6
FROM THE CURATOR Disintegration, as a working title for this exhibition, was chosen for its aptness in describing the breakdown of the divisions, which had stood so unshakably until recent years, between high and low art forms, and more specifically, between drawing and artistic autonomy. The history of drawing is positioned within contemporary art as interdisciplinary, and historically subject to the preparatory and educational requirements of painting, sculpture and printmaking. However, contemporary graphic culture operates with an increasingly sophisticated and expanding language. This exhibition explores drawing as a primary and vital method of art making, examining the qualities of drawing, its philosophies and the media that share a relationship with drawing, developed over centuries of practice. However, Disintegration became an even more appropriate title with the outbreak of COVID-19, which caused its postponement, and lockdowns which are continuing even at the time of writing. Not surprisingly, these events have affected the ten artists included in this exhibition in different ways, adding further context
to some of the choices on display within, and some of the societal pressures, even collapses, without. Things are changing rapidly in the studio, in the environment and in our society, and the outcomes are not all going to be positive. This exhibition refers to drawing as an autonomous artistic discipline, as opposed to its contingent uses, such as preparatory drawing, commercial art, design and architecture. These practices, while related, are not a large part of this curatorial, which focuses instead on drawing as the technological and experiential response to the massive change catalysed by the virtual world. While drawing remains associated with traditions of preparatory process or as a pedagogical tool, it is no longer relegated to these discourses.i Recently, many high-profile exhibitions focused on drawing have found their way into major institutions. Nonetheless, rigorous investigation into changes in the discipline, specifically in relation to mass and digital cultures, has been less common.ii Remarkably, given the ubiquity of drawing in art practice, little attempt has been made to consolidate drawing’s role in light of technological change, a discourse that my research has sought to address in the neologism of metadrawing for some years. The resurgence of interest in drawing can be partially explained by the Modernist and Post-modernist collapses of genre and culture boundaries. The collapse of genre
and beux arts are circumscriptions that began with photography, accelerated with collage and climaxed in minimalism and conceptual art. These collapses have allowed graffiti, comic books, animation, and contemporary commercial design to claim or reject cultural legitimacy as art forms. The pervasiveness of mass culture increases in traction not only in Pop, but increasingly in other art, so that today they are no longer just appropriations (as in Lichtenstein or Hamilton), but are seen to be art forms in their own right. While these varying forms have brought attention to drawing, their relative artistic autonomy is still anecdotal, for they seldom discuss in a critical way the discourse confined largely to description and comments about technical proficiency. Primarily associated with a commercial model, these forms are seemingly beyond or unconcerned with criticism, as a ‘techno-capitalist information communication culture.’iii Drawing
remains an important investigative tool for the conceptualisation and execution of visual ideas, as an act that is deeply ingrained in many image-making processes.
Historically, drawing has seen a far broader variety of application, spanning the artistic and the scientific. Digital technologies have become indispensable to many vocations, including many that historically relied on drawing. There is much contemporary work that combines
