t is a s i t e of inquiry, response, and invenE.ron, and in t hat s ens e b e c o m e s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l activity. I would gr - i , , ^ve
i+ lL
rL^+
tnat
^!^! sEaEus .
c dZ: Av is , c an y ou r e i t e r a t e what exactly you mean when you refer to a conceptual anxiety in connection to the frame of paintinq? AN: Tr adit ionally , the surface of a painting is integrated, i _ ts s pac e t ot aliz ed through the sharp demarcation of its edge - 1ts f r am e. Thr ough t h i s unification, the surface is named. It is t his ov er wher m ingly tyrannical, totarizing, and constant nature of t he f r am e of p a i n t i n g that I have found so troubl_esome wher eas i- n dr awing the surface mai-ntains its separate exist enc e. Ther e is a n a m b i v a r e n c e of status between the mark and rts s uppor t . Conse q u e n t l y , the l-ack of integration has always been m or e c om plex , corresponding as it does to a mobile fierd of pr oper t ies . on l y d u r i n g the process of marking is a cohesion f ound, a s om ewhat p r e c a r i o u s frame constructed, a]most as t.he by pr oduc t of t he a r t i c u t a t i o n of marking thoughts, which by def init ion ar e ope n - e n d e d , in a state of flux, and suggestive of a per pet ual pot ent i a l i t y . rt is this potentiality and instabirit y of t he f r am e t h a t reinforces our uncertainty of definition: one is not s o m uch l o o k i n g at the thing itserf as at its suggest ion, at t he pos s i b i l i t y of a formation that has yet to occur. Ther e is t he unc er t a i n t y as to what stage it is in its becominq,
Conv e r s a t i o n
and embodj-es a fack. s ens e, dr awing i s b o t h f u g i t i v e I n t hat n o t only imply these qual-t h a t s e f e c t i o n in t he wor k s Ther e ar e that which is onJ-y a trace but conjure it ies of inc om plet enes s drawprints f r o m T u r n e r 's offset The ac c i d e n t a l of t he t hing. in 1928 are evocaarea flooded storage ings c r eat ed when Tat e 's in our engagement with a and uncertain of what is f ugit iv e t iv e t h e w o r k 's of framing, c e r t a i n t y t he s t r u c t u r a l wit hout dr awing. actual-io f i m m j n e n c e t o a n o p e n s pac e is one of dis pla c e m e n t , as with p r o p e r t i e s , a n d , a c t i v e pos it jo n b e c o m e Tj- m e and t ies . e n c o m p a ss deeply t h e y w o r l d , f r a g m e n t e d l n a liv ing of s ens e our to be sitand the desire wit h r e g a r d t o l o c a t i o n f el_t anx iet ies when whatever that might constitute. uat ed in t he r j_ght pla c e , b e a h a s t o t h e r e nr ec t i c e i s r elev ant , I woutd imagine that q u a l . i t i e s o f t h a t i n h e r e n t between the c om plex c or r es pondenc e to i t s c a p a c i t y a n d e x p r e s s i o n , m a t e r i a l what ev er t he pr ac t j_c e, r es onat e CdZ:
wit h
W hat t hen
our
per c e p t i o n
holds
internally
of
the in
worfd. drawing?
internal and gives AN: I t is t he r hy t hm o f m a r k s t h a t " f r a m e s " o ne to a l l o w s i n a d r a w i n g t o an im age . T h e r h y t h m c oher enc e p l ace' It p l a c e t o f r o m t h e e y e It takes t he t hing. ex per ienc e in a e x i s t i n g a s s e l v e s b o d i l y o f o u r an ex per ien c e enc our ages an expeand exterior, between interior pr oc es s of ar t ic ulat ion in the Lacanj-an described of dual-ity w. it hout t he t e n s i o n r ienc e j-s the Mirror has, in the stage and that m odel of s y m m et r y t ha t forms a total that j_dent if ic at ion th e i m a g e o f t h e o t h e r wit h been c onnec t e d t o t h e f r a m e . D r a w i n g i s c a p a b l e o f G es t alt , - and therefore in action of ourselves t he ex per ie n c e addr es s ing on rhythm and h i s e l a b o r a t i o n s i n K l e e , as m ut able bej- ngs . Pa u I with three p e r c e i v e r h y t h m t h a t : " w e n o t e s s t r uc t ur es , r hy t hm ic it, thirdly w e s e e s e c o n d l y i t , h e a r w e c a n Fir s t onc e. at s ens es That is what gj-ves us such power over in our m us c l e s . we f eel_ it Wh a t in space, rhythmically' myself I ex pe r i e n c e our or ganis m . " o s ciLc o n t i n u a l i s t h e at a drawing when lo o k i n g is r egis t er ed ( c h a n g e ) I n . ( c o n s t a n c y ) a c t i o n a n d bet ween s t illnes s t at ion an equj-valence there exists pJ - ay of d r a w i n g , t he r hy t hm ic is not ourselves o f s e n s e w h e r e t h e s ens at io n s bet ween t hos e as bounded image, but is experienced on a unit ar y pr edic at ed G i u s e p p e P e n o n e 's d r a w For example, and out s i d e . bot h ins ide t Br eath o f C T a y ' e m b o d y t h a t of the notion ings St udy f or The is sensation. sense of being that c or por eal r hy t hm ic al m a t e riality w i t h t h e o d d s is at of t h e o b j e c t gr os s m at er j- alit y j 't to a l l u d e s f o r m , l u n g 1 i k e o p e n , But in i t s of our br eat h. ... t o i n s i d e o u t s i d e o u t s i d e , t o i n s i d e f r o m t he pas s age of aj- r c dz : Does not m ar k s ent er t ain
in the interruption t he c o n t i n u a l of incompleteness? an a n x i e t y
rhythm
of
the
is embodied j-n a sense feeling s om e t i m e s t h a t AN: Yes , I t hink The anxwe are seeing. w h a t o f of nagging doubt as t o t h e v a f u e only i s a d r a w i n g w j t h t h e e n c o u n t e r i n of inc or nplet enes s iet y r e c ogo n e i t s m a r k s . o f m u s j c a l i t y inev ita b t e an by m it igat ed the w i t h c o n t a c t o u t m a r k i n g h a n d t h e r h y t h m : es s ent ial an niz es and measure bind, separate, on whic h m ar k s d j - v i d e , s ur f ac e a s c he m a o f s p a c e i n w h i c h t h e m i n d c a n e x i s t . m ar k s def ining
73
hand. In viewing a Ther e is a s ens e o f t o u c h - t h e e v e r - p r e s e n t we follow the record of a trahowe v e r f o r m a l - i z e d , dr awn 1ine, jec t or y in For the viewer, that event - perceived of t hough t . pr ox im j . t y , h a n d r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e d r a w s i n i t s s uc h c l- os e that The attention/inattention t he m ind in t o a s p a c e o f t o u c h . j- n l o o k i n g I think, that, is a rhythmic encounter we ex per ienc e gener at es frames the work for the of experience that a unit y I n t h e o p e nis internal. sense the framing v iewer , and in t h a t is the suggestion nes s and dis per s j- o n of marks and l-ines there that is an act of reconstruction of perceptj-on t hat t he nat ur e play ed ways and that the comprehension in many different is out formulations. of rhythmic of t he im age is a s e r i e s of CdZ: The em phas is o n t o u c h i n t h e f o r m u f a t i o n seems crucial dr awing as an ac t o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s
your idea to me.
of
past. There is a disof presence AN: I t r ef er s to a record I would w a n t t o m a k e b e t w e e n t h e a c t o f m a k i n g m a r k s t inc t ion o f t h o s e m a r k s . Wh e n w e l o o k a t a d r a w j - n g , and t he r ec ept ion of touches the mark of we r ec ogniz e in t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n s as sepaand in s o d o i n g w e c a n s e e o u r o w n e x i s t e n c e anot her , is selfthe beholder r es p e c t I would say that r at e. I n t hat By means of in ev id e n c i n g acts of consciousness. c ons c ious pleasure in the mind in both look ing, t her e is a p r o f o u n d L^r rrvf
urrr9
^i
^^
o^^^e+ l,o!
L
a- r-rrq
In rrY u r r f i fL f i no
and s eLf - c ons c ious n e s s . m om e n t i n an aes t het j- c
th:t
i ns tant
And I would our encounter
betW een
C OnSC i OU SneSS
here suggest that with a drawing.
there
is
w i t h T i s s e r o n 's , itsel-f of drawing aligns CdZ: Your analy s is are not guided by a visuwho wr it es the earfiest drawings t hat of movement. At of space but by an exploration a1 ex plor at ion - and t h i s is certainly the case with children it s or igin p e r c e p t i o n , it gr aphic D i s c o n n e c t e d f r o m i s b I i n d . ex pr es s ion OnIy l-ater tonic, and pJ-astic sensations. is f ed by m us c ula r , is dr awing guided b y t h e e y e . very interesting, thoughts I ha v e f o u n d T i s s e r o n 's AN: I ndeed, I think there when h e s p e a k s o f t h e h a n d t h a t w r i t e s . es pec ially o f m a r k s a n d t h at to the character ar e t wo is s ues t h a t c o n t r i - b u t e ge s t u r a l T h e r e i s t h e i s s u e o f m a r ks significance. hav e dif f er ent a framework of encoded as signs within as ac t s of ins c r ip t i o n , where the language , connected to acts of delineation: s y m bolic to the image. the hand and are a priori ey e and t he m ind d i r e c t history even Then t her e ar e t h e m a r k s t h a t h o f d s o m e p e r s o n a l (and interpretation) of the eye, a time bef or e t he per c ep t i o n es fhc nrrra rrndifferentiated whc n oes t r r r e ex is f s a c t j - o n o f b o dge s t i c u l a ting I would not considinto the worfd. ily s ens at ion As those archaic mutually excluslve. er t hes e t wo qua l i t j - e s in varying exist in u s , s o t o o d o t h e t r a c e s m em or ies ex is t presence in their a s t he as dj-fferent degr ees in ev er y d r a w i n g , drawing of a skul-l- and Figure anony m ous eight een t h - c e n t u r y B a c o n . Wh a t I a m t r y i n g to identify' No. 1 by F r a n c i s Ly ing, i s t h e p h e n o m e n o n of in the preverbal, and what I would s i t u a t e he-ld in the many marks we see in a drawing. a m em or y im pr int - the primitive experiThat alludes t o L a c a n 's " b o d y i n p i e c e s " prior Stage to the Mirror and the fantasy enc e of f r agm ent at i o n
l.ti
i
*---
rlE- ,.'
..sx..'':
ru
.
/
-r.l
f,,
London 2oo3 A v ls N E w M A N , T h e Wi ng ofth e Wi nd of M adness,1982. M ixed m edia on canva s to7 x 145 i n. O Av i s N ew m an/T ate,
15
r im a
-:
whan
^6s tur es
w er e
thr u r r !vw ow rr n
or vu Lr, t-
ew o w o ye\/
nm rfr r vr LL
h^,{" uuqy
fho Lrrc
d- l-l u^
int o undif f er ent iat e d space. rt is the notion of the gesture a nd t he ut t er anc e t ha t a r e e x i s t e n t before one has the capacj_ty to c ont em plat e t he s e f f . And in that sense gestures are not..seen.,, I n t he ac t of dr a w i n g o r o f m a r k i n g a s u r f a c e , intention m o m e nt:r ' i
Iv
f:ltcr s
or
is
:h:ndoned
l ^r r r the
s c ns eq:
fhc r c
:r a
f l :<hac
when ac t ion is di s c o n n e c t e d from perception. It is only retros pec t iv ely t hat th e e y e p e r c e i v e s that the mark exists and at t em pt s t o m ak e i t s e n s i b l e before sight. It is where action ac c ount ed f or r et r o s p e c t i v e l y . CdZ:
A m om ent y ou
coul-d def ine
as coming- j_nto-language
is
...
AN: . . . I n t he s ens e t h a t we all have the experience of scratchi. g, of s c r ibbling, of marking, of making sense of those marks by nam ing t hem . T h a t v e r y e a r l y sense of investing marks with t his "is - nes s " is s o m e t h i n g w e h a v e a l _ l - e x p e r i e n c e d ; it is funyou dam ent al t o our t h i n k i n g process. It is affirmative. r ec ent ] y m ent ioned to me that some architects are returning to t he us e of penc il and paper because the rel_ationship between t hought and ac t ion is somehow interfered with when computer pr ogr am s ar e em p l o y e d . This comment seems very pertinent. Even in t he m os t f r agm e n t e d of forms there is a recognition of our s ens e of s el- f and o u r h i s t o r y as we mark. It is not onl_y the f unc t j- oning of pe r c e p t i o n that interests me but al_so the activit y of s ens at ion. CdZ: You hav e t at ion and as AN: I about
t ou c h e d o n t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n of marks ins c r i p t i o n . Can you el_aborate?
as
represen-
am not t alk i n g here about exclusions or hierarchi_es but a s im ul- t anei t y - actions of menta] factors where the acts af ro:dina :nd nya e f c â&#x201A;Źl v J - n g ouu are concurrent. r am pointing to that whic h I under s t and to be the essence of drawing and that c a n be s een wor k ing in d i f f e r e n t ways in the work of Twombly and Ar t aud, f or ex am p l e . I am i-nterested in the way the interconnec t ednes s bet ween i n s c r i p t i o n and representation is grounded in t he pr im it iv e body. I am not speaking of the language of depic t ion and r ep r e s e n t a t i o n , but of what constitutes the menj-:l anordrr n n a -r^ ^vf ! oâ&#x201A;Źr v^dh f . g e m e n E .+h ^ O evident E^n+ a r ai ^ S S in drawing: how the m ar k er s of an ac ti o n translate the murmurings of the mind. Twom bly c onv ey s th e s t o r i e s of the worl_d by means of a graphism t hat is gr ounded i n c o r p o r a l _ a c t s - h i s c a t t i g r a p h i c scrawls and s c r ibbles , r hy t hm ic scratches and suggestions of child-like acts of ins c r ibing ev id e n c e n o t o n J _ y t h e g e s t u r a l expression of the body but al- s o t he b o d y o f t h e w o r k . T h e s u r f a c e smudges and layer s of er as ed t r ac i n g s , the engagement with the particul_arities of s ur f ac e, c r eat e s a mental_ space for the viewer that, to use Rol- and Bar t hes ' phrase, "garbles the chain of message, s:-gn, ges t ur e. " This is s i m i l a r t o A r t a u d 's transgression of the bounds of language , where his screams, moans, and cries find t heir equiv alenc e in the elemental_ corrosive viol_ence of drawn ac t s t hat he s ay s a r e b o t h d o c u m e n t s a n d s e n s a t i o n s that pass int o him . His desl r e to make no hierarchy between writing, pict ogr am , and im age e x i s t s in a domain of emoti_onal- and physical ex t r em es . Por bot h d r a w e r a n d v i e w e r , the mark and its imaginarv
Conversation
one concernlng as a fact of existence, s pac e ar e enc ount er ed e t c h ed in our psychic m o m e n t s d i s t a n t a n d pr im it iv e, dar k , t hos e I the framework of the image that wlt h i n t . hat ex is t his t or y that It is the evidence of beingness woul- d wis h t o ac k nowle d g e . of a the suggestion in wor k . A n d c o n s e q u e n t l y , is inv es t ed sensaof preverbal polar lt y bet ween langu a g e a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n is not apPr oPr r ate . t ion j-n language, as a c o m i n g - i n t o - b e i n g c dz . I f dr awing, to us, as m uc h a s w l t h w h a t i s a n t e r i o r t he pr es ent em bedded in a bodY o f k n o w l e d g e ?
deal-s with is it
There of effects. it wor k s l - i k e a s i m u l - t a n e i t y AN: I t hink I am that in drawing body of knowledge that we engage with for k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t b o d y what co n s t i t u t e s t o ar t ic ulat e: in i t i s e x p e r i e n c e I t h i n k A n d v ie w e r ? and f or t he ar t is t k nowledge. of ev ent
is a tryrng the the
how previously, CdZ: f n a way y ou hav e s p o k e n w i t h m e a b o u t t h i s a c c ui n t h e and how not preconceived, t he m ar k is not anc ho r e d , w eb l i k e a s p l d e r a l m o s t of m ar k s t he i m a g e c o m e s a b o u t m ulat ion thr uv L r r ! nr rvnh
rr
dninnrrY uvf
t
fhF
fhr uYrr u r r ! nr rvah
r c nF ti ti v e
aC t.
weaving a web as a metaphor AN: I us ed t he ac t o f t h e s p i d e r j-mage was not a priori f or t he m om ent of en g a g e m e n t , w h e r e t h e the work, before dld not exist m ak ing - in a s m u c h a s i t t o it s my conbut happened in t he t i m e o f m a k i n g . A n d c o n s e q u e n t l y , was not that c er n in t hos e wor k s o f m i n e t o w h i c h y o u r e f e r the act that b u t r e c o g n i z e d , shoul-d be in par t ic ular any t hing m o v e m ent and w i t h t h e I w a s c o n c e r n e d of m ak i_ng be des c r ibed ; s ome I n w o r k s ' s u r f a c e . t h e a c r o s s pr oc es s ar t ic ulat ion of That is not blindfol-ded. I c oul_d have m a d e t h e t h i n g s r es pec t s knows the lanquage of webr andom nes s - t h e s p i d e r t o s ugges t makes in such circumone actuaffy that s o what is it m ak ing. a temmade became like the thing I t s eem ed t o m e t h a t s t anc es ? e l a b o raa n d r e p e t i t i o n c om pos ed o f a c o n t i n u o u s por al m at r ix of s e r i e s t h e t h a t i n s c r i p t i o n s , but simil-ar of indiv j- dualt ion o n l y a c t s s e p a r a t e judgm ents t h o s e t o c o n n e c t e d and t hought s would be nothon the image. The result s ubs equent J - y r ef lec t ed The marks in a drawing are always discrete unif ied. ing r eally suglayered, and, however densely t o t he m s e l v e s and s uf f ic ient as a series And whil-e also existing r epeti t i o n . ges t an endles s the thing of the marks suggests t he ar r a n g e m e n t of r elat ions , g ^ aU"U l AI U
fr rO'lr f
I
at nyaar!f
L
dL
drly
l L tvl l l sr r L .
How would you CdZ The m ar k is t he s a m e a n d a l w a y s d i f f e r e n t . of elaboration of the continuous now t he e f f e c t ar t ic ulat e of the body in space? ges t ur es in the world, indiv idual space drawing with the infinite identify AN: I would def init ely s e n s a tions t h e a n d b o d y o f t h e bot h t h e s e n s a t j - o n s of s ens at j- on: i s e mbods p a c e l i m i t l e s s o f t h a t of t he m ind. The c ons c i o u s n e s s i s a w o u l d s a y I p a g e , w h i c h w h i t e o f t h e r ealit y ied in t he that has, since modernism, been an inters pac e of f r agm ent at ion pJ-ace of boundthe dreadful symbolically m inable pot ent ialit y , the page is a Yves Bonnefoy concludes, For G iac om e t t i , les s nes s .
t7
plac e of abs enc e, w h i l e for Mallarm6 it "evokes the original ev idenc e of being . " In a drawing, the page keeps open the gaps particibet ween t he m ar k s. I t r e f u s e s cl-osure and is an active yn a: nl l{u
fi lnr
nf
rzai
c ov InriJr u r nr rcul -ui nI vn 9 d
:nd
wij-h
nraqan.a
|.h c Th a
m :r L
urhi
v! ^â&#x201A;Ź
^ - r!L + Po ^t qnana
l- o
nf
h ^ ^ ^ +i r r cg vL l a u u v
oth a
n :a a
r fa j di
r aq:lr r L f !L
i fr r
enoreae
f
l t6
not ion of t he bo d y a s s u b s t a n c e . Unlike the body of the canvas, wit h a unif ied surface and pure material-ity, it does not funct ion as a m j- r r or b a c k : I t i s n o t " I a m a b o d y " l o o k i n g at another body , but it s b o d y i s p h a n t a s m i c f understand and intangibl-e. tht
n:dt
tn
weiohflcss
m ent .
hF
l\I
i.
.
m ol 'r i l e
r r nnol
I ^ T i f h ^ 'i + vYfurrvuL
s neee
and
The dr awing
CdZ: I s c of or I n dis t inc t ion i sf
:
sr r r face
aS
or r al
i tr r
of
i nrlL- ^v fr
^ 6gfL+iLnr rdr Y Y
fhe
nhr r s i c al
is
it
a
nr c s c 4gg
nl :c c
of
i tS
of
ti m q
and
m ov e-
you in.
draws
a determining to col-or in
nr ed
in
SU C h
factor painting,
of
dr s ! s r!aw 4 rrY i
m ean?
lu- hl l 6g
nd
6 r!IL il-D . lm l tg
in painting? the character-
materj-ality what might
u ! ^â&#x201A;Ź
+L ^ LllE
D vg l u^engl -l rhL- rnra n l - r r r r r - ^g"^ h lf^
ugrrLury
debat e c onc er ning the primacy of ej-ther col-or over l-j-ne or vice v er s a, t her e ar e o t h e r considerations. I think it is the col-orles s nes s of dr aw i n g t h a t m a k e s i t so powerful, because its surf ac e is nev er de f i n e d where there as in painting, is an - that enc ount er wit . h v i s i b i l i t y is, makes the surface color v is ibl- e. But t he s e n s a t i o n of col-orlessness that the paper ev ok es under s c or es our uncertainty of definition. It is always f r r oif iv eAnr j T t h i n k nf nntcntialitrr is where the dr:litrr this is alway s pr es ent in a drawing. There is an unhappy tension hAfhrAAn
fLhrrrfq u
And
T
em
defined
r r sina lr r r qo
irlentifru
n ^ f A - +i -Ii +i ' PvLsIlulaMy
fh e
ifs
ter m
"nrganc r9 ! + rrvrviv ,
oaqilrr
fL ^ ulls
a- -r^r u
nc qq- "
with
:
hr r t shac1-
hn^rr
un r rdsvr 'r a firn o d
nol
" n:ner "
t.hos e nf
n:nar
lu- hr ras
^f
bec aus e
I
or r al i ti F s
fhat
hacnmc
n :n a r l r o Pcr .
dr aw i no
thi nk
we
is C an
imnrinfad
in
:nr;
m at er iaf r eg i s t e r s t hat the insubstantial thing that f 'm t r y i n g The n o t i o n t o ident if y . of the white paper as being boundless al- s o al- l- udes t o t h a t real-ity where the immaspace of our inner wor ld of d r e a m s a n d t h e m e n t a l - i m p r e s s i o n s t er ial run that f hr or r oh
rrq
enfl
F\r a^^r - f
6
i
-f
^
^f
h6r
thor r dhts
I i csi
nal g
in
f r agm ent ed wor l- d o f o u r s e n s e s a n d d e f y a n y t o t a l i z i n g . page h a s i n e v i t a b l y m et aphor ic the terror of beginning point not hingnes s t hat is the inaugural of constituting nic at ion. Dr awing a l w a y s s e e m s t o r e g i s t e r the endless t ion of r em ak ing - i t constitutes the space of anxiety.
the
The with a c o r n mu repeti-
CdZ: The page, w h i c h t h o u g h b l a n k i s n e v e r t r u J - y e m p t y , i s t h e unbounded s pac e o f l a n g u a g e . Is drawing the medium most apt to c onf l- at e t he c ode d a n d t h e u n c o d e d , s i n c e e v e r y m a r k o n e m a k e s c an be c ons ider ed to orlginate in an urge from a space of r r n.ar faini- r r
f^
t he
c or e
AN:
To t hink
nr or r i
ncc
of
of
n:r 1- i c i nafe
y our
and n o t a t e f hc
i n'l anor r Ac l e"
conceptualizinq
\r .i SU aI
through ar ti St.
of
D i ai
the
drawing M anr r
wri
thi s
i .l ea
r em ai n
at
exhibition? is tc r s
not :nd
just
the
c om pgger S
hav e
m ade dr awings : Andr6 Breton, John Cage, E.L.T. Mesens, and Ant onin Ar t aud are just some who figure in the sefection. My int ent ion was no t t o m a k e a n e x h i b l t i o n of master works, where practice is adjunc t dr awing to another or is defined by a narpr oc e d u r e . r ow m at er ialInitially, I was thinking of the two
Conversation
of as embodied in the dessjns-6crjts in t he ex hibit i o n as pec t s n o t o n l y s igw o r k i m a g e , t h e a n d Ex is t j. ng bet w e e n t e x t Ar t aud. m o m e nt h o l d s t h e b u t a f s o o f s i g n s , J a n g u a g e c ult ur al nif ies a of image or becomes an act t he m ar k t ak es o n t h e s t a t u s bef or e acts savage the space of the Ar t au d ' s g e s t u r a l of ins c r ipt ion. point of the or the graphite page wit h a ham m er , c i g a r e t t e , thc eonventions It is as nenc i I it s elf r r r nf r r n i n o of language. sensidifferent c los e t o t he bone as o n e c a n g e t . A c o m p l e t e l y b y A . I e x a n d e r and pur pos e is a t w o r k i n t h e d r a w i - n g s bilit y It is Drawing is a system and a method. Coz ens and Sol- Lewit t . nature of lanand universal of t he c o n s i s t e n t an af f ir m at lon in the exhirepresented are clearly guage. I hope bot h a s p e c t s of takIt is not a matter and c an be s e e n i n t h e w o r k . bit ion l J s Ieff
ina
r
nrofaranf
iel
noq.ition:
it
is
in two extremes ex is t a paradoxicaf is of te n
c an t her e t ic e s ens e, t o dr aw
!L-! Lllqu
..i+Lin wf Lrrrrr
the same spaceact. tends to be more the mind?
that one aspect we s t at e to ir npuls e a n d t h e o t h e r
CdZz Could t he bodily
---Ddy
LU --
fhc Lrrs
In
nrecyrqv
that
linked
to
is a when he says, "There conjures AN: The im age t hat A r t a u d it well situates a mj-nd quick as lightning," m ind in t he f les h, opens the act of inscribing that f or m e. I hav e t he i m p r e s s i o n p s y c h i c o p e r a tions e v e n t s wh i c h s o m e s t a g e d t hr ough a f is s ur e p r i m a r y wj-th f o r c e s T h e y a r e e x i s t e n c e . t a k e of c ons c ious nes s as a negative. they are experienced v is ibilit y; no par t ic ular in the worJ-d, we see markings W hen we c om e t o look a t a n o t h e r 's the at articulating We s e e a t t e m p t s ev e n t . an ex t r aor dinar y aspect of us binds that then momentarily unbounded s pac e t hat fhrf
ic
pleas ur e
lar :o
afarnallrr euerrrurfj
dcl.iohf usffYrru
being Iy to CdZ:
fr:omontcd llqYrLrsrrLsu
of
in
look i n g
scr r r finizinn u u ! I +- f r r Y
Th.i
s
drawings.
at
l - ha
is
nert
There
nr n:;l j Z ati On
yarrr vvli
fhe urrv
is
a fascinatj-on
Of
the
i m age,
to posses' Not a desire s o c los e t o t he a c t i o n . experience. of an aesthetic is p a r t engage, it Is
dr awing
n:rfinrr-
of
and
and
but
Of
mere-
c onve r s a t i o n ?
one wants to do to communicate; t her e i - s a d e s i r e AN: O bv ious ly , w h o m one desj-res to d o a n d w a n t s t o Howev er , w h a t o n e s om et hing. q u i t e I t depends in c o m p l e x . is s ues a r e a c t u a f l y t hes e addr es s , to mj-nd the anabrings par t on what is being d r a w n . T h i s n o t i o n sketchgr am f ound on t he c ov e r o f o n e o f L e o n a r d o d a V i n c j - 's me." But, essenit just reads: "TeIf book s . W hen dec ipher ed , t her e is in t h e a c t o f d r a w j - n g a w i s h t o e x t e r n a l i z e t i- ally , be it through an invented and t o c om m u n i c a t e e x i s t e n c e , t hought The blank page, in the world. of things wor Ld or t he per c ept io n I t i s a space that w h i c h t h i s o c c u r s . i n is t he s pac e I t hink , has t o be f or m ulat ed. CdZ:
Is
it
in
t hat
sense
a stage?
AN: I t c ould be a s t a q e , b u t I s e e i t m u c h m o r e a s a n u n b o u n d e d there are Again' of transformation. s pac e t hat bec om es a s i t e b l ankness - of o f i n h o w t h a t s p a c e is s ues about m a s t e r y c lear ly w e f o o k at a bl-ank t i m e E a c h c h a n g e d . is a n d ov er c om e no t hing page that has been marked to however smal-l- a degree, we see a
triumph of sorts, some conquering of an unbounded self - that is, I think, an aesthetj-c experience. That which is bounded binds that aspect of us that also registers and recogrnizes that unbounded self. Again, that quality of recognition is very evident in the firo Figures by Alberto The figures Giacometti: only just hold the space. pleasure CdZ: But f or m e, t h i s sounds like the sensorial of pr oc es s , unif y ing which I reLate to the entry into language. While being blank, the page then represents all that exists before, somehow like language -. AN:
a
The pot ent ialitl P
CdZ: Yes, and you know that if you do not touch the page you will you will. not participate in language, and if you do touch it, And you come into being as you come into through partaking language. AN: I think the paper is an undifferentiated space in that it references the primitive undifferentiated space of the infant ile body t hat has to be claimed as the self. CdZz I s t he undiff e r e n t i a t e d space language, is ou t s i d e t hing t hat of us? It is, I think, s ibilit y .
that the
Other, entity
everyo f p o s-
AN: Yes , and f th i n k the fascination and the fear of that w h i te page is t he s it e in which one enacts differentiation as soon as a m ar k or s ign i s m a d e . I t c h a n g e s t h e n o n - n e s s a n d e s t a b l i s h e s a place of action. As soon as that act occurs the paper becomes s om et hing.
FrontCover Ge o m e tr y( ' Esp r itd e g { o mdtri e),rg3T.Gouacheonpaper'4415xni n' R e H â&#x201A;ŹM a e n t r r e,TheSpiritof RightsSociety(ARS)'NewYork Brussels/Artists @ zoo3 C. Herscovici, BackCover(recto/verso) A N r o N l NA w e uo ,Sp e llfo r So n ia M o ss6 ,lg 3 g .Wa xcrayononburnedpaper.83/rox53/roi n.C ol l ecti onBi bti othE queN ati onal ed eFranc e. Paris @ zooSArtistsRightsSociety(ARS),NewYork/ADAGB
,s
fi *a
s
,) {
.*\
1 ,, & ti
/,$' tna