Hyperdrawing: Beyond the Lines of Contemporary Art 9780755603411

Citation preview

Acknowledgements TRACEY would like to acknowledge the invaluable help and assistance of Darren Weaver in shaping this book. We would also like to thank the artists and essayists for their support in Hyperdrawing. Finally, we would like to thank Philippa Brewster for being open to the concept.

vi

Hyperdrawing.indd 6

17/05/2012 10:45:06

Preface TRACEY is a ‘space’ that encourages, supports, hosts and disseminates research in the area of drawing and visualisation, including the online peer-reviewed journal of contemporary drawing research. TRACEY is based in the School of the Arts at Loughborough University. TRACEY’s aim is to stimulate and support open-minded and contemporary interest in drawing activity – physically, cognitively and creatively. The space reflects a multi-disciplinary approach to drawing activity and research. It endeavours to question preconceptions and to investigate the potential for what drawing might be. The editors of this book are Russell Marshall and Phil Sawdon – co-editors and members of TRACEY – in collaboration with Simon Downs, Deborah Harty, Andrew Selby and Jane Tormey. TRACEY’s first book published by I.B. Tauris, Drawing Now: Between the Lines of Contemporary Art (2007, Simon Downs, Russell Marshall, Phil

Sawdon, Andrew Selby and Jane Tormey), demonstrates, within fine art practice, the contemporary use of traditional materials associated with drawing, such as pencil, charcoal, pastel, pen and ink on paper in order to convey drawing as a conceptual process. Hyperdrawing: Beyond the Lines of Contemporary Art, TRACEY’s second book published by I.B. Tauris, curates images to extend into the use of other materials including time, space and sound. The prefix ‘hyper-’ is used to provide an inclusive perspective on drawing and encompass any and all fine art drawing practices that may extend into this ‘other space’ and manifest as or exploit being ‘over’, ‘above’, ‘beyond’ and used to imply ‘excess’ or ‘exaggeration’ or ‘more than normal’. Hyperdrawing provides three invited essays on Hyperdrawing and an editorial essay, together with images from 33 international artists that collectively explore some of

the boundaries of the Hyperdrawing space. What categorises or classifies the works as Hyperdrawing is explored within the four essays but it is ultimately left to the reader to make their own judgements. Hyperdrawing provides images that use traditional materials or traditional subjects whilst also exploring the use of sound, light, technologies, multiple dimensions, reality and alternate realities. The common element, the ‘hyper-’, within all of the content in this book is ultimately a response to a position, proposed by the editors, that contemporary drawing research would benefit by agreeing that drawing is an ambiguous practice. Whilst Hyperdrawing takes the same approach as Drawing Now, in that it is not representative of all of what Hyperdrawing is or might be, it provides a contemporary view in both visual and written forms of how ambiguity can be used as a strategic approach in drawing research and practice.

vii

Hyperdrawing.indd 7

17/05/2012 10:45:06

Hyperdrawing Russell Marshall and Phil Sawdon

Russell Marshall (TRACEY) is Senior Lecturer at Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University. He is actively involved in drawing and visualisation research. Phil Sawdon (TRACEY) is an Honorary Fellow at the School of the Arts, Loughborough University. He has a focus on contemporary drawing, particularly questions concerning ambiguity and drawing in the context of fine art practice and interdisciplinary collaboration. He practises creating texts and artefacts, including moving image, that utilise drawing and publishes, exhibits and screens as appropriate.

In 2007 TRACEY1 curated Drawing Now: Between the Lines of Contemporary Art,2 which developed a consideration of drawing’s peculiar dependence on a direct and physical process – the relationship between the hand, the drawing material and the paper. The book is founded on the premise that drawing thinks/talks in a particular way. Drawing Now curated works, within the context of contemporary fine art practice, as an ongoing process focused on traditional drawing materials used in a manner to convey drawing as a conceptual process. TRACEY worked with the assumption that drawing is most often thought of as certain materials on particular types of support to produce a representational outcome. This context established a remit or boundary for Drawing Now that supported TRACEY’s curatorial approach. Following the drawing of this disciplinary boundary, the consequence of adopting a particular material approach

Hyperdrawing.indd 8

indicated the presence of a boundary within a boundary – a sub-boundary? The prefix ‘sub-’ can be freely attached to elements of any origin and is used to indicate ‘under’, ‘below’, ‘beneath’, which identifies this boundary within a boundary as a hierarchical element within the disciplinary boundary, or a supra-boundary? The prefix ‘supra-’, meaning ‘above’/‘over’ or ‘beyond the limits of’/‘outside of’, confirms this hierarchical representation, a particular view of drawing within contemporary fine art practice. The sub-boundary, whilst clear and unbroken in the proposal for Drawing Now, becomes perforated into a dashed delineation. The punctuation of this boundary, this line, with regular empty space presented a challenge, firstly to constrain an expanding field within the remit of Drawing Now and, secondly, to consider a position for drawing that wanders or weaves across and through this boundary. An essentially restless position could be argued to be unconstrained by the limits of definition. This ambiguity presents an opportunity. Drawing Now sits wholly within the sub-boundary as defined but also allows for an unfolding of those limits from sub- to supra- or from hypo- to hyper- . . . drawing. The situating of the Hyperdrawing space both within and without that occupied by Drawing Now established a series of pragmatic curatorial criteria that helped form the architecture of the book. These criteria were four-fold. Firstly, both works set out to curate contemporary drawing within fine art practice: Drawing Now takes a seven-year view from 2000

to 2006; Hyperdrawing takes a five-year view intersecting 2006 through to 2010. Secondly, Drawing Now established a particular view of materials and support. Hyperdrawing partly emerged from this bounding of the space, taking a broader and unconstrained approach – beyond rather than between – where drawing could be identified across any and all material approaches. Thirdly, neither curation is a deliberate and objective survey of drawing within the respective spaces. The artists invited reflected the situating of their work within the Hyperdrawing space. As already established, the sub-boundary that marks the territory of Drawing Now lies wholly within that of Hyperdrawing and thus featuring of artists within one does not preclude their presence in the other, as demonstrated by Jordan MacKenzie, Maryclare Foá and Sarah Woodfine. The final and possibly fundamental criterion was that irrespective of material, and/or our position on Hyperdrawing, the artists themselves had to describe their work as ‘drawing(s)’.

Hyperdraw(ing) – the Expression We have appropriated the expression ‘Hyperdrawing’ (noun) and ‘hyperdrawing’ (verb) with an understanding that the prefixes sub- and supra- provided an articulate way of identifying and structuring drawing territory. Drawing Now made apparent the structural nature of the view

17/05/2012 10:45:06

Hyperdrawing taken of drawing within contemporary fine art practice. A clearly defined focus for the works to be curated presented the challenge of how firmly the criteria for inclusion could be adhered to. Inevitably, identifying a position assumes debates about terminology and definition. The result, or perhaps more accurately, the ongoing process, led us to resist becoming constrained by this assumption. The position adopted was to seek opportunity in the areas that are ill defined, that prove problematic with the inflexibility of definition, and that begin to manifest within a structure of drawing where there is the possibility for a space outside of normal or supposedly well-understood areas of activity. The development of this space/these spaces and their structure could not shy completely away from terminology; a mechanism was required to at least differentiate between the space within and the space without and to provide a means to discuss drawing that moves between spaces. This led to the adoption of the common prefix ‘sub-’, used to identify the subordinate elements of drawing territory such as the traditional view embraced by Drawing Now. Without actually requiring the definition of the contents of the territory the prefix merely reinforces a hierarchical structure and provides distinction whilst still supporting flexibility. Identifying a space or region as ‘sub’ logically suggests the presence of its inverse, a ‘supra’ space that encompasses and completes the basic structure. Here sub-boundaries are drawn that encompass a particular view of drawing practice. A supra-boundary then encompasses the sub-boundaries and the space between them. Exactly what the supraboundary delineates is open for discussion but may conveniently be used in this context

to differentiate between disciplinary fields. In exploring this view, what was initially a series of positive sub-boundaries within the negative unidentified space between them became inverted: the focus shifted from the eye being drawn to this range of sub-boundary elements to the unexplored otherness. In beginning to explore this otherness, this ‘other-space’, the structuring of these spaces suggests that, in this context, it is a location for Drawings/drawing that cannot be located within the sub-boundaries. In following the Latin root of these terms, this might be called Supradrawing. However, ‘supra’ is much less synonymous with the visual than its Greek etymological equivalent, ‘hyper’. Thus Hyperdrawing inhabits this other space and manifests as, or exploits being, ‘over’/‘above’/‘beyond’, usually implying ‘excess’, ‘exaggeration’ or ‘more than normal’. It is noted that HyperDraw(ing), Hyper Draw(ing) and Hyperdrawing have established themselves within various digital computer-based activities such as music editing and digital drawing. In addition, Hyperdrawing as a term might be assumed to have a digital emphasis. However, that is one of the assumptions we will challenge through the works and artists chosen, i.e. a ‘more than the normal’ expectation.

Hyperdrawing – the Position In exploring Hyperdrawing the curation process was directed primarily by the crit­ eria outlined earlier: there was no material/ support restriction; artists with outcomes identified as fulfilling the ‘traditional’ criteria for Drawing Now were not precluded from also featuring outcomes within Hyperdraw-

ing; to address the contemporary focus of the book works would be post 2006; and irrespective of the authors’ view the artists must refer to the work as drawing. Through its other-space configuration Hyperdrawing identifies outcomes that are exploratory and travel the length and breadth of a very large territory. Curating Hyperdrawing presented a challenge in identifying the ‘hyper-ness’ of one drawing over another, and in meeting this challenge a series of discussions began to map out this territory. As presented, there was no intention to establish a representative sample from across Hyperdrawing, although it was important to explore the possibilities and survey the location of the established boundary (this would assume that the boundary was well defined). This process identified a series of ad hoc categories used initially as a pragmatic methodology for managing the complex scope of the book. These categories were not entirely rigorous and were not exclusive, with works that could easily have sat within more than one. One such category was hyperreal (e.g. Glen, Gluzberg, Haendel). Hyperreal works were a convenient and largely well-understood area in which to categorise Hyperdrawings. Hyperdrawing also manifests through its opportunity to explore dimensions. The 2D3D4D category (e.g. Blankenstein, Cooper, Coyle, Siebert) explored artists who exploit the ability to break boundaries between dimensions. Media opportunities were identified through categories of: light, sound, technology and strange stuff (e.g. Bertola, Blankenstein, Curtis, Lewis,Vogl). Notionally ‘difficult’ or slippery categorisations were represented by categories such as alternate reality (Blankenstein, Grayson, Haendel, Hill) that explored the subtle and ambiguous

ix

Hyperdrawing.indd 9

17/05/2012 10:45:06

Hyperdrawing territory of the hyperreal beyond that of photorealism. Emma Cocker, Siún Hanrahan and Marsha Meskimmon were invited to contribute to a discussion around Hyperdrawing through individual essays from ambiguous disciplinary perspectives. The starting point for this particular part of the process was a briefing in the invitation to both the essayists and artists that included a position on Hyperdrawing. This position, as already discussed, focused on what drawing might be and deliberately established that the book would not be about defining ‘what is drawing’ and, by extension, ‘what is Hyperdrawing’. Instead the position adopted was that terms such as drawing and Hyperdrawing are inherently ambiguous and that contemporary drawing research would benefit by agreeing that drawing is an ambiguous practice.3 The response was interesting in that all contributors appeared comfortable with this proposed position and also capable of either situating their work in, or adopting their own position/perspective relative to, Hyperdrawing. In developing their relative positions/perspectives the essayists establish common territory or themes within the boundary of Hyperdrawing. Siún Hanrahan identifies three categories of Hyperdrawing; these categories establish a further hierarchical representation at a macro level, above those presented earlier. The three categories – self-identified as drawing; inter-media specifying drawing; and self-differentiated as drawing – differentiate between Hyperdrawings and expand upon our final criteria for inclusion in the book. Hyperdrawings thus become one of: ‘drawings’; ‘called drawings but . . .’; and ‘not called drawings and . . .’. The first two are included within this book and there are examples of work easily and comfortably identifiable as

‘drawing’ as well as those that are ‘called drawings but’, which may sit less comfort­ ably. The final macro category is not covered within this book as it includes work directly opposed to our final criterion for inclusion. In establishing categories that encompass Hyperdrawings, that are ‘not called drawings’, Siún Hanrahan creates an interesting tension that hints at the subtleties of individual and collective perspectives on drawing. The tension reflects discussions about the order4 of drawing and whether Taylor’s5 view of the boundary-busting nature of contemporary drawing leads to the fallacy of circular reasoning. The circular reasoning in this case is created by the drawing disciplinary boundary that encompasses various sub-boundaries and the intersecting Hyperdrawing space within and between. Thus the discipline of drawing appears to contain work that is not called drawing. However, are the drawing boundaries a fallacy? Is drawing so ubiquitous as to make boundary searches redundant? Emma Cocker and Marsha Meskimmon both establish Hyperdrawing as a form of techné where drawing practice is not constrained by spatial boundaries. Emma Cocker states: It is in these terms, that Hyperdrawing might be considered a form of productive knowledge – or techné. Here, techné is not used in its habitual sense, where it is taken to simply mean the skilful art of making and doing, the practical knowledge or technical facility of craftsmanship. . . . Rather than referring to drawing solely in spatial terms, where the attempt to go beyond is conceived as one of giving shape to new forms, or of making – and leaving – a space wherein something unexpected might

materialise; drawing can also be understood temporally, as the act of making time and of deciding how to act.

Marsha Meskimmon states: Techné does not distinguish sharply between the hand and the machine, nor assume a hierarchy of materials, processes or procedures in creative practice. Rather, techné is open-ended, seeking to fold processes in upon themselves and to cross genres. Like drawing, techné permits the possibility of inexhaustible extension, elaboration as temporal agency, risking ephemerality, exigency and excess.

Hyperdrawing is identified as being less about where and more about when. The ‘above’ and ‘in excess of’ nature of Hyperdrawing suggests a two- or threedimensional view with Hyperdrawing inhabiting space that is mostly unconstrained and capable of an inter/intra/ cross-disciplinary view. However, Hyperdrawing is equally, if not more of, a fourth-dimensional view where the spatial boundaries are broken by a dimension where such boundaries are diminished to a point that they no longer act as a constraint to drawing practice and instead merely provide context and a means to establish Hyperdrawing through establishing what is not Hyperdrawing. Fundamentally, what this fourth-dimensional view provides is the opportunity and openness that characterises Hyperdrawing practice, the opportunity not in doing but in being able to do or in establishing the conditions to be able to do. All three essayists refer to time in their discussion of Hyperdrawing. Emma Cocker distinguishes between chronological time (chronos) and kairotic time in identifying Hyperdrawing’s position in not only being subject to and able to embody the

x

Hyperdrawing.indd 10

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Hyperdrawing concept of time passing but also the time of opportunity or timeliness. Siún Hanrahan offers a less overt discussion of time through the moment of drawing. She states: The moment of drawing, as an act of relating, is one of sustained engagement, of unwavering attention. The sustained ‘presence to’ of (observational) drawing models the response demanded in the moment of encounter with that which is other, be that the world as it is in itself or other persons. . . . The sustained ‘presence to’ of drawing thus holds the possibility of hearing back, not as a promise of immediacy, but as the possibility of such commitment revealing the object of attention as it is in itself.

Marsha Meskimmon also considers Hyperdrawing in and through time but also ‘remind[s] us of drawing’s exceptional ability to materialise thresholds between disciplinary fields or conceptual territories while engaging with many modes of making at once’. In returning to thresholds and boundaries another common aspect of the essayists’ collective view is the opportunity embodied within Hyperdrawing for movement within and between drawing boundaries but also across dimensions. A restless wandering, an unfolding, a becoming?

Hyperdrawing – Becoming Drawing Siún Hanrahan states: ‘Hyperdrawing’, as a curatorial gesture, challenges assumptions about what is proper to drawing in terms of purity – it refuses to assume that the conventions of other mediums have no place in drawing.

‘Hyperdrawing’ and the practices it assembles, as a spur to discourse, might thus prompt reflection upon what makes an event or object a drawing. That is, ‘Hyperdrawing’ suggests a discourse that seeks to extend the conventions considered to be generated by ‘drawing as a medium’ so as to establish the practices and outcomes of hyper-drawing as proper to drawing.

‘Hyper’ is over and above a traditional view of drawing ‘what is proper to drawing’ not necessarily hyper to a more open view of drawing. Is Hyperdrawing simply . . . drawing? It could be argued that Hyperdrawing positions itself within the space outside, and we are not trying to break the boundaries as to what is drawing. Indeed, as stated previously, are drawing boundaries a fallacy? We are saying these are drawings, end of discussion, and that the challenge is more to discuss the content critically within contemporary fine art practice. However, in stating this position we are not arguing that (Hyper)drawing can be anything. As Emma Cocker states, ‘Nor is the Hyperdrawing a doodle where a wayward line plots its own course guided only lightly by the blind hand floating the tide swell of drifting thought.’ At least for now the position held coincides with that of Taylor.6 Whilst drawing may be very broad it is essential that drawing (research) acknowledges disciplinary boundaries and that in a process of becoming does not throw the baby out with the bath water. From the discussions thus far it is clear that drawing is very context sensitive and also governed by perspective or viewpoint. The ambiguity formed between these positions can lead to confusion and is

possibly the primary driver for looking to define or map the territory in an attempt to remove or mitigate the inherent ambiguity. However, the position adopted by Hyperdrawing is that an acceptable inter/intra/ cross-disciplinary view of drawing will never be reached. Thus, a lack of definition should be embraced. This lack of definition can then transform from being a compromise position into one of opportunity. This position and particularly the position of Hyperdrawing, and the opportunities it affords, is not fixed. It is not a position that welcomes definition; it evolves from not looking to define. This ongoing evolution suggests that Hyperdrawing is becoming, as opposed to being. Becoming embodies the opportunities of not being constrained, of not having arrived, in essence a restless unfolding within a bounded or dimensional context. Whilst this suggests that becoming is a point of view, that point of view is also not fixed, which is clearly an ambiguous position to take and by extension returns us to the fallacy of circular reasoning. S:

‘Hyperdrawing is an ambiguous practice.’ Q: ‘Why?’ Q/A: ‘Because Hyperdrawing can’t be defined?’ Q: ‘Why can’t Hyperdrawing be defined?’ A: ‘Because the definition would be ambiguous.’ Circular reasoning is where two conclusions are directly or indirectly based upon each other. Thus, if you follow a line of reasoning, one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion. Whilst a fallacy, circular reasoning can actually be

xi

Hyperdrawing.indd 11

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Hyperdrawing a useful tool. The reverse of various logical or mathematical arguments can be proven through its use, where otherwise this proof would be very difficult. The logic presented here is that the reverse of defining Hyper­ drawing is proven. The reverse of defining Hyperdrawing is not, however, a position where drawing can be anything. Given the becoming nature proposed of drawing, drawing will ebb and flow and may become broad enough to be anything in some space and time. Our perspective on becoming is that (Hyper)drawing acknowledges where it is, and allows itself to be comfortable with what it is. From this position the view should then be forward, the opportunity in what can be as opposed to what is. All of the essayists offer similar perspectives on Hyperdrawing: Siún Hanrahan discusses the promise and possibility of seeing anew; Marsha Meskimmon suggests that Hyperdrawing offers the potential to unravel; and Emma Cocker proposes that Hyperdrawing is directed towards keeping things open and mutable. Perspective, as a drawing convention, supports a rationalised and ordered representation that on the surface provides a comforting stability. However, perspective is in fact ambiguous in nature.7 In this way

it is becoming; perspective advocates fixed points, rules and embodies assumptions in establishing a form of understanding. Yet, the perceived ordered nature of the perspective system is illusory: it is a deliberate distortion, a compromise, to represent a three-dimensional subject in a two-dimensional medium – a concept not lost in curating this book as some artists considered for inclusion in Hyperdrawing had works that could not be adequately represented in a two-dimensional format. Perspective represents a comfortable, accepted, de facto position that is easy to interpret and yet is a deliberate distortion. Indeed, all drawing systems could be argued to be artificial in nature, yet their establishment and enduring appeal reflect their accessibility. The accessibility of perspective and other such conventions are also inherently compromised by the constraints they impose. The alternative is inevitably much less accessible. However, if it is possible to look beyond, then this ‘hyper’ view recognises and embraces the opportunities of ambiguity, of becoming, of Hyperdrawing becoming drawing. Hyperdrawing as an ambiguous practice presents the prospect that a lack of a definition, a position of ambiguity, is desirable. The possibility is that a lack of

definition is not only desirable, it is also a necessity. The viewpoint is that the ambiguity that inevitably stems from a lack of definition forms a strategy that enables and sustains drawing practices.8

Endnotes 1 TRACEY: the open-access journal of contemporary drawing and visualisation research. Online. Available http://www.lboro. ac.uk/departments/sota/tracey/. 2 TRACEY, Drawing Now: Between the Lines of Contemporary Drawing, London: I.B.Tauris, 2007. 3 Sawdon, P.J. and Marshall, R., Drawing: An Ambiguous Practice, Intersections, 35th Annual Conference of the Association of Art Historians, MIRIAD, Manchester Metropolitan University, 4 April 2009. Online. Available http:// hdl.handle.net/2134/6069. 4 Krauss, R., Sculpture in the Expanded Field, 8 October 1979, pp. 30–44. 5 Taylor, A., ‘Foreword – Re: Positioning Drawing’, in S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research, Bristol: Intellect Books, 2008, p. 11. 6 Taylor, ibid. 7 Talbot, R., ‘Ambiguity and the Development of Linear Perspective’, TRACEY: Ambiguity, September 2006, pp. 1–13. Online. Available http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/sota/ tracey/ambi/images/talbot.pdf. 8 Sawdon and Marshall, Drawing: An Ambiguous Practice.

xii

Hyperdrawing.indd 12

17/05/2012 10:45:07

The Restless Line, Drawing Emma Cocker

Emma Cocker is a writer and Senior Lecturer in Fine Art at Nottingham Trent University. Recent essays include ‘Not Yet There: Endless Searches and Irresolvable Quests’, in Telling Stories:Theories and Criticism/ Cinematic Essay/Objects and Narrative (2009); ‘Performing Stillness: Community in Waiting’, in Stillness in a Mobile World (2011) and ‘Over and Over, Again and Again’, in Failure (2010).

Drawing is often conceived as an activity that is drawn, taking place after the imitable fact, following attentively as an echo of that which it attempts to describe. However, there is another drawing that emerges in the absence of any antecedent stimulus or provocation; which does not follow, but is initiated instead in the hope of making manifest that which could not have been conceived of at the outset nor planned for in advance.1 In doing and being so, this drawing draws rather than is drawn. It no longer draws on – by making a demand on – the observable world nor on the powers of the imaginary, but simply attempts to bring forth, make appear. Striving to be more than an additive project (a drawing of, drawing and, drawing with), drawing performs an abstracted retreat back into itself; it begins firstly by being only. This is not about defining itself as autonomous activity, of establishing the limits of its own specificity. Rather, in withdrawing from the pressures of representing something else, drawing attempts to contemplate the terms of its own coming into being, performed as the infinitely reflexive loop of drawing drawing itself drawing. Drawing is turned

back against itself to regard the conditions of its own making, this being analogous to thinking thinking about thinking – a Foucaultian fold.2 No longer concerned with giving material representation to what has been already conceptualised or is known to exist, the (oblique) aim of such a practice might be to produce germinal conditions wherein something unexpected or unanticipated might arise. It sets something up in order for something else to happen. This is not to conceive of drawing as a preliminary or preparatory sketch that – like the hypothesis – creates the premise for something else to follow or flesh out, but rather as the very site wherein something unknown or unplanned for might occur. It is in this sense that such a practice might be prefixed by the term ‘hyper’, since its investment is not in the articulation of what is, but in anticipation of what might be over, above and beyond the terms of the existing situation – the potential of what might yet be. To become more than, drawing must do more than simply being more; the task of exceeding the terms of what is already known or normative must involve an attempt to effect a breach or break. This contrasts perhaps to the intentions of an agonistic form of hyper-production that strives to be always in excess of. The attempt to be more than is always in danger of becoming more normative, of creating only more of the same: where what is conceived as extraordinary turns out to be no more than extra ordinary. Resisting a progressive model

of development – the regime of onwards and upwards, of more is better – an attempt is made to exceed expectations by doing or being less, by lacking a sense of deliberate purpose. Here, the process of drawing strives towards stripping things away or paring them down in order to make manifest a gap or space, becoming creatively passive – a touch purposeless or empty at times – so as to remain receptive to possibilities that cannot yet be comprehended or controlled. In these terms, a drawing does not so much imitate nor invent, as invoke or call for, coax. What is beyond is invited rather than wilfully reached towards or grasped. Each line is performed as an unlearning, an unknowing, an unmeaning, the ritual reversal of habitual ways of thinking, the gesture of (making a) clearing. Here, clearing does not produce clarity, but simply gives permission for another kind of thinking and knowing without prescribing what is allowed: it simply makes possible.3 Refusing to be planned for or prepared in advance, this specific form of drawing resists the pressures of premeditation to become meditative, where it is activated as a live and reflective thinking process taking place only in the present moment. Drawing: the hesitant testimony of a zigzagging line breaking onto the blank page, of a body scoring a path through space, of a life marking time. The moving body performs the drawing in time and space beyond the realm of two dimensions, carving invisible lines across the ground of more expansive terrains. Liberated

xiii

Hyperdrawing.indd 13

17/05/2012 10:45:07



The Restless Line, Drawing from the habitual expectations of both representation and premeditation, the line wanders. Concerned only with the present time of its unfolding existence and the future-possible moment of an encounter with something unknown, drawing becomes restless. It stirs, uneasy. In these terms, Hyperdrawing is conceived as a specific species of hyperactivity – distracted, procrastinating, unwilling to settle, prone to stray. Its restlessness no longer describes only the unfettered meanderings of a nomadic line moving ever forward, but rather a ricochet between various points or positions, an endless performance, oscillating back and forth, to and fro. Unable to identify or name the telos of its endeavour, this is drawing as a ceaselessly backtracking and agitated practice. A restless form of drawing – of hyper-drawing – evolves then, determined not to fall too quickly into form or the pattern of set ways; its attention directed instead towards keeping things open and mutable. However, this restless – even improvisatory – line should not be confused with a form of automatic drawing, intent on accessing the hidden recesses of the subconscious imaginary or of channelling the secrets of some mystical beyond. Instead, the encounter with something unknown or unexpected is conceived as being within and produced by the event of the drawing itself. Here, what is unknown does not belong to some other place – a distant elsewhere or outside – to which the process of drawing affords temporary access. In contrast, it describes the experience of something unknown produced at the site of and through the process of drawing, materially arising unannounced as if from

nowhere, from nothing. These are drawings without any definitive sense of destination or outcome: teleological expectation is wilfully thwarted, stalled. Such a practice is no longer bound to the description of an observed event now already past nor is it concerned with realising a future image that exists – notionally at least – as a mental sketch or projection needing only to be fleshed out. Rather, this is a mode of drawing that attends to nothing more than what is present, giving form only to that which emerges synchronous – contemporaneous – to the very act of its own coming into being. The act of drawing and what is drawn thus remain contingent upon the still uncertain terms of one another. Certainly, it could be argued that all drawing is somewhat contingent, subject to the influence and affect of innumerable factors that cannot always be known in advance. However, Hyperdrawing makes this contingency central, the subject of the drawing itself. It is a form of drawing which makes visible the event of negotiating the terms of its own emergence, attempting to articulate the unfolding phenomenon encountered at the very site of drawing itself. Drawing is the optimal means through which to communicate the nature of the observable – if somewhat intangible – phenomenon of drawing whilst demonstrating fidelity to its terms. Hyperdrawing, in this sense, emerges simultaneously to what it attempts to draw, where what is drawn could not have existed prior to the event of the drawing. Though bound to and by one another, the relationship between the act of drawing and what is drawn is not incorruptible, monogamic; but rather it remains open to the influence of other affections, unforeseen

pressures. The drawing’s contingency makes it inherently porous, unprotected to conditions that cannot always be identified at its inception but which will become revealed in time as events unfold. Drawing draws these indiscernible unknowns – bruise-like – to the surface, disclosing like the promissory revelation that which was already there but had hitherto remained unseen, only ever possible. It could be tempting to view this form of unfolding drawing as one that somehow takes care of itself, which once set in motion is capable of sustaining a trajectory by its own momentum. Not so, for Hyperdrawing is not to be undertaken passively nor without due care, but rather requires constant and continual attention, a certain discipline. To begin a drawing in the absence of the knowledge of what it will become does not involve the artist giving overall responsibility or authorship to unknown forces, of relinquishing their agency or intentionality in the production of the work. Nor is the Hyperdrawing a doodle where a wayward line plots its own course guided only lightly by the blind hand floating the tide swell of drifting thought. Instead, the artist must consciously adopt a medial position, where they become responsible for actively maintaining the conditions that will keep the drawing process mobile, dynamic, on a roll. In this sense, responsibility does not involve taking control but in knowing how best to respond. Here, the artist neither pushes nor pulls the direction of the line, but instead attempts to create the framework wherein the drawing might remain aleatory, playfully open to the potentiality of different and competing forces. Care must be taken to prevent the drawing from simply falling out of control or else falling flat, lethargic.

xiv

Hyperdrawing.indd 14

17/05/2012 10:45:07

The Restless Line, Drawing Counter-intuitively, perhaps, it is often through the introduction of situational limits or constraints that the artist keeps the flight of the drawing buoyant, stops it from becoming stuck or bored. The conceptualisation of a beyond or indeed of something otherwise is dependent upon the presence of limits. To think beyond is to presuppose a line. Within Hyperdrawing practice, limits are thus considered as obstacles or frustrations whose logic becomes worked until they begin to yield, at the same time as functioning as necessary conditions that allow for the possibility of an alternative, of something in excess of or beyond the parameters of what is taken as given. Limits not only establish the terms of a given situation; since, equally, they set up conditions wherein it becomes possible – indeed necessary – to conceive of something existing beyond their bounds. A line has to be drawn in order to initiate the imagining of what might exist beyond it. For the restless line, limits function as the leverage against which to work, for unimpeded restlessness soon dissipates, its energy exhausted. The tighter the limit the more wily or deviate its means of working a way around. Within Hyperdrawing practice, limits activate the process of looking for and producing loopholes, for new lines of flight more often occur only when the situation demands. Limits are only accepted if they offer provocation, reworked once they fail to create tension or have become dull. Consider the traceur who in refusing to stay within the limits of what is considered normative, welcomes the obstacle that forces an arabesque about-turn mid-flight, the vertiginous somersault of a flow folded back over into eloquent coils or perilous free-fall. Here, to actively navigate the limit

differently to convention or law necessitates the simultaneous conception of other – less acquiescent – ways of walking the line. Within Hyperdrawing practice then, the artist might make a drawing by establishing its limits and restrictions, rather than by directly controlling the line. Or else, the drawn line cannot be conceived independently of the critical subject drawing, but is thought synonymous with it. Each becomes a conduit for the other. Both are thus subjected to the same limits. For the line of the drawing, as for the life of the artist, a limit or constraint might be critically activated as a site of negotiation, for restlessly working with and through. Within each process, different pressures and commitments compete for attention as one force gives way to allow the emergence of another, as the rule created in order for something to begin is superseded by another that allows it to continue to develop. An outcome can only ever be predicted and can easily turn. The impetus or force that initiates a process has the capacity to destroy it also; production can become entropic in the absence of the decision that determines when to stop or change tack. The artist’s role then is to navigate a course of action between these different and competing forces of production, by intuiting when to yield to rule or whim, and when to reassert control. Like a sailing boat unanchored, without the presence of external forces, the momentum of the drawing would lose pace, its temporal process stilled towards object-hood; becoming noun, no longer verb. As the skipper, the artist attempts to steer the drawing into waters and winds most conducive to sustaining the trajectory of its flow. Learning to sail is a process of facilitation or mediation that attempts to

make good the turbulence created by the pull of the water and the push of the wind. Between being effortful and effortless – a process of drawing evolves where the effects of individual forces can no longer be discerned nor differentiated from one another, but instead act in dialogue, working together. Divergent rhythms merge in symphonic flow, becoming one. Somewhere between control and letting go, somewhere between affecting and being affected – the event of sailing, of drawing and of being. To the act of sailing, the water and the wind create the contingent conditions that ensure that the process of steering the boat can never be truly anticipated in advance of it leaving port. The skipper must remain attentive and in readiness for all eventualities and variables, prepared for the unexpected. To be prepared is to anticipate the unforeseen future. Unknown situations, however, demand a speculative approach, for you can never be wholly sure what to expect, what skills will be required. For the skipper, the unknown or unexpected is that which threatens to swerve the boat off course; it needs to be harnessed, its risk curtailed. Within the terms of Hyperdrawing, however, the threat of the unexpected is actively sought and courted, prepared for – or anticipated – in more affirmative terms. It is a practice that sets out in search of the capricious wind or current that will send it sideways, disturb its even keel, for it is in such moments of crisis that new tactics often emerge. New forms of operating are provoked into being through the encounter with a situation unlike what has come before. Hyperdrawing thus emerges as a contingent form of working knowledge, which is not based on knowing how to deal with a situation in advance, where

xv

Hyperdrawing.indd 15

17/05/2012 10:45:07



The Restless Line, Drawing the future is predicted and prepared for. Instead, it is a form of knowledge born of the moment, from having confidence. Confidence is the knowledge that the right decision will be made when required, it involves trusting that a response will be performed appropriately and with skill at the propitious time. This is not about placing faith in a form of tacit knowledge, however; which describes an already embodied know-how developed intuitively through repeated practice, ingrained into the body through past experience. Instead, what is activated is a model of knownnot knowledge capable of working within situations that remain indeterminate or are newly encountered, not already known. Or rather it is a form of knowledge that is activated or emerges simultaneous to the situation it attempts to comprehend, and that alone is adequate to the task of comprehending that situation. This is a way of knowing the world that cannot be transferred or banked, nor accumulated into the knowledge of the encyclopedia. Drawing’s revelations refuse to be translated; and instead remain stubbornly situational, peculiar to the terms of a specific context, always in flux. It is in these terms that Hyperdrawing might be considered a form of productive knowledge – or techné. Here, techné is not used in its habitual sense, where it is taken to simply mean the skilful art of making and doing, the practical knowledge or technical facility of craftsmanship. Making a return to how the term was used within Ancient Greek culture, techné might be re-conceived as a disruptive – even subversive – species of tactical knowledge.4 Techné is an insurgent form of knowing which has power to, not power over; it does not attempt to overpower so much as

undertake, intervene. It is a way of operating in the world that is capable of responding to situations which are contingent, shifting or unpredictable, in order to effect a change of balance or power: steering the direction of events through wily – even somewhat deviant – means rather than through force. Its knowledge emerges through the navigation of limits, brought into play as and when required, called upon. Techné devises new ways of operating in situations when habitual forms of knowledge no longer suffice. Its interventions and inventions appear pitched against the logic of received wisdoms and hegemonic lines of powers in an attempt to produce moments of porosity or escape. Conceived as a form of techné, Hyperdrawing attempts the transformation of what is into what is possible, by navigating the limits of its own production until they begin to yield, becoming porous. This is not performed through blunt refusal nor through direct force, but rather by attending to the tension of every line, staying vigilant to the fact that any limit is only as strong as its weakest point; it is already full of holes. Techné is thus a practice of mindfulness, which – against the reactions of impulsive habit – holds back, bides it time. It is the art of knowing-when, of attempting to catch the limit off guard. Techné is a form of knowledge associated with an attendant form of cunning intelligence (mêtis) and a mode of time characterised by opportunism, the ‘right time’ (kairos). Writing on the specific subject of mêtis, Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant describe it as: [A] type of intelligence and of thought, a way of knowing; it implies a complex but very coherent body of mental attitudes and intellectual behaviour which combine

flair, wisdom, forethought, subtlety of mind, deception, resourcefulness, vigilance, opportunism . . . It is applied to situations which are transient, shifting, disconcerting, and ambiguous, situations which do not lend themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation or rigorous logic.5

Harnessing the properties of dexterity, sureness of eye and sharp-wittedness, mêtis ‘attempts to reach its desired goal by feeling its way and guessing’; it is a ‘type of cognition which is alien to truth and quite separate from episteme, knowledge.’6 Refusing the limitations of seeing things only in black and white, mêtis emerges within Detienne and Vernant’s writing as a shimmering iridescence like a dappled fawn; a weapon’s glint; a mottled snake – wriggling; a swarm of bees; turning fish – refracting light; a fox’s mind; the manycoloured sheen of liver’s skin, a magician’s illusion.7 In their terms, mêtis is a form of intelligence or judgement supple enough to work within unstable and shifting conditions; it is capable of seizing the opportunities made momentarily visible as the prevailing logic within a given structure or system yields. It is an art like catching the wind or turn of the tide. It is perhaps no surprise then that the motif of sailing figures highly within their descriptions of mêtis, the image of a helmsman steering a boat against the turbulent forces of weather and water. And here, too, might the figure of the artist be drawn, sailing a drawing, or as a subject becoming. In mythical terms, tyché (chance) is goddess of the sea and sister of mêtis, symbolic of all that is mercurial and ever changing. For scholars of ancient rhetoric, tyché describes the field of indeterminacy which techné, in turn, attempts to exploit, as sailing works with as much as against

xvi

Hyperdrawing.indd 16

17/05/2012 10:45:07

The Restless Line, Drawing the contingencies of wind and wave.8 The activation of techné is thus somewhat contingent upon the presence of chance forces; it is a form of knowledge that emerges through the navigation of situations that are unpredictable or precarious, that remains susceptible to unexpected and incalculable change. Detienne and Vernant argue that: just as the human art of foresight develops against the background of a future that is opaque and unpredictable, the art of the helmsman can only be exercised within the framework of the uncertainty and instability of the sea. The play of the tiller cannot be disassociated from the movement of the waves. Tyché brings the indiscernible future within the bounds of possibility.9

Chance always brings with it the promise of the unknown, of possibilities beyond that which can be predicted in advance. In one sense, it might be possible to conceive of chance as that which introduces something unaccountable or random into the terms of the situation, contrary to logical reason, paralogos. Here, chance could be taken as an anomalous event which already carries or harbours within it that which is unknown or unforeseen. Alternatively, chance might describe an unexpected interruption or breach, wherein logical reason is momentarily stalled, sent sideways. In these terms, chance does not so much bring about something new as operate as a temporary glitch in the smooth flow of habitual events, where the challenge becomes one of turning it towards opportunity. The possibility of a new way of operating is thus not dependent on that which is brought by the chance event as what is brought about by it: how its opportunities are seized, where they are

taken. It is not the chance wind that sails the boat, rather the helmsman’s capacity for knowing how to work (with) it. So too works the chance occurrence that unsettles the trajectory of the drawing line. Considered as a form of opportunity needing to be actively grasped or else lost, chance operates in analogous terms to kairos, the mode of time associated with techné. Kairos signals a qualitatively different mode of time to that of linear or chronological time (chronos). It is not an abstract measure of time passing but of time ready to be seized: timeliness, the critical time of opportunity where something could happen. Yet within the logic of techné, opportunities or chances are produced rather than simply awaited. Techné is a tactical practice deemed capable of actually setting up the conditions wherein kairos (the time of opportunity) might arise and in knowing (through a form of mêtis or intuitive intelligence) how and when to act in response. Here, it becomes possible to conceive of how drawing might operate as techné; in turn, how something unknown or unexpected might be produced therein. Rather than referring to drawing solely in spatial terms, where the attempt to go beyond is conceived as one of giving shape to new forms, or of making – and leaving – a space wherein something unexpected might materialise; drawing can also be understood temporally, as the act of making time and of deciding how to act. Here, drawing firstly attempts to create the conditions of kairos, the experience of a temporal gap or breach opening up within the logic of chronos. However, true opportunity is rarely acknowledged consciously, for to do so would be to stall and thus miss its call. Drawing must thus respond swiftly and with intent (with mêtis),

where in the moment of decision it must summon a new way of working – a new direction for the line – that could not have been conceived had kairos not arisen. It is only in such moments, perhaps, that drawing has the capacity to go beyond what could have been predicted in advance, to become truly ‘hyper’. This involves drawing performing the dual function of advancing and retreating at one and the same time. Hyperdrawing requires an attempt to create working conditions that are receptive (temporally and spatially open) to something unexpected or beyond the terms of what could have been predicted therein; whilst simultaneously taking a decision to actively move into this kairotic space–time in the hope of actually producing that very something. It is the kairotic event of creating an adequate form of articulation simultaneous to the experience it attempts to describe, the restless instant where naming (drawing) and the thing named (drawn) attain co-existence (in time).10 Yet, such a practice demands the presence of a critical subject attending to those evental moments when opportunity arises or is produced, ready and able to act when the time is right.11 By responding to the call of the situation at hand, the subject initiates or steers a new line of enquiry, in turn transforming that very situation (of which they are also a part). Herein, a sense of the critical potential of such a practice might be gleaned – for Hyperdrawing aspires not only towards the possibility of producing what is unknown or beyond the habitual expectations of a given frame, but also emerges as a tactical mode of productive knowledge or techné capable of negotiating the changing conditions of its own production. By way of extension, it is also capable of operating productively within

xvii

Hyperdrawing.indd 17

17/05/2012 10:45:07



The Restless Line, Drawing other lived situations that might appear contingent or unpredictable, changeable or in flux. The process of Hyperdrawing thus emerges as inseparable from the subject it enables, in turn redefining that subject, increasing what it is capable of. Here, (art) practice does not produce a subject as such, rather they occur simultaneously; it is through one that the subject is.

Endnotes 1 I would like to thank Layla Curtis, Steve Dutton and Steve Swindells, Nikolaus Gansterer, Tim Knowles, Brigid McLeer, Hester Reeve, Lee Triming and colleagues from the Nottingham Trent University research group, Still Unresolved, whose insightful conversations and the provocation provided by their work have helped shape this essay.

2 Gilles Deleuze conceptualises Michel Foucault’s ‘fold’ of thinking in ‘Foldings, or the Inside of Thought (Subjectivation)’, in Foucault, trans. S. Hand, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988. 3 This might be considered in Keats’ terms as drawing’s ‘negative capability’, its capacity for ‘being in uncertainty’. See Ducan Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, p. 1351. 4 Janet M. Atwill provides insightful analysis of techné as productive knowledge in Rhetoric Reclaimed, New York: Cornell University, 1998. 5 Detienne, Marcel and Vernant, Jean-Pierre, Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society, trans. Janet Lloyd, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 3–4. 6 Ibid., p. 4. 7 The shimmering properties of mêtis are specifically explored in Detienne and Vervant, Cunning Intelligence, pp. 18–19. 8 Atwill, Rhetoric Reclaimed, p. 94. 9 Detienne and Vernant, Cunning Intelligence, p. 223.

10 Philosopher Antonio Negri designates the term kairòs to the ‘restless’ instant of such an occurrence, where naming and the thing named attain existence (in time), stating, ‘Kairòs is the modality of time through which being opens itself, attracted by the void at the limit of time, and it thus decides to fill that void.’ See Negri, Antonio, Time for Revolution, New York and London: Continuum, 2003, p. 152. He likens the simultaneous process of naming and the emergence of the thing named to the way that the poet, ‘vacillating, fixes the verse’, p. 153. 11 For Negri, the possibility of an imminent and antagonistic form of subjectivity is arrived at through the event of creating an adequate epistemology simultaneously to the knowledge/ being it attempts to describe (through the simultaneity of naming and the thing named). An authentic form of being is only produced if the subject recognises a limit and is willing to call into existence the new being through the finding of a name that is adequate to the new being called forth.

xviii

Hyperdrawing.indd 18

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” Marsha Meskimmon

Marsha Meskimmon is Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art History and Theory at Loughborough University. Her research centres upon women’s art, feminist theory and connections between subjectivity, ethics and aesthetics. Her books include Women Making Art: History, Subjectivity, Aesthetics and most recently, Contemporary Art and the Cosmopolitan Imagination.

Like Clockwork 11:15 AM

52° 77’ 05” N 1° 20’ 46”W

In music, the metronome keeps time, the score marks it and the performance enables its elaboration. All three are framing devices for the unfolding of a musical idea and all suggest a temporal dynamic, but only the third implies that time might become an active agent of rhythmic and harmonic change, of the emergence of the musical idea, the theme, through variations unknown even to the player as the piece begins. The elaboration of the musical idea, in, of and through1 time speaks to temporal mutability and to the reversibility of temporal sequence. In this sense, elaboration is, as Elizabeth Grosz argued, ‘time’s mode of acting, . . . an elaboration that frees up, undetermines, interrupts, and deflects rather than causes.’2 As it unfolds in performance, the musical idea undetermines time, interrupts sequential logic and deflects agency – who or what performs, who or what is performed?

Keeping time Dietrich Nikolaus Winkel invented the mechanical metronome in Amsterdam in 1812. Simply, metronomes keep time; more to the point, they keep performers in time. And it is a particular kind of time in which we are ‘kept’, a time understood as uniform, measurable, unidirectional and relentless in its absolute teleology. Each beat of the metronome leads, inexorably, to the next, and as it does, the future is brought into the present by managing our expectations of its parameters. It will be 11.15 today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year . .  ad infinitum. I can draw a grid, name and number every day, even list my activities by the hour within each day’s box, and thereby make myself a time keeper. Keeping time draws our future in even-handed lots, each portion like the last, perpetual repetition taming the radical undecidability of the new that unfolds, unsettles and lets the extraordinary emerge at every turn from within the grid of the ordinary. Teleology is repetition without difference. History plays with time, drawing out difference and coincidence to make meaning. In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard adapted a Dobby (‘draw boy’) loom to create the most sophisticated mechanism then known for the control of sequence in weaving. The Jacquard loom enables a pattern to be woven thread by thread, drawn line by line, without slippage, ambiguity, undecidability. The Jacquard loom realises the image wholecloth; it is a triumph of teleological time keeping and

translation that ensures, with technological precision, that an initial textile design will not be changed through the process of its production. Whilst capable of producing extraordinarily complex and intricate designs, the Jacquard loom does not foster elaboration as we are exploring it here. Like the metronome, the operation of Jacquard technology relied upon mechanical consistency in measuring time and space to facilitate complicated creative activities, and, in addition, both machines underscored their particular conceptual structures through systems of mark-making. The metronomic marks on musical scores are thus akin to the binary-coded cards of the Jacquard – they are each the unconscious drawings of an early nineteenth-century European temporal imagination, one that eschewed contingency and difference, and was designed to keep us in time and in line.

Anon, and on, anon . . . Kerry Walton’s Textile Drawings refuse to keep time or stay in line. The drawings are, instead, elaborated through a circular (un/ en)folding, offering the emergence of the idea in and through process, in and through the fullness of time. Walton’s hand-made marks ebb and flow, loop and fold back upon themselves, like water moving gently in a pool, sound and image intricately intermingled, confounding sharp sensory divides: music|drawing|time. The marks undetermine surface and depth in their layered flow, becoming line, pattern, tactile plane and fragile space. Scanned and made

xix

Hyperdrawing.indd 19

17/05/2012 10:45:07



Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” digital, they are materially transformed by laser cutting, their detail and intricacy now subject to the vicissitudes of a drawing with heat and light that burns and cuts. The circularity of drawing in Walton’s work – from gestural marking to digital scanning to laser cutting and back again – is an unfolding, a becoming (Hyper)drawing, an elaboration of technique and technology, terms sharing their root in techné: to bring forth, create. Techné does not distinguish sharply between the hand and the machine, nor assume a hierarchy of materials, processes or procedures in creative practice. Rather, techné is open-ended, seeking to fold processes in upon themselves and to cross genres. Like drawing, techné permits the possibility of inexhaustible extension, elaboration as temporal agency, risking ephemerality, exigency and excess. Walton’s textile drawings are not designs, nor are they suitable for framing, but they are precious in their precariousness. Inviting care and attention to detail, the works hover between the here and there of past, present and future; delicate, fragile and tenuous, they are both the result of creative damage3 and easily sustain further, yet they are not products of the archive. Their mutability is, by contrast, inherent in their aleatory elaboration. Arguably, music, weaving and moving water become, in Walton’s works, emergent forms of fluid drawing, connected by the delicate intricacy of their elaboration over time. But in exploring the interconnections between gender, time and drawing, that very configuration provides a profound critical challenge. Fluidity and intricacy, alongside mutability, fragility, delicacy and excess, are terms commonly associated with the feminine4 and with women’s art practice. It would be easy to work within the simplistic

binary logic that has led to such an over­ determined language of the feminine and even to take as read that ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are essential categories, capable of being defined and described, measured and marked. In such a model, Walton’s textile works are easily categorised as ‘feminine drawing’, but surrendering too swiftly to the accepted and assumed parameters of gendered description offers very little to critical thought around time, sexual difference and their elaboration in/as drawing. I would prefer, instead, to take a step in a rather different direction, acknowledging the contingency and creative ambiguity of all three critical terms – gender, time and drawing – as they meet variously within contemporary practice. My ruminations, as drawn here, do not attempt to answer the question ‘What is (gendered) drawing?’ but to suggest some compelling instances in which sexual difference is articulated in, of and through time and drawing. The instances are not simply the same, nor do they provide an immutable configuration or expression of an essential identity or element. They offer, instead, a momentary place, a pause for thought, a time and space through which difference is drawn. The parlay being advanced here, therefore, is not about the acceptance and reversal of the terms of binary thinking (e.g. not to define a form of women’s time5 or feminine drawing and then say they ought to be privileged over masculine norms), but of allowing the open-ended processes of elaboration to work otherwise, against the grain of dualist logic. Elaboration lets us relinquish the economy of the same that makes us teleological time keepers; elaboration, thought through drawing, loses track of time, unlaces binary stalemates and suggests contingent forms

for the articulation of sexual difference. Or so I would suggest. Walton’s work lets us think more about this contingency, demonstrating drawing’s ability to provide an unusually subtle instrument by which to move beyond the presumed femininity of delicate textiles or of repetitive curved-form gestural markmaking. In that moving beyond, we lose track of forms of temporal and sequential control that refuse to acknowledge embodiment or the multi-sensory dimension of time, and in that, the very premise of the articulation of sexual difference. That is, expanding the notion of the musical score as a drawing, rather than a metronomic sign system, enables the temporal play of a musical performance to emerge within its repetition, and through that, for difference to be materialised. Elaboration of the musical idea, understood in this way, does not so much replace the metronome, as supplement it, using its structure to maintain the momentum of agency, but departing from its teleological disposition. Likewise, when weaving becomes drawing (becomes weaving . . .) without the rigidity of the borders that keep us in line then drawing and textiles elaborate mutual circular systems of interchange. In their emergent reversibility is the potential to unfold binary logic, and therein their exceptional elaboration of gender|time|drawing.

The Clock Paradox 11:15 AM 11:10 AM

52° 55’ 0” N 0° 10’ 0” W 52° 77’ 05” N 1° 20’ 46” W

Until 1880, it was possible to be a single degree to the west or east of a clock striking the quarter hour and find yourself ahead

xx

Hyperdrawing.indd 20

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” of time, or with some time to go. In 1880, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was adopted throughout Britain – to manage train timetables – and, in 1884, at the International Meridian Conference, the GMT designation was accepted elsewhere. Time keeping in train stations, factories, schools and town centres was greatly improved by the introduction of a spatial coordinate through the mechanism of the GMT, yet the position of the sun in space, even on the Greenwich meridian, is not precise; calculated space cannot completely constrain the contingency of time and the intersection of space with time is always potentially ambiguous, if often dynamic and productive.

For the time be(com)ing . . . Time changes with space and space forms the locus of memory. However, while a memory can be kept in the attic, or lost in the archive, remembering always animates the present in its elaboration of the past. The present, the ‘here and now’, is the spatio-temporal frame through which we remember, through which we invoke and embellish the ‘there and then’ of the past. The temporal dimension of remembering is, thus, always already spatial, but not necessarily measured or calculable. There is a creative mode of elaboration that operates in remembering; we draw our memories in the process of remembering, thus enabling each remembrance to both repeat and differ – paradoxically, to become new. In addition, remembering interpellates the embodied subject in space and through time, remembering is a multi-sensorial phenomenon. But if the agency of time is critical to remembering through the body, this is not to say that time is corporeal. Rather, following Grosz:

This is what time is if it is anything at all: not simply mechanical repetition, the causal ripple of objects on others, but the indeterminate, the unfolding, and the continual eruption of the new.6

This is the time of becoming, or, remaining with Grosz for a bit longer, this is: . . . time as an open-ended and fundamentally active force – a materializing, if not material – force, whose movements and operations have an inherent element of surprise, unpredictability or newness.7

Time is place in elaboration; drawing might expand its thinking. Permit me a conceit to elaborate my thoughts and a rhetorical device to unfold my memory: This is what drawing is if it is anything at all: not simply mechanical repetition . . . [but] an open-ended and . . . materializing, if not material . . . force, whose movements and operations have an inherent element of surprise, unpredictability or newness.

If we elaborate drawing as a materialising force, rather than a material, have we moved from the noun to the verb (at last)?

Making time In 2006, Catherine Bertola made time drawing in a derelict Georgian farmhouse in one of Lincolnshire’s marsh villages. The farm in Bicker was laden with dust, the accumulated residue of time in and of space. Bertola’s dust drawing, After the fact, is elaborate: produced from basic elements, made more developed or different, transformed. The thick dust here becomes a patterned floor covering, rendered decorative through ‘elaboration’, understood in yet another sense as attention to detail

and intricacy of placement, surface and texture. The drawing is neither a picture of the space, nor an image on it; rather, After the fact discovers a rhetorical mnemonic in, of and through the site, by drawing (in) time with found materials. In the inscription and transformation of the dust surfaces, drawing materialises the phenomenon of remembering – through the body and in place. After the fact elaborates emplacement, making time, making subjects, making memory meaningful. Drawing with dust might be understood as an elaboration of the notion of housework – a form of housekeeping that mimics the means of household maintenance but does not yield its ends. This house does not remain clean, nor does it defy the entropic action of time; rather, the layers of dust that sediment its passage are disturbed, elaborated, by an activity that refuses tidy teleology in favour of the exquisite pleasures of excess. The monotony of recurrent cleaning is here refashioned as a creative unfolding, a becoming-difference through repetition – the repetition of the drawing process and of the pattern that emerges in its wake. The endless futility of maintenance that Martin Heidegger associated with a feminine mode of dwelling (one that he sharply contrasted with masculine dwelling, defined as (nation-)building activity),8 is here countered by a woman: making time, drawing in the dust, marking time, drawing us into the dust, elaborating time’s openness to the ever-new in the ever-same. And more. After the fact has an extraordinary quality of present-ness in its elaborate and intricate stillness; literally, it seems to make time stand still. The overwhelming force of the found material – so much dust, so much time – draws us into the past, into the fact of the passage of time,

xxi

Hyperdrawing.indd 21

17/05/2012 10:45:07



Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” the ‘after’ to which the title refers.Yet the work’s complex transformation of the blunt material trace of the past in and through drawing as an active, materialising force, is a sharp movement toward the experiential present and the indefinable future, the after. Even a photograph of the piece makes me want to hold my breath so as not to disturb the attenuated surface of the carefully drawn dust. I would suggest that in this quality Bertola’s work brings spectators to their senses, to the absolute of the here and now of kinaesthetic engagement. The elaboration of the past through a process of painstaking attention to detail enables us to engage imaginatively with the work (indeed, the labour) of remembering itself, where fragmentary elements of time and space are frequently charged with more significance than the whole. These fragments become charged through repetitive acts of dwelling with and drawing forth memory from the dust, through acts analogous to homemaking, but without its deadening monotony. This is remembering as feminised labour, generating mnemonic rituals, rhetorical devices and allegories, and these each have specific implications with regard to the interplay between gender, time and drawing that unsettle conventions and offer the potential to articulate difference as an emergent force.

Only time will tell Traditionally, the keepers of domestic spaces and local/familial memory are women. Significantly, many of the activities associated with maintaining domestic order are replicated in the mnemonic rituals that women perform – organising smallscale, relatively low-value objects (such as photographs and ornaments) into managed archives and displays. There is a perennial

need to ‘clean’ (add to or take from) and reorganise these domestic collections and that activity or its outcomes are commonly the site of familial remembering – ‘look at this picture of your cousin I found this morning while I was dusting.’ A woman artist displaces and arranges the dust of a derelict farmhouse. Time stays long enough for anyone who will use it. On a more conceptual level, the primary spatial mnemonic device mobilised in classical rhetoric is also centred on domestic space; your memory is trained by imagining the rooms of your house and their contents. In more advanced stages, the ‘contents’ can consist of anything from images to stories, ideas, formulae, etc., but they are ‘managed’ through the mnemonic of the imagined movement through domestic space. When memory fails, it is thought to be a failure of domestic order – ‘I can’t find it through all this dust.’ A woman artist draws forth, in dust, the decorative floor pattern that it had obscured. There is no time like the present. Bernice Rose suggested that allegory is a palimpsest.9 Remembering through drawn elaboration might thus be seen as an allegory, an erasure and overlay, a multilayered grapheme hovering between writing and drawing, text and image, as it performs the past in the present, materially. The locus of memory in the making, an allegory of the ordinary through which we find ourselves in the midst of the extraordinary, After the fact opens the indeterminate facets of time’s unfolding through drawing.Very few viewers of Bertola’s work could have any personal memories linking them to the piece, yet the dust drawing is, arguably, evocative. Evocative, then, of what? Of the making of

time in, of and through drawing, an allegory of drawing that is embodied and open to difference, a feminine dwelling alive with the creative potential of the new. A woman draws a shadow in dust. Déjà vu.

Time Difference 11:15 PM 5:15 PM

01° 22’ 0” N 103° 47’ 60” E 53° 57’ 30” N 1° 04’ 49” W

Awakened by a thunderstorm, thousands of miles from home, you check the clock to see where you are – seeking time to locate space. But the question ‘Where am I?’ is not resolved easily when time and space are distorted by jet-lag, unsettled sleep and tempestuous weather conditions. The where and the when of the subject answers only to the powerful physical experience of the thunder and lightning as they link the heavens with the earth in their extraordinary elaboration of anticipation, hesitation and unfolding desire. I don’t know whether to wind a watch or howl at the moon. The phenomenon of lightning draws space and time in multiple sensory modes; the phenomenology of lightning draws across space and time, elaborating multiple sensory modes. Lightning is the visual mark of an electrical energy surge in the ether, whilst thunder is its sonic elaboration. Thunder and lightning are, in fact, produced simultaneously, in/of shared time. We experience them, though, as two entities, as matter and manner through time; their manifestation unlaces space from time such that we see the ephemeral drawing first and then await, with bated breath, its culmination in a sonic crash or

xxii

Hyperdrawing.indd 22

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” rolling boom. The first mark is inevitably followed by the second because they are of one element, elaborated in two modes as two entities – thunder and lightning are allotropic analogues. Aware of the allotropic properties of carbon and its common manifestation as graphite, Emma McNally’s C10 (2009) and F4 (2008) bear repetitive marks and signs, but these do not accumulate to provide a single system of meaning. Instead, repetition unfolds difference; McNally’s surfaces become an allotrope of the sign. There is a parallel drawn in her work between material and the manner of its emergence, between the sooty carbon graphite as a substance on the surface and the complexity of mark-making and folding that moves the inscribed paper toward a signification it never reaches. McNally’s works perform signification in multiple modes, calling to us, compelling us to look, listen, perhaps touch – they interpellate us as subjects emerging in the elaboration of meaning in and through time. Singapore calling . . . is anyone there? Yes, and without a sound card. A parlay is a play for time. The interval between lightning and thunder is delicious in its anticipatory promise, its inevitable culmination as yet out of reach, but longed for. And this longing is not located within the celestial phenomenon, but within us; in our own bodies we find a temporal threshold, a corporeal interval through which we await the transformation of energy from light to sound. As the perceptual instrument that enables this transformation to be elaborated, we become part of its elaboration. We are participants, we are performed. In the interval between the ethereal light(ning) drawing and its sonic

hyperbole, we are made aware of ourselves with/in time, as temporal as well as embodied and situated subjects. This is not a linear mode of time keeping, but an instance of an interstitial time, a segue connecting past, present and future without predetermining their order.

In between time Described variously as fields, charts and soundings, McNally’s drawings resist simplistic classification and operate between conventional systems and modes in their visual qualities. A complicated geography of graphite marks on paper, they suggest contour maps, star charts, musical scores and mechanical diagrams of various sorts, but they do not resolve as any or all of these in particular. Rather, McNally’s drawings are contingent constellations of dots and lines, foldings and signs that converge and cluster but refuse to delineate boundaries or give directions. They instead remind us of drawing’s exceptional ability to materialise thresholds between disciplinary fields or conceptual territories while engaging with many modes of making at once. Poised pivotally between systems of signification, the works are both and neither writing and drawing, they extend the interstitial dynamics of their material and manner in and through an interval; they elaborate drawing’s threshold state in and through time . . . they elaborate the ‘hyper’ of drawing. Arguably, the temporal sequence of (Hyper)drawing is thus not linear, but coeval; the old and new, playing together, invite us into those precarious, tenuous, threshold states materialised by ‘drawing’ as it goes beyond its own conventions. This is to propose that ‘hyper’ does not

so much define drawing typologies (and I am not interested in attempting to answer the question ‘What is Hyperdrawing?’) as to suggest (evasively) that qualities that are beyond their traditional limits in terms of exaggeration, extension and excess may open a space for an encounter with the emergence of the new and the materialisation of difference. Here the ‘hyper’ of drawing elaborates contingency and occupies an undecidable, but not inarticulate, space–time of/on the interval. In the charged moment of the interval, we have the potential to encounter the operation of différance as deferral, as a process rather than the sharp definition of an object. As a process of articulation in and through différance, I am suggesting that Hyperdrawing offers the potential to unravel the polarities that conventionally mark sexual difference and materialise an intertwining at the interstices of masculine/ feminine that can be generative and replete with meaning, rather than troubled by lack. The interval opened in and through gender|time|drawing elaborates emergent affinities and generates the new. The notion of the ‘new’ that concerns me in this proposition is neither one contained by modernist claims for originality, nor by the linear progression of time where, second by second, minute by minute, the anticipated future predictably comes into presence. It is the notion of the new as the potential for infinite extension, the endless (re)configuration of images, objects, subjects and ideas that might enable the elaboration of difference in and through repetition, that offers feminist thinking the possibility of recognising and articulating female subjectivity without assimilating it and making it palatable to a masculine norm.

xxiii

Hyperdrawing.indd 23

17/05/2012 10:45:07



Elaborate Marks: Gender°|Time’|Drawing” If we had world enough and time . . . McNally’s drawings imply the potential for infinite extension in their materials and their elaboration. For instance, their scale can vary dramatically: C10 is barely a square metre, F4 is more than three metres square. This is important to their interpretation, since it undetermines conceptually their physical parameters, their boundaries. In addition, they can be encountered hung on walls, placed on tables or left on the floor; this multiplies the possibilities through which we understand the works as meaningful objects – drawings, charts/maps, diagrams. They are (potentially) infinite mark-making systems that, simultaneously, confound systematic thinking; they are the world as the map of the world. Time is but the shadow of the world upon the background of eternity. Shadows, like early analogue photography, cannot but bear the impact of the indexical trace. Shadows are cast by something tangible, they bear witness to our connections with other images, other objects and, by extension, other subjects in the world. Shadows speak of the intersubjective elements of identity, the corporeal generosity that underlies the acquisition of subjecthood. This is a logic that defies masculine-normative notions of creativity as autogenesis and conventionally defined masculine identity. However, while we might

argue that there is never ‘something from nothing’, it is possible to conceive that the future can emerge from the material residue of the past, articulated in the ‘hyper’ surplus and supplement of elaboration. Drawing|writing the shadow of the world upon eternity, we witness and desire others in the fullness of their difference; we perform ourselves with others anon, and on, anon. Drawing intricate messages in pencil on paper that borrow from common modes of mark-making whilst introducing subtle shifts in their form is performative, in the strong sense, in the very sense that has been used most critically to rework presumed gender categories.10 Drawing’s performativity is a becoming that radically destabilises fixed notions of identity and meaning and makes us, as participants, reiterate and re-perform ourselves as we encounter and engage it. McNally’s works bring forth that which they draw; they instantiate the (hyper)interval between modes of drawing|writing, thinking|knowing. As they turn and change direction, leaving erratics strewn across their surfaces, they defy the easy logic of fixed signification as surely as sexual difference inevitably slips the net of identity politics in its multiple and infinite elaborations. Time, gender and drawing yet again conspire to surprise. There are sheep drawing diamonds in the ether, beyond the reach of gravity. Draw me, I will run after you.

Endnotes 1 The tripartite, ‘in, of and through’ is a gesture to: de Zegher, Catherine (ed.), Inside the Visible: An Elliptical Traverse Through the 20th Century, in, of and from the Feminine, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. 2 Grosz, Elizabeth, ‘Thinking the New: Of Futures Yet Unthought’, in E. Grosz (ed.), Becomings: Explorations in Time, Memory and Futures, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999, pp. 15–28. 3 Kerry Walton herself cites Sian Bowen from Cutting Edge: Laser and Textiles, conference, Loughborough University, November 2009, on creative damage. 4 In this text, the feminine is a structural position, neither interchangeable with ‘femininity’ nor automatically associated with women. 5 The use of the phrase ‘women’s time’ is a nod to Julia Kristeva’s famous essay of the same title, but does not specifically follow its line. 6 Grosz: ‘Thinking the New’, p. 28. 7 Ibid., p. 4. 8 Young, Iris Marion, ‘House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme’, in Constance L. Mui and Julien S. Murphy (eds), Gender Struggles: Practical Approaches to Contemporary Feminism, Lanham, MD, Boulder, CO, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pp. 314–46. 9 Rose, Bernice, Allegories of Modernism: Contemporary Drawing, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1992. 10 See Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London and New York: Routledge, 1990, as the best-known instance of this.

xxiv

Hyperdrawing.indd 24

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Acts of Hubris Siún Hanrahan

Siún Hanrahan is Head of Research and Postgraduate Development at the National College of Art and Design, Dublin. Publications include contributions in Thinking Through Art and Leonardo, and presentations at the World Congress of Philosophy, the Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, and the AICA Conference, Tate Modern.

Prelude I Watch me closely. I take a stone from the right pocket of my greatcoat, suck it, stop sucking it, put it in the left pocket of my greatcoat, the one empty (of stones).1 Molloy has 16 sucking-stones, 4 pockets and a consuming desire for order, simplicity and certainty (the epitome of reason and truth). Wishing to suck each stone equally, all possible eventualities are anticipated, possible configurations are exhaustively explored and a slightly inelegant but entirely effective solution is found. The seriousness and rigour of his meaning-making endeavour is exemplary, the arbitrariness of ‘premise’ is dramatic.

II ‘Hyperdrawing’, as a curatorial gesture, challenges assumptions about what is proper to drawing in terms of purity – it refuses to assume that the conventions of other mediums have no place in drawing. ‘Hyperdrawing’ and the practices it

assembles, as a spur to discourse, might thus prompt reflection upon what makes an event or object a drawing. That is, ‘Hyperdrawing’ suggests a discourse that seeks to extend the conventions considered to be generated by ‘drawing as a medium’ so as to establish the practices and outcomes of hyperdrawing as proper to drawing. This is not an essay about drawing, about what is proper to drawing. Nonetheless, structures associated with and productive of drawing as a medium are harnessed, without thereby being assumed as necessary or essential. For the purposes of this essay, it is not the medium that matters, although the medium does matter. What matters is what drawing does, the way of being in the world it suggests, the invitation to think that it issues. What this essay proposes is that assumptions and strategies traditionally associated with drawing offer a productive lens through which to frame a pro-ject that wonders about the nature of meaning. Is this an act of hubris? Why should those in search of Hyperdrawing or those assembled as practitioners of Hyperdrawing be interested in this essay, this attempt to think about the making of meaning? In answer to the reader: thinking about drawing in relation to meaning making and the nature of the meanings made may be fruitful. Conventions associated with drawing as a medium conjure a utopian frame for the enactment of meaning, for re-figuring of the Sisyphean as promise. In answer to the artists: for those who draw, the hope is that engaging drawing as

a conceptual strategy that embraces and unfolds the inexhaustibility of meaning has something to offer their deployment of drawing as a medium; for those who do not ‘draw’ and yet are encountered in this essay under the auspices of drawing, the hope is that aspects of the work lifted into attention through this framing are of value.

Preliminary Sketches I  Thoughts on the nature of meaning (from Guessing, 2001)2 There is no absolute foundation for meaning: ‘The world as it is in itself’ is something we cannot see. Its shape is traced through the veil of the kinds of questions we ask, the kinds of things we do to obtain and test our answers, and the kinds of concepts we have evolved to collate the ‘evidence’. We see effects and we formulate hypotheses to account for what lies behind those effects. We suppose that there must be constants that link cause and effect, that found and guarantee our meanings. We suppose that our meanings reveal the world as it is in itself or at least progressively approximate the world as it is in itself. We have sought a bedrock outside of ourselves, in the world – de dicto – and we have sought it within ourselves as transcendental subjects, in the forms of reason – de re. Both have crumbled. Our knowledge of the world is unfounded. Yet, to be without foundation is not to be without purpose.

xxv

Hyperdrawing.indd 25

17/05/2012 10:45:07



Acts of Hubris The meanings we make (even the objective ones) are always situated, always embody a perspective and a set of interests: we make the objects of our meanings. What is to be understood, the object, is constituted in an interplay between subject and object. The subject is inscribed in knowledge of the object but is frequently erased in our objective accounts of such knowledge. Can we not give up the evasive view from nowhere and return the subject to her place within the picture: a place in the thick of the action, forming and transforming knowledge with other subjects. The actual is always fragile and always open to being remade: the not yet seen draws us toward the open horizon of possibility, a site that enables what is to be resisted and transformed. Quickened, our imagination plays in the light of the here and now and the delight of what might be. Imagining the possible remakes the actual. What will be will have been imagined. So, what will we imagine into being? Without appeal to ultimate grounds – an absolute origin or an ultimate end – how will we adjudicate between possibilities? It is we who imagine the possibilities and it is we who must choose between them. There is no foundation beyond our choice, and that choice is enacted from moment to moment. To realise our responsibility for meaning is to hold open the horizon of possibility. We might at any moment choose differently in the light of another’s experience. The endlessness of weaving and unweaving meaning is a promise rather than a curse: the world is unconsumed in our acts of imagining it. The meanings we discern give rise to new perceptions and the actions they entail. The world is transformed and new possibilities emerge. These new meanings give rise to new perceptions

and the actions they entail. The world is transformed and new possibilities emerge . . . To settle on a final meaning excludes and silences the countless stories not yet told. To settle on a final meaning is to retire from meaning altogether, ushering in the meaninglessness of nothing to think about. Is this possible? Nothing to think about, think of it . . . and once again we make meaning.

II  Drawing as conceptual strategy What drawing is understood to be, and what it is understood to be for, vary. Nonetheless, across its diversity of purposes, three aspects of drawing as a form of meaning making suggest its value as a conceptual strategy for exploring the nature of meaning: drawing as a form of reverie, as a preparatory medium, and as a model of presence to something. This tripartite shaping of a discourse on drawing emerges from engaging drawing as a lens through which to explore questions of meaning and, as such, does not lay claim to encapsulating the complexity of drawing as a medium. It is simply that, for me, the promise of drawing lies in the approach to meaning making that it enacts, one that is suggestive of challenges within what it is to make meaning and of how those challenges might be productively engaged. Let us start with ‘reverie’, from idle doodling to purposive imagining. Thinking of different scenarios – drawing abstract shapes while not fully absorbed in a situation; drawing figures of whatever kind that mirror some aspect of the situation but are not purposefully of the situation, absorbing an excess of attention within the situation; and imagining worlds into being, a purposeful figuring of the (im)possible – what drawing as reverie enacts and dramatises is our utter

responsibility for the meanings we make. Not that the meanings we might make are without bounds (an absolute relativism), and not that our particular version will prevail but that we are each implicated in the meanings that are made and become persuasive. There is no place from which meaning can be made or surveyed beyond our purposes, and our purposes are entangled in that which is made. Sartre’s Nausea comes to mind, in the impossible excess of the world tumbling into awareness. That root, with its colour, its shape, its frozen movement, was . . . beneath all explanation. Each of its qualities escaped from it a little, flowed out of it, half-solidified, almost became a thing; each one was superfluous in the root, and the whole stump gave the impression of rolling a little outside itself, denying itself, losing itself in strange excess.3

Drawing as reverie figures a response to the surplus of meaning in the world, as both a recognition thereof and a gesture toward the containment of the world and the self that spill over. Next, drawing is widely understood and used as a preparatory medium, a means of thinking through a range of possibilities and figuring out the details of how something might work or be composed before deciding on a particular version. As such it embodies the moment before commitment. At the same time, many artists resist this understanding and commit to drawing as a medium. Combining these two perspectives proposes the possibility of commitment to the moment before commitment. Not as a reluctance or refusal to put the best possible shape on an idea and take full responsibility for that shape but, having precisely forged the best possible version

xxvi

Hyperdrawing.indd 26

17/05/2012 10:45:07

Acts of Hubris of an idea, adopting a stance that is actively open to hearing otherwise, to being troubled by alternatives. An idea animating this sense of the possibilities inherent in drawing as a purposeful provisional gesture comes from Karl Popper’s reflections upon scientific method, and the stance required to practise science. To paraphrase Popper’s text as it resonates for me,4 every attempt to make sense, every formulation of meaning, must stop at some articulation or other that we decide to accept. Considered from a logical point of view, the situation is never such that it compels us to stop at this particular articulation rather than that, or else give up the attempt altogether. And so nothing remains but to stop at some point or other and say that we are satisfied for the time being. Importantly, at the best possible articulation that we can formulate at that moment. But we must return to the fray and subject that best possible formulation to examination; meaning is never simply achieved and is always subject to contest. The challenge is to embrace this, to cultivate the possibility of discovering that which undoes our best hypothesis and begin again. Thirdly, there is that which unfolds from the moment of drawing itself, from the presence within that moment of s/ he who draws to that which is the object of attention. The moment of drawing, as an act of relating, is one of sustained engagement, of unwavering attention. The sustained ‘presence to’ of (observational) drawing models the response demanded in the moment of encounter with that which is other, be that the world as it is in itself or other persons. It is an enactment of seeing and understanding that goes beyond a survey and hasty return to one’s own pro-jects in putting a shape on that

surveyed, and endeavours instead to remain within the moment, in the company of that which is other. The sustained ‘presence to’ of drawing thus holds the possibility of hearing back, not as a promise of immediacy, but as the possibility of such commitment revealing the object of attention as it is in itself. The possibility of hearing back is a promise given rather than a promise received: a promise to remain attentive to failures of recognition, staying with the possibility of seeing anew in full cognisance of the inadequacy of one’s renderings. For those of us who have not mastered the art of drawing, perhaps even for those who have, the difficulty of accessing the state of ‘presence to’ is considerable. Indeed, the extent of the difficulty of staying within the act of relating, of resisting stasis – that stasis of having seen/heard, of having spoken, of meaning having been achieved – is echoed in the observations of physicist David Bohm in relation to powerful tendencies within our languages. Bohm observed that language tends to deceive us about the nature of reality, imposing a strong if subtle pressure to divide our experiences into fundamentally discrete entities and events. Bohm argues that the subject–verb–object structure of sentences is at the root of this tendency as it ‘implies that all action arises in a separate entity, the subject, and that in the cases described by a tentative verb, this action crosses over the space between them to another separate entity, the object.’5 This mode of thinking tends to reify and emphasise the subject and object, and suppress their imbrication, the one with the other. The moment of drawing models a resistance of our habits of thinking that suggest discrete elements and moments within an interaction and enacts an emergent process that both figures and is figured by its moments.

III  Hyperdrawing: an expanded set of practices ‘Hyperdrawing’ invites selection of and reflection upon examples of drawings and drawing practices that challenge the conventions and exceed predictable expectations of what drawing might be. Figuring ‘hyper’ in terms of excess, the range of works and practices that came to mind fell, loosely, into three categories: self-identified as drawing, inter-media specifying drawing and self-differentiated as drawing. The practices and works grouped under the first of these categories, selfidentified as drawing, are constituted in terms of that which is proper to drawing but exaggeratedly so. The second category, inter-media specifying drawing, is constituted as including multi-media works that include drawing (as traditionally understood) as well as works in mediums not usually associated with drawing that were identified by the artist as drawing. The final category, self-differentiated as drawing, is itself excessive, as it is constituted of works that were not intended as drawings but may prove interesting in this context. Having thus established a framework for identifying Hyperdrawings, there are a number of issues to be broached. The first concerns the artists and works included in this book and the fact that, despite all falling within either the first or second category listed above, only a small selection will be engaged with in this text. The basis for my choice was how the work fits with what interests me about drawing as a conceptual strategy. The second is that as my interpretation of Hyperdrawing is itself excessive, encompassing as it does works not intended as drawings, and not all of the works that will be reflected upon

xxvii

Hyperdrawing.indd 27

17/05/2012 10:45:08



Acts of Hubris within this text are represented within the book. Finally, as drawing is here engaged as a lens through which to explore questions of meaning, it is this rather than the progression of practices (from that which is proper to drawing toward that which is other than drawing) that underpins the architecture of the essay. The progression of practices will, instead, be reflected within each of the sections to come.

Drawings I Reverie Imagining worlds into being, a purposeful figuring of the im/possible. In suggesting the possibilities of reverie there are three works that I would like to put into play: Lines & Sections; Line I, 2005, a drawing by Kate Atkin; Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands, 2004, an installation by Layla Curtis; and Sound Re:Sound, 2010, a sound sculpture by Sarah Dunne.6 The ambiguous ‘section’ of Lines & Sections; Line I is a vertical cut – a carved stone kerb atop organic matter that is not quite as expected, amorphously suggestive of both turf and a Leylandii hedge. It is as if that which was fleetingly glimpsed at the edge of vision was brought into focus, at once both as and other than one expects: provoking anxiety if conceived as the world overflowing our purposes and meanings once a close attention is allowed to meander; provoking wonder if taken as the reign of imagination wherein a small aperture or detail might unfold unto another world. In May 2004 fifty bottles containing messages from local people were released into the sea near Ramsgate Maritime Museum

in the UK, their intended destination being the Chatham Islands, on the opposite side of the world, in the South Pacific Ocean. A number of the bottles were tracked using GPS technology, and generated a real-time drawing of their progress, the others took their chances of being found, reported and returned to the sea to resume their journey. The arbitrary purposefulness and utter contingency of Message in a Bottle is a poignant figure not only of our gestures toward meaning but also of the possibility of hearing back, of forging dialogue. SOUND RE:SOUND takes as its point of departure a digital sound file of what is now considered to be the oldest sound recording, a twenty-second version of ‘Au Clair de la Lune’ made in 1860 on smoked paper. The 2007 reverse engineering that made the original sound visualisation audible, is mirrored and extended through further processes of reverse engineering of sound and object files, and a quartet composition for a site-specific performance in order to explore sound as a vehicle for articulating and generating space. Understood as drawing, the mediations and remediations of Dunne’s sound sculpture are quickened: as an enactment of the sensitivity, complexity and rigour of the best of our meaning-making endeavours, in defiance of contingencies without denial of contingency.

II  Preparatory (as commitment) A commitment to the moment before commitment, to weaving and unweaving the meanings we make. Once again, there are three works that I would like to invoke to convey something of what this stance entails: After the fact, 2006, a drawing by Catherine Bertola; Kronleuchter Dia, 2006, a drawing sculpture

by Ulrich Vogl; and A Large Complex, 2008, an assemblage/sculpture by Brendan Earley.7 In After the fact the dust of an apparently long-abandoned room has been firmly and meticulously coaxed into a precise floral pattern, reminiscent of old wallpaper or carpet. The drawing in dust is specific to the place and its history, evokes corporeal anxieties around presence and absence, order and entropy, and is resolutely beautiful: a painstaking and intricate delineation that will be gone in an instant through a gust of wind, a careless footstep, the sweep of a brush. Utter commitment and utterly provisional, unfolding a specific story without refusing other stories that might also be enfolded in the place and its detritus. The golden chandelier of Kronleuchter Dia is traced in light at the base of a wall hovering a few inches above the floor. The projector sits on a box on the floor. The work is exquisitely present but resolutely ephemeral; the image of the lit chandelier is delicate and captivating, while the informal presence of the projector insists on its transience. It is not simply that the drawing can disappear with the flick of a switch – it can reappear as easily or be reinstalled at another location – it is that the drawing is always a negotiation with the specificities of a given moment. That meaning is unstable and endlessly ‘up for grabs’ is explicitly proposed by A Large Complex. The component parts of three IKEA kitchens and half a sitting room were mixed together and used to build an installation. In assembling the work in its first exhibition venue, the impulse in the construction was to fill the space. The work was then disassembled and rebuilt in a second exhibition venue, yielding a more self-contained form. Finally, the disassembled flat packs were given away through a

xxviii

Hyperdrawing.indd 28

17/05/2012 10:45:08

Acts of Hubris recycling website and were most likely reassembled, in the absence of instructions, more or less as originally intended in people’s homes. Considering the whole as drawing accentuates its moments of forging and re-forging of meaning, and to a refusal of absolute and unyielding validity for one moment in that process above all others.

III  ‘Presence to’ To remain within the moment, in the company of that which is other; a promise given rather received. A constellation of works that conveys something of the promise of ‘presence to’ includes: The Bench, 2008, a performance drawing by Gosia Wlodarczak; Scots Pine on Easel #1, 2006, a treedrawing by Tim Knowles; and Echo Valley, 2008, a multiscreen video installation by Dan Shipsides.8 Sitting in conversation with another, Wlodarczak draws her environment as she sees it, in real time so that around and between the artist and her interlocutor, a record of continuous time unfolds. The Bench is a remnant of a sustained presence to a particular moment: a close attention to another person as s/he speaks and listens, and to incidentals that encroach upon that engagement (the place, other people, other things). Thus, what is rendered is not only the object of attention but the very unfolding of attention as it slips and slides, fleetingly grasping what is before it. The drawings of Knowles emerge from an intense form of presence to an object or event, not through the eye and hand of the artist but through the engineering of a situation whereby the object or event can manifest its presence, forge its particular signature at a specific moment. In Scots Pine on Easel, what is rendered is something of

the morphology of Scots pine as a species, the form and structure of its branches and the rigidity/fluidity of their movement, and how this is manifest in the vagaries of a specific branch during February 2006 in response to particular weather conditions. The ‘ink on paper’ suggests stiff branches and a fairly still day, the photograph attests to the tree drawing but reveals little else. Echo Valley is part of an exploratory art project based around the artist rock climbing with a blind man named John. This particular work presents John climbing an S/4-graded rock face. In his own climbing activity, Shipsides enacts a presence to a given space (gallery or landscape) that seeks to realise it differently, not only in the line traced but in how the space is experienced (in the climbing) and imagined (in the viewing) as the piece unfolds. In sharing a climb with a blind person, a whole other aspect of how space might be experienced is conjured and I am confronted with the realisation that how the space is, what it can mean, is an irreducible palimpsest; as Dan and John redraw the space, their drawings are somehow utterly different. As a drawing, the work insists on the inadequacy of a single telling to the intricacy of what there is to tell.

Finale Clearly, neither a discussion of what might constitute Hyperdrawing, nor a close reading of particular instances, have been traced through this essay. A first act of hubris! Instead, its reflections on drawing and constellating of drawings endeavour to anchor an understanding of what it is to make meaning, to propose a relationship to meaning and meaning making that refuses nihilism and looks to meet and remain present to that

which is other. Whether this mitigates my act of hubris only you, reader, can decide. What I would like to say about drawing is simply that it issues and enacts the possibility of being open unto the world. As an act of hubris – the inevitable act of hubris that is the attempt to make meaning – it is full of promise. Hyperdrawings, in their refusal to be confined within assumptions of practice, renew that promise and invitation to think again.

Endnotes 1 Beckett, Samuel, The Beckett Trilogy, London: Macmillan, 1979, p. 67. 2 Hanrahan, Siún, Guessing, 2001, etching, 40 x 40 cm. 3 Sartre, Jean Paul., Nausea, London: Penguin, 2000, p. 186. 4 To quote Popper: ‘Every test of a theory . . . must stop at some basic statement or other which we decide to accept. If we do not come to any decision, and do not accept some basic statement or other, then the test will have led nowhere. But considered from a logical point of view, the situation is never such that it compels us to stop at this particular basic statement rather than that, or else give up the test altogether. . . . Thus if the test is to lead us anywhere, nothing remains but to stop at some point or other and say that we are satisfied for the time being.’ Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 104–5. 5 Bohm, David, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, 1980, p. 29. 6 Broadcast gallery. Online. Available http://www. broadcastgallery.ie/broadcast_past_sarahdunne. html. 7 Brendan Earley. Online. Available http:// brendanearley.com/complex.html. 8 Dan Shipsides. Online. Available http://www. danshipsides.com (8 December 2010).

xxix

Hyperdrawing.indd 29

17/05/2012 10:45:08

The Artists Kate Atkin (b. 1981) studied at Byam Shaw School of Art and the Royal College of Art. Her drawing and sculpture is held in both public and private collections, including the British Council collection. With her work she explores transformation: one scale, medium, dimension and/or meaning to another. She lives and works in London.

Susan Collis (b. 1956) lives and works in London. Her practice uses a variety of techniques and strategies to investigate issues concerning interpretation, craft, value and labour. Collis was selected as the commissioned artist for the Armory Show 2010 in New York, publishing three charity editions to benefit MOMA.

Darren Banks (b. 1978, Orset, UK) studied fine art at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1998–2002; in 2005 he also completed an MFA at the same university. Recent solo exhibitions include Soothsayers, Sierra metro Edinburgh & Prussian Projekte, Nottingham. Banks is currently represented by Workplace Gallery, Gateshead.

Diana Cooper lives and works in New York City. Cooper has exhibited extensively in the USA and abroad. She has been the recipient of many awards including a Guggenheim fellowship and the Rome Prize. She is represented by Postmasters Gallery in New York City. In 2007, Cooper had a ten-year survey of her work at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Cleveland, OH.

Catherine Bertola is an artist based in Gateshead, UK. Her practice involves creating drawings and installations in response to the history and context of particular sites. The work looks beyond the surface, to uncover forgotten and invisible histories of places and people. She has exhibited widely across the UK and Europe, and is represented by Workplace Gallery. Heiko Blankenstein lives and works in Berlin and is represented by Alexandra Saheb Gallery, Berlin. He has an MFA, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia. He has exhibited since 2005 in Berlin, London, New York, Miami, Tokyo, Basel and Denmark. He received the work grant of the Berlin senate, the governor’s award of Pennsylvania, and a Cresson scholarship; He is resident in Nairs, Switzerland.

John Court (b. 1969, Bromley, UK) moved to Finland in 1997. He lives and works in the far north, near the Arctic Circle. His work has been exhibited throughout Scandinavia and featured at several prestigious events in Europe. Ultan Coyle partly relinquishes control to nature or a generative system to become the means by which absent images are able to communicate themselves. Layla Curtis, artist, lives and works in London. She has exhibited widely, including solo exhibitions at Ormeau Baths Gallery, Belfast (2008), The New Art Gallery Walsall, Walsall (2006) and Milton Keynes Gallery, Milton Keynes (2000). Recent group exhibitions include: Living History, Tate

Modern, London, and Pattern Recognition, The City Gallery, Leicester. Abraham Ferraro is an artist, educator and sculpture technician at St Rose College in Albany, NY. Maryclare Foá investigates different methodologies by which to draw interactively with the outside environment. Open to serendipitous happenstance, she engages in conversations with place while exploring her process. While offering alternative associations to, and interpretations of place, she also examines humankind’s position in relation to place. Colin Glen studied art and art history at Goldsmiths College in London. He completed an MA in art history at Birbeck College and is currently undertaking postgraduate research into the photographic documentation of art at the University of Bristol. He has written catalogue essays for artists including Rachel Howard and Alec Finlay and articles for Art Monthly magazine. He exhibits in his home town of Stroud, also Paris, Manchester, Liverpool and London. Margarita Gluzberg (b. Moscow) has lived and worked in London since 1979. Her practice ranges from painting and drawing, usually on a gigantic scale, to performance and sound installation. Recent exhibitions include The Captive Bird Society: Dublin Edition (2009), Dublin and Phonofrapicon (2010), Milan.

xxx

Hyperdrawing.indd 30

17/05/2012 10:45:08

The Artists Richard Grayson is an artist curator and writer. Recent exhibitions include the 2010 Sydney Biennale, Richard Grayson: A Five Year Retrospective, De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill (2010) and The Golden Space City of God, Matts Gallery, London (2009). He was a curator of the 2002 Sydney Biennale (The World May Be) Fantastic, and the Hayward Touring exhibition, A Secret Service – Art Compulsion Concealment (2006). Monika Grzymala creates ‘architectural interventions’: site-specific, temporary installations. The Berlin-based artist has participated in a wide range of exhibitions, for example, The End of the Line in UK (2009), Freeing the Line at Marian Goodman Gallery, New York (2006) and LineAge at The Drawing Center, New York (2005). Karl Haendel is an artist who makes drawings, installations and billboards. He tries to make honest work about contradiction and hypocrisy. His works are in the collections of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and the Guggenheim Museum, New York. He lives in Los Angeles. Ilana Halperin (b. 1973, New York) lives and works in Glasgow. She received an MFA from the Glasgow School of Art and a BA from Brown University. She has a deep love of geology and shares her birthday with the Eldfell volcano in Iceland. Christine Hill is the proprietor of Volksboutique and a professor at the Bauhaus University. Her work examines the perception of value in our culture and inventories certain daily life phenomena.

These projects or ‘organisational ventures’ investigate forms of shopkeeping, encourage public participation and create encompassing exchange environments.Volksboutique currently operates out of a storefront in Berlin. Tim Knowles lives and works in London. His work is exhibited widely both in the UK and internationally, and recent shows include: Wanderlust, a solo exhibition curated by Paula Orrell at Plymouth Arts Centre (2009) and Unpredictable Forms of Sound and Motion, Bitforms Gallery, New York (2009). Heather Lewis is a British artist who lives and works in the USA. Her work explores the role of deskilled process in creative practice, particularly in relation to nontraditional media and expanded definitions of drawing. Ralph Macartney (b. 1979, Newtownards, N. Ireland) studied at Stroud School of Art and Swindon School of Art. Selected group exhibitions include: Darbyshire Award, Museum in the Park, Stroud (2009), 700IS Experimental Film and Video Festival, Iceland (2008), Jerwood Drawing Prize, London and tour (2006–07). His work is held in public and private collections, including the Arts Council England. Jordan MacKenzie for the past four years has been engaged with various processes of drawing that have employed different physical methods of construction, including breath, touch and sonic encounter. Spent is an ongoing series of over 200 works made by masturbating onto litmus paper. The date and time of each orgasm/drawing is recorded creating an onanistic diary of

sexual desire. As well as being corporeal and embodied, drawing for MacKenzie is a political act of queer resistance. Emma McNally studied philosophy and English literature at York University followed by an MA in political philosophy, also at York. McNally lives and works in London and concentrates almost solely on intensely wrought, highly energetic drawing (graphite on paper), from small scale up to three metres. Eamon O’Kane has exhibited widely and is the recipient of many awards and scholarships. O’Kane has had over forty solo exhibitions. His artwork is in numerous public and private collections worldwide. Eamon completed a three-month residency at Centre Culturel Irlandais in Paris in 2008. O’Kane lives and works in Odense, Denmark and Co. Donegal, Ireland and is currently Visiting Research Fellow at UWE in Bristol, UK. Garrett Phelan works and lives in Dublin, Ireland. In recent years Phelan has focused his practice around extensive explorations into the ‘formation of opinion’ and the ‘absolute present’, particularly manifested through drawing, video, photography, sculpture, web-based projects and independent FM radio transmission projects in both gallery and non-gallery spaces. Garrett Phelan is represented by Mother’s Tankstation. Kim Schoenstadt (b. Chicago, IL) lives and works in Venice, CA. Her work explores landscape and architecture through line, producing drawings upon canvas, paper, wood veneer and drywall. She has also worked with the structure of line through

xxxi

Hyperdrawing.indd 31

17/05/2012 10:45:08



The Artists video and sound. Recent projects have featured at Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven; Museum of Art, Santa Monica; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; and Prague Biennale, Prague.

and photography, engages with eccentric narratives and unconventional bodies of research, which she relies on to reveal the structures that bind power, identity, knowledge and the hallucinatory.

Simon Schubert (b. 1976, Cologne, Germany) studied at the Academy of Fine Arts, Dusseldorf, 1997–2004. He has had solo and group exhibitions in Europe, and his works are in public and private collections in Europe, the USA and Mexico.

Ulrich Vogl studied in Munich, Berlin and New York. He is based in Berlin. The expression ‘Extension of Drawing’, already the title of an exhibition and a catalogue, epitomises Vogl’s approach and can be considered the leitmotiv of his artistic practice.

Uta Siebert (b. 1973, Hamburg, Germany) studied fine art at the Academy of the Arts, Burg Giebichenstein in Halle and at the Berlin University of the Arts. Siebert lives and works in Halle (Saale), Germany. Suzanne Treister was a pioneer in the digital/new-media/web-based field from the beginning of the 1990s. Her practice, which encompasses drawing, video, installation

Kerry Walton is Programme Leader for Textiles: Innovation and Design in the School of the Arts, Loughborough University. Her work is concerned with drawing, design process and technology, referencing textile history and tradition, where the drawing elements owe much to the textiles process, but are deliberately too fragile for a functional role.

Gosia Wlodarczak (b. 1959, Poland) lives in Melbourne, Australia. She completed her MFA at Poznan Academy of Fine Arts in 1984. Selected exhibitions include I Walk the Line: New Australian Drawing, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney (2009); Shared Space, New York Kentler International Drawing Space, Brooklyn (2008); and Space Active, Perth Institute of Contemporary Art (2005). Sarah Woodfine (b. 1968) studied at the Royal Academy Schools (1991–95). Group shows include: House and Home, Harewood House; The Beguiling, Bury St Edmunds Art Gallery; Riddle Me, Danielle Arnaud Contemporary Art; Only MakeBelieve, Compton Verney; and Drawing Inspiration, Abbot Hall Gallery. Recent solo shows include: Somewhere, Ha Gamle Prestegard, Norway in 2007. In 2004 she won the Jerwood Drawing Prize.

xxxii

Hyperdrawing.indd 32

17/05/2012 10:45:08

Hyperdrawing

Hyperdrawing.indd 1

17/05/2012 10:45:08



Kate Atkin

Lines & Sections; Line I Pencil on paper 153 x 157 cm 2005

Study: Stack Pencil on paper 51 x 38 cm 2008

2

Hyperdrawing.indd 2

17/05/2012 10:45:09

Kate Atkin

Maw Pencil on paper 167.5 x 106.5 cm 2008

‘. . . a face like a French cheese, chalk and green, hollowed out and folded up like a mummy . . .’ Pencil and watercolour on paper and birch plywood 163 cm high 2009

3

Hyperdrawing.indd 3

17/05/2012 10:45:10



Kate Atkin

Leaning Structure Pencil on paper 126 x 97.5 cm 2009

4

Hyperdrawing.indd 4

17/05/2012 10:45:11

Darren Banks

Big Blob Ink on paper 130 x 110 cm 2006

Blob 10 Ink on paper 130 x 110 cm 2007

5

Hyperdrawing.indd 5

17/05/2012 10:45:13



Catherine Bertola

The property of Two Gentlemen Collected dust, glue, two chairs and brass plaques 2006

6

Hyperdrawing.indd 6

17/05/2012 10:45:14

Catherine Bertola

After the Fact Found dust 2006

7

Hyperdrawing.indd 7

17/05/2012 10:45:14



Heiko Blankenstein

Phytoparasiten Ball point and pencil on paper 150 x 211.5 cm 2008

8

Hyperdrawing.indd 8

17/05/2012 10:45:15

Heiko Blankenstein

Twelvesoundtreetable Wood, antlers, paper, wall paint, ball point 2009

9

Hyperdrawing.indd 9

17/05/2012 10:45:16



Heiko Blankenstein

Microgravity test Colour pencil, ball point, ink and acrylic on paper 2010

10

Hyperdrawing.indd 10

17/05/2012 10:45:17

Heiko Blankenstein

Pinaceatite-table Wood, enamel, acrylic, 150 x 100 x 155 cm 2009

Trophy room with island display Lightbox drawing 90 x 127 cm 2008

11

Hyperdrawing.indd 11

17/05/2012 10:45:18



Susan Collis

Stills from One day . . . Digital animation from hand-drawn cells Edition of 3 24 hours 2008–present

Ruby Biro inks and pencil on paper construction 15 x 13 x10 inches 2009

12

Hyperdrawing.indd 12

17/05/2012 10:45:19

Susan Collis

Bessie Pencil on paper construction 42 x 50 x 27 cm 2009

13

Hyperdrawing.indd 13

17/05/2012 10:45:20



Diana Cooper

All Our Wandering Wood, vinyl, pigment print, ink, acrylic, coloured pencil, ball point pen, foam rubber and felt 76.25 x 79.5 x 142.5 inches 2007

14

Hyperdrawing.indd 14

17/05/2012 10:45:21

Diana Cooper

Missed Once (Detail) Ink, acrylic, acetate, felt tip marker, photographs, pipe cleaner, felt and paper 96 x 86 x 65 inches 2000–01

15

Hyperdrawing.indd 15

17/05/2012 10:45:22



Diana Cooper

Orange Alert: USA (Detail) Acetate, acrylic, felt, neoprene, paper, foam core, corrugated plastic and map pins Room installation: 24 ft x 27 ft 10 inches x 20 ft 6 inches 2005

16

Hyperdrawing.indd 16

17/05/2012 10:45:23

Diana Cooper

Swarm Corrugated plastic, paper, ink, acrylic, felt, foam core, photos,Velcro and map pins photographs, pipe cleaner, felt and paper Room installation Dimensions at the Museum of Contemporary Art: gallery height 14 ft 6 inches, occupying two 24-ft-long walls that intersect at a corner, extending 26 ft out onto the gallery floor 2003–07

17

Hyperdrawing.indd 17

17/05/2012 10:45:23



John Court

ART TRA 8 hour performance Black marker pens 240 x 500 cm MDF 2008

18

Hyperdrawing.indd 18

17/05/2012 10:45:24

John Court Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and black marker pen 80 x 120 cm 2008

Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and black marker pen 80 x 120 cm 2008

19

Hyperdrawing.indd 19

17/05/2012 10:45:26



John Court

Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and 9B graphite pencil 80 x 120 cm 2008

20

Hyperdrawing.indd 20

17/05/2012 10:45:27

John Court

A Blank White Page Aluminium sheet, PVA glue and white epoxy paint 125 x 250 cm 2009

21

Hyperdrawing.indd 21

17/05/2012 10:45:27



Ultan Coyle v2 Apparatus Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line Location: kitchen 60 x 37 cm November 2008

v2 Detail 60 x 37 cm December 2008

22

Hyperdrawing.indd 22

17/05/2012 10:45:28

Ultan Coyle

v4 Installation Buoy, plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope Location: Dundalk Bay 2000 x 1500 cm (approx) November 2009 v4 Installation Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope Location: Dundalk Bay 60 x 37 cm November 2009

23

Hyperdrawing.indd 23

17/05/2012 10:45:29



Ultan Coyle v4 Installation Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope, tyre Location: Dundalk Bay 60 x 37 cm November 2009

v4 Retrieved Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope, tyre Location: Dundalk Bay shore December 2009

24

Hyperdrawing.indd 24

17/05/2012 10:45:30

Ultan Coyle v4 Result Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line Location: garage 60 x 37 cm December 2009

v4 Detail Paper, ink Location: garage 60 x 37 cm December 2009

25

Hyperdrawing.indd 25

17/05/2012 10:45:31



Layla Curtis

Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Digital drawing Live GPS drawing (stills) 2004

26

Hyperdrawing.indd 26

17/05/2012 10:45:31

Layla Curtis

Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Digital drawing Ramsgate’s antipodal point 2004

Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Photograph Production photograph 2004

27

Hyperdrawing.indd 27

17/05/2012 10:45:32



Abraham Ferraro Signature Piece Mixed media performance Variable size: 8 x 10 x 10 ft 2008

28

Hyperdrawing.indd 28

17/05/2012 10:45:33

Abraham Ferraro Stationary Climber Mixed media performance 15 x 12½ x 8½ ft 2006

29

Hyperdrawing.indd 29

17/05/2012 10:45:33



Maryclare Foá

Thermal images (Various) Stills from video Location: Surrey, UK 2007

30

Hyperdrawing.indd 30

17/05/2012 10:45:33

Colin Glen

The Broken Cube Pencil on paper 57 x 76 cm (unframed) 2006

The Broken Cone Pencil on paper 56 x 70 cm 2009

The Volcanic Spring Pencil on paper 30 x 40 cm 2006

31

Hyperdrawing.indd 31

17/05/2012 10:45:34



Colin Glen

In/Out Pencil on paper 36 x 43 cm 2005

32

Hyperdrawing.indd 32

17/05/2012 10:45:34

Margarita Gluzberg

From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 2 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009

From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 1 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009

33

Hyperdrawing.indd 33

17/05/2012 10:45:35

Margarita Gluzberg

Black Sea Graphite pencil on paper 56 x 77 cm 2009

From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 3 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009

34

Hyperdrawing.indd 34

17/05/2012 10:45:37

Richard Grayson

Intelligence Drawings Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Ink and watercolour on Fabriano paper 70 x 100 cm 2004 ongoing (Series II, 2008–10)

Blair (Detail)

35

Hyperdrawing.indd 35

17/05/2012 10:45:38

Richard Grayson

Intelligence Drawings Saddam Hussein Ink and watercolour on Fabriano paper 70 x 100 cm 2004 ongoing (Series II, 2008–10)

Saddam Hussein (Detail)

Saddam Hussein (Detail)

36

Hyperdrawing.indd 36

17/05/2012 10:45:39

Monika Grzymala Solex 2 ‘Ruptures’ (Detail) Adhesive tape Dimensions: variable 2009

The End of the Line (Detail) Matt black masking tape Dimensions: variable 2009

37

Hyperdrawing.indd 37

17/05/2012 10:45:40

Monika Grzymala

The End of the Line ‘Duplex’ (Detail) Lead tape and graphite Dimensions: variable 2009

38

Hyperdrawing.indd 38

17/05/2012 10:45:40

Monika Grzymala

Evolutions Adhesive tape Dimensions: variable 2008

39

Hyperdrawing.indd 39

17/05/2012 10:45:41

Karl Haendel

A Year From Now Billboard, Los Angeles 2008

40

Hyperdrawing.indd 40

17/05/2012 10:45:42

Karl Haendel Karl-O-Gram-#1 Pencil on paper 30 x 22 inches 2009

Shackelton #2 Pencil on paper 103 x 81 inches 2008

41

Hyperdrawing.indd 41

17/05/2012 10:45:42

Karl Haendel

Knight #1 Pencil on paper 103 x 79 inches 2010

Salt Box #1 Pencil on paper 47.5 x 60.25 x 26.5 inches 2009

42

Hyperdrawing.indd 42

17/05/2012 10:45:43

Karl Haendel

Omega Point #1 Pencil on paper 78 x 52 inches 2010

43

Hyperdrawing.indd 43

17/05/2012 10:45:43

Ilana Halperin Emergent Landmass I Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2006

Emergent Landmass II Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2006

44

Hyperdrawing.indd 44

17/05/2012 10:45:44

Ilana Halperin

Towards Heilprin Land (Map) Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2007

45

Hyperdrawing.indd 45

17/05/2012 10:45:45

Ilana Halperin

Physical Geology I Hard ground copperplate etchings with watercolour 43 x 33 cm 2009

46

Hyperdrawing.indd 46

17/05/2012 10:45:46

Christine Hill

The Volksboutique Armory Apothecary 2009

47

Hyperdrawing.indd 47

17/05/2012 10:45:47



Christine Hill

Mortar and Pestle from Small Apothecary Drawings 2007

48

Hyperdrawing.indd 48

17/05/2012 10:45:47

Christine Hill

Ginko Leaf from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007

Lozenges from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007

Healing Herbs from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007

49

Hyperdrawing.indd 49

17/05/2012 10:45:49



Tim Knowles

Windwalk Five walks from Charing Cross Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008

50

Hyperdrawing.indd 50

17/05/2012 10:45:49

Tim Knowles

Windwalk Five walks from Charing Cross Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008

Five walks from Charing Cross (two video stills) Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008

51

Hyperdrawing.indd 51

17/05/2012 10:45:50



Tim Knowles

Seven Walks from Seven Dials (detail) Seven video projections, mixed media object and inkjet print/wall drawing Dimensions: variable 2009

52

Hyperdrawing.indd 52

17/05/2012 10:45:51

Tim Knowles

Treedrawing Scots Pine on Easel #1 Ink on paper and C-Type print 77 x 96 cm + 77 x 57 cm 79 x 98 cm + 79 x 59 cm (diptych drawing and photograph) 2006

Treedrawing Hawthorn on Easel #1 (Detail) Ink on paper and C-Type print 77 x 60 cm + 77 x 60 cm (detail) 79 x 62 cm + 79 x 62 cm (diptych drawing and photograph) 2005

53

Hyperdrawing.indd 53

17/05/2012 10:45:52



Heather Lewis

Drawings from the street (Lamp and tree) Digital image from a DVD loop In collaboration with Amy Guggenheim 2009

Drawing (Florida hotel chair) Digital image 2008

54

Hyperdrawing.indd 54

17/05/2012 10:45:53

Ralph Macartney Bannana Still 2006

Pencil Suit Still 2006

Pencil Suit Still 2006

55

Hyperdrawing.indd 55

17/05/2012 10:45:53



Jordan MacKenzie Spent Artist’s semen, powdered graphite and cartridge paper 29.7 x 42 cm 2007

Spent (Ongoing series) Artist’s semen and universal litmus paper 2008 Spent Artist’s semen, powdered graphite and cartridge paper 29.7 x 42 cm 2007

56

Hyperdrawing.indd 56

17/05/2012 10:45:54

Emma McNally

C10 Graphite on paper 42 x 30 cm 2009

57

Hyperdrawing.indd 57

17/05/2012 10:45:55



Emma McNally

F4 Graphite on paper (detail) 220 x 150 cm 2008

58

Hyperdrawing.indd 58

17/05/2012 10:45:56

Eamon O’Kane

Plans for The Past and The Future Installation views, Plan 9, Bristol, UK 2009

59

Hyperdrawing.indd 59

17/05/2012 10:45:56



Eamon O’Kane

Plans for The Past and The Future Installation views, Plan 9, Bristol, UK 2009

60

Hyperdrawing.indd 60

17/05/2012 10:45:57

Eamon O’Kane Deadwood I Charcoal on wall Installation view 600 x 300 cm 2006

Philosophy of Furniture Mixed media installation 2007

61

Hyperdrawing.indd 61

17/05/2012 10:45:58



Garrett Phelan Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Monitor, Rome, Italy Dimensions: variable June 2009

Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Paradise Row, London, UK Dimensions: variable June 2009

62

Hyperdrawing.indd 62

17/05/2012 10:46:00

Garrett Phelan

Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Lewis Glucksman Gallery, Cork, Ireland Dimensions: variable June 2008

63

Hyperdrawing.indd 63

17/05/2012 10:46:01



Kim Schoenstadt

Closer to Nature Series (Mobile Drawing): Still Pond Ink on vinyl canvas In front of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC 126 x 272 inches 2006

Closer to Nature Series (Mobile Drawing): Falling Water Ink on vinyl canvas Top image in front of the Washington Monument, Washington, DC 126 x 272 inches 2006

64

Hyperdrawing.indd 64

17/05/2012 10:46:02

Kim Schoenstadt

Chicago Series: #10 (Previous Episodes) Marker, acrylic paint and oil stick on wall with framed photos and text (not shown) Installed at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, IL Dimensions: variable 2007

65

Hyperdrawing.indd 65

17/05/2012 10:46:03



Kim Schoenstadt Tell Me Something Good A collaboration between Rita McBride and Kim Schoenstadt Vinyl on wall Installed at Alexander and Bonin, New York Dimensions: variable 2009

Diving Board Helix Pen and paint on wall Installed at Galerie Sabina Knust, Munich, Germany 137 x 80 inches 2005/2009 installation

66

Hyperdrawing.indd 66

17/05/2012 10:46:03

Simon Schubert

Untitled (Mirrored hallways) Paper 125 x 180 cm 2010

67

Hyperdrawing.indd 67

17/05/2012 10:46:04



Simon Schubert Untitled (Mirrors and mirrors) Paper 75 x 100 cm 2010

Untitled (Stairwell) Paper 75 x 100 cm 2010

68

Hyperdrawing.indd 68

17/05/2012 10:46:05

Uta Siebert Plantagen Drawings on paper and wall, ink, spray paint, painted rubber (Caoutchouc) Artrepco Gallery, Zurich Dimensions: variable 2006

69

Hyperdrawing.indd 69

17/05/2012 10:46:06



Uta Siebert

Plantagen Drawings on paper and wall, ink, spray paint, painted rubber (Caoutchouc) Artrepco Gallery, Zurich Dimensions: variable 2006

70

Hyperdrawing.indd 70

17/05/2012 10:46:06

Suzanne Treister

ALCHEMY/The New York Times, 6th February 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008

ALCHEMY/The Times, 30th September 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008

71

Hyperdrawing.indd 71

17/05/2012 10:46:07



Suzanne Treister

ALCHEMY/Le Monde, 6th October 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008

72

Hyperdrawing.indd 72

17/05/2012 10:46:08

Suzanne Treister

A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions: Weapons, Warfare and Security Felt pen and watercolour on wall Collective Gallery, Edinburgh, Scotland 211 x 552 cm 2010

73

Hyperdrawing.indd 73

17/05/2012 10:46:09

Suzanne Treister

A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions:Weapons, Warfare and Security (No. 4 of 15) Rotring ink and watercolour on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008

A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions:Weapons, Warfare and Security (No. 15 of 15) Rotring ink and watercolour on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008

74

Hyperdrawing.indd 74

17/05/2012 10:46:10

Ulrich Vogl

LimeLight Ink-felt pen on wall, foil on mirrors, and light 2008

75

Hyperdrawing.indd 75

17/05/2012 10:46:11

Ulrich Vogl

Kronleuchter Dia Slide projector, slide frame, aluminium foil 2006

76

Hyperdrawing.indd 76

17/05/2012 10:46:12

Ulrich Vogl

Kronleuchter Construction Lamp Enamel and construction lamp 2005

77

Hyperdrawing.indd 77

17/05/2012 10:46:13

Ulrich Vogl

Radioskop I Enamel, glass and glitter fabric 186 x 160 x 9 cm 2009

78

Hyperdrawing.indd 78

17/05/2012 10:46:15

Ulrich Vogl

Radioskop I (Detail) Enamel, glass and glitter fabric 186 x 160 x 9 cm 2009

79

Hyperdrawing.indd 79

17/05/2012 10:46:16

Ulrich Vogl

Meer Silver Enamel, glass and diffraction curtain silver 140 x 140 cm 2006

80

Hyperdrawing.indd 80

17/05/2012 10:46:18

Kerry Walton

Triptych Triangle 16 Ink on paper 40 x 28 cm May 2008

81

Hyperdrawing.indd 81

17/05/2012 10:46:18



Kerry Walton

Quarter Circle 1 Laser-cut silk organza 80 x 80 cm June 2009

82

Hyperdrawing.indd 82

17/05/2012 10:46:19

Kerry Walton

Contrast Scribble Cut 3 Laser-cut silk organza 40 x 28 cm June 2009

83

Hyperdrawing.indd 83

17/05/2012 10:46:20



Gosia Wlodarczak

Desire 2: Phantom 506 panels drawing installation + four boxes Pigment marker, acrylic on wallpaper on cardboard Wall installation: 200 x 81 cm Three boxes: 12 x 32 x 24.5 cm (each); one box: 8 x 32 x 24.5 cm 2007

84

Hyperdrawing.indd 84

17/05/2012 10:46:21

Gosia Wlodarczak

Dust Cover Ezri Situation A car, pigment marker, gesso on linen Three days outdoor performance drawing Private backyard in Brighton, Melbourne 2009

85

Hyperdrawing.indd 85

17/05/2012 10:46:21



Gosia Wlodarczak Stills from ‘Desire 1 Yohji’ Computer-generated animation DVD, duration 3:15 2007–08

The Bench Performance drawing Participants in the situation, objects, pigment marker, acrylic on linen 162 x 320 cm 2008

86

Hyperdrawing.indd 86

17/05/2012 10:46:22

Gosia Wlodarczak

The Bench, Situation Participants in the situation, objects, pigment marker, acrylic on linen 2008

87

Hyperdrawing.indd 87

17/05/2012 10:46:23



Sarah Woodfine

Somewhere Pencil on paper in perspex box 23 x 60 x 23 cm 2007

88

Hyperdrawing.indd 88

17/05/2012 10:46:23

Artwork Details Page 2 Kate Atkin Study: Stack Pencil on paper 51 x 38 cm 2008

Darren Banks Big Blob Ink on paper 130 x 110 cm 2006 Courtesy the artist and Workplace Gallery, UK

Kate Atkin Lines & Sections; Line I Pencil on paper 153 x 157 cm 2005

Page 6 Catherine Bertola The property of Two Gentlemen Collected dust, glue, two chairs and brass plaques 2006 Courtesy the artist and Workplace Gallery, UK Photograph by Douglas Atfield

Page 3 Kate Atkin Maw Pencil on paper 167.5 x 106.5 cm 2008 Kate Atkin ‘. . . a face like a French cheese, chalk and green, hollowed out and folded up like a mummy . . .’ Pencil and watercolour on paper and birch plywood 163 cm high 2009 Page 4 Kate Atkin Leaning Structure Pencil on paper 126 x 97.5 cm 2009 Page 5 Darren Banks Blob 10 Ink on paper 130 x 110 cm 2007 Courtesy the artist and Workplace Gallery, UK

Page 7 Catherine Bertola After the fact Derelict Georgian farmhouse, Bicker, Lincolnshire Found dust 2006 Courtesy the artist and Workplace Gallery, UK Page 8 Heiko Blankenstein Phytoparasiten Ball point and pencil on paper 150 x 211.5 cm 2008 Page 9 Heiko Blankenstein Twelvesoundtreetable Wood, antlers, paper, wall paint, ball point 2009 Page 10 Heiko Blankenstein Microgravity test Colour pencil, ball point, ink and acrylic on paper 2010

Page 11 Heiko Blankenstein Pinaceatite-table Wood, enamel, acrylic, 150 x 100 x 155 cm 2009 Heiko Blankenstein Trophy room with island display Lightbox drawing 90 x 127 cm 2008 Page 12 Susan Collis Ruby Biro inks and pencil on paper construction 15 x 13 x10 inches 2009 Private collection Courtesy Seventeen, London Susan Collis Stills from One day . . . Digital animation from hand-drawn cells Edition of 3 24 hours 2008–present Private collection Courtesy Seventeen, London Page 13 Susan Collis Bessie Pencil on paper construction 42 x 50 x 27 cm 2009 Private collection Courtesy Seventeen, London

89

Hyperdrawing.indd 89

17/05/2012 10:46:24



Artwork Details Page 14 Diana Cooper All Our Wandering Wood, vinyl, pigment print, ink, acrylic, coloured pencil, ball point pen, foam rubber and felt 76.25 x 79.5 x 142.5 inches 2007 Installed at Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland, OH Photograph by Tim Safranek Photographics Page 15 Diana Cooper Missed Once (Detail) Ink, acrylic, acetate, felt tip marker, photographs, pipe cleaner, felt and paper 96 x 86 x 65 inches 2000–01 Installation at Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland, OH Carol and Arthur Goldberg Collection Photograph by Tim Safranek Photographics Page 16 Diana Cooper Orange Alert: USA (Detail) Acetate, acrylic, felt, neoprene, paper, foam core, corrugated plastic and map pins Room installation: 24 ft x 27 ft 10 inches x 20 ft 6 inches 2005 Installation at Postmasters Gallery, NYC Photograph by Bill Orcutt Page 17 Diana Cooper Swarm Corrugated plastic, paper, ink, acrylic, felt, foam core, photos,Velcro and map pins photographs, pipe cleaner, felt and paper Room installation Dimensions at the Museum of Contemporary Art: gallery height 14 ft 6 inches, occupying two 24-ft-long walls that intersect at a corner, extending 26 ft out onto the gallery floor 2003–07

Page 18 John Court ART TRA 8 hour performance Black marker pens 240 x 500 cm MDF 2008 Courtesy Trace: Installation Art Space Photograph by Tim Freeman Page 19 John Court Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and black marker pen 80 x 120 cm 2008 John Court Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and black marker pen 80 x 120 cm 2008 Page 20 John Court Untitled Paper, pencil, PVA glue, white spray paint and 9B graphite pencil 80 x 120 cm 2008 Page 21 John Court A Blank White Page Aluminium sheet, PVA glue and white epoxy paint 125 x 250 cm 2009 Page 22 Ultan Coyle v2 Apparatus Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line Location: kitchen 60 x 37 cm November 2008

Ultan Coyle v2 Detail 60 x 37 cm December 2008 Page 23 Ultan Coyle v4 Installation Buoy, plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope Location: Dundalk Bay 2000 x 1500 cm (approx) November 2009 Ultan Coyle v4 Installation Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope Location: Dundalk Bay 60 x 37 cm November 2009 Page 24 Ultan Coyle v4 Installation Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope, tyre Location: Dundalk Bay 60 x 37 cm November 2009 Ultan Coyle v4 Retrieved Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line, plastic bags, rope, tyre Location: Dundalk Bay shore December 2009 Page 25 Ultan Coyle v4 Result Plastic box, paper, pens, fishing line Location: garage 60 x 37 cm December 2009

90

Hyperdrawing.indd 90

17/05/2012 10:46:24

Artwork Details Ultan Coyle v4 Detail Paper, ink Location: garage 60 x 37 cm December 2009 Page 26 Layla Curtis Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Digital drawing Live GPS drawing (stills) 2004 Page 27 Layla Curtis Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Digital drawing Ramsgate’s antipodal point 2004 Layla Curtis Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands Photograph Production photograph 2004 www.fromramsgatetothechathamislands.co.uk Message in a Bottle from Ramsgate to the Chatham Islands was commissioned by Turner Contemporary. Page 28 Abraham Ferraro Signature Piece Mixed media performance Variable size: 8 x 10 x 10 ft 2008 Page 29 Abraham Ferraro Stationary Climber Mixed media performance 15 x 12½ x 8½ ft 2006 Made at Sculpture Space in Utica, NY, USA

Page 30 Maryclare Foá Thermal images (Various) Stills from video Location: Surrey, UK 2007 Courtesy Richard Wallace, www.thermalimaging. co.uk Page 31 Colin Glen The Broken Cone Pencil on paper 56 x 70 cm 2009 Private collection, London Colin Glen The Broken Cube Pencil on paper 57 x 76 cm (unframed) 2006 Colin Glen The Volcanic Spring Pencil on paper 30 x 40 cm 2006 Private collection, London Page 32 Colin Glen In/Out Pencil on paper 36 x 43 cm 2005 Groucho Club Collection, London Page 33 Margarita Gluzberg From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 1 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009

Margarita Gluzberg From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 2 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009 Page 34 Margarita Gluzberg From Hairstyles for the Great Depression, No. 3 Graphite pencil on paper 150 x 280 cm 2009 Margarita Gluzberg Black Sea Graphite pencil on paper 56 x 77 cm 2009 Courtesy Paradise Row Gallery Photograph by Thierry Bal Page 35 Richard Grayson Intelligence Drawings Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Ink and watercolour on Fabriano paper 70 x 100 cm 2004 ongoing (Series II, 2008–10) Richard Grayson Blair (Detail) Page 36 Richard Grayson Intelligence Drawings Saddam Hussein Ink and watercolour on Fabriano paper 70 x 100 cm 2004 ongoing (Series II, 2008–10) Richard Grayson Saddam Hussein (Detail) Richard Grayson Saddam Hussein (Detail)

91

Hyperdrawing.indd 91

17/05/2012 10:46:24



Artwork Details Page 37 Monika Grzymala Solex 2 ‘Ruptures’ (Detail) Adhesive tape Dimensions: variable 2009 Courtesy the artist and the Drawing Room, London Monika Grzymala The End of the Line (Detail) Matt black masking tape Dimensions: variable 2009 Fruitmarket Gallery, UK Courtesy the artist Page 38 Monika Grzymala The End of the Line ‘Duplex’ (Detail) Lead tape and graphite Dimensions: variable 2009 Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, UK Courtesy the artist Page 39 Monika Grzymala Evolutions Adhesive tape Dimensions: variable 2008 Galerie Elly Brose Eiermann, Berlin, Germany Courtesy the artist

Courtesy Susanne Vielmetter Projects, Los Angeles Karl Haendel Shackelton #2 Pencil on paper 103 x 81 inches 2008 Courtesy Susanne Vielmetter Projects, Los Angeles Page 42 Karl Haendel Salt Box #1 Pencil on paper 47.5 x 60.25 x 26.5 inches 2009 Courtesty Harris Lieberman Gallery, New York Karl Haendel Knight #1 Pencil on paper 103 x 79 inches 2010 Courtesy Yvon Lambert Gallery, Paris Page 43 Karl Haendel Omega Point #1 Pencil on paper 78 x 52 inches 2010 Courtesy Yvon Lambert, Paris

Page 40 Karl Haendel A Year From Now Billboard, Los Angeles 2008 Courtesy LAX Art, Los Angeles

Page 44 Ilana Halperin Emergent Landmass I Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2006 Courtesy the artist and doggerfisher

Page 41 Karl Haendel Karl-O-Gram-#1 Pencil on paper 30 x 22 inches 2009

Ilana Halperin Emergent Landmass II Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2006 Courtesy the artist and doggerfisher

Page 45 Ilana Halperin Towards Heilprin Land (Map) Graphite on paper 50 x 76 cm 2007 Courtesy the artist and doggerfisher Page 46 Ilana Halperin Physical Geology I Hard ground copperplate etchings with watercolour 43 x 33 cm 2009 Courtesy the artist and doggerfisher Page 47 Christine Hill The Volksboutique Armory Apothecary 2009 Booth Installation Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Christine Hill The Volksboutique Armory Apothecary 2009 Booth Installation Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Christine Hill The Volksboutique Armory Apothecary 2009 Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Page 48 Christine Hill Mortar and Pestle from Small Apothecary Drawings 2007 Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Page 49 Christine Hill Ginko Leaf from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007 Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus

92

Hyperdrawing.indd 92

17/05/2012 10:46:24

Artwork Details Christine Hill Lozenges from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007 Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Christine Hill Healing Herbs from Small Apothecary Drawings, 2007 Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York Photograph by Hermann Feldhaus Page 50 Tim Knowles Windwalk Five walks from Charing Cross Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008 Page 51 Tim Knowles Windwalk Five walks from Charing Cross Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008 Tim Knowles Windwalk Five walks from Charing Cross (two video stills) Five-channel video, mixed media object and inkjet print Dimensions: variable 2008 Page 52 Tim Knowles Windwalk Seven Walks from Seven Dials (detail) Seven video projections, mixed media object and inkjet print/wall drawing Dimensions: variable 2009

Page 53 Tim Knowles Treedrawing Scots Pine on Easel #1 Ink on paper and C-Type print 77 x 96 cm + 77 x 57 cm 79 x 98 cm + 79 x 59 cm (diptych drawing and photograph) 2006 Tim Knowles Treedrawing Hawthorn on Easel #1 (Detail) Ink on paper and C-Type print 77 x 60 cm + 77 x 60 cm (detail) 79 x 62 cm + 79 x 62 cm (diptych drawing and photograph) 2005 Page 54 Heather Lewis Drawings from the street (Lamp and tree) Digital image from a DVD loop In collaboration with Amy Guggenheim 2009 Heather Lewis Drawing (Florida hotel chair) Digital image 2008 Page 55 Ralph Macartney Bannana Still 2006 Ralph Macartney Pencil Suit Still 2006 Ralph Macartney Pencil Suit Still 2006

Page 56 Jordan MacKenzie Spent Artist’s semen, powdered graphite and cartridge paper 29.7 x 42 cm 2007 Jordan MacKenzie Spent Artist’s semen, powdered graphite and cartridge paper 29.7 x 42 cm 2007 Jordan MacKenzie Spent (Ongoing series) Artist’s semen and universal litmus paper 2008 Page 57 Emma McNally C10 Graphite on paper 42 x 30 cm 2009 Page 58 Emma McNally F4 Graphite on paper (detail) 220 x 150 cm 2008 Page 59 Eamon O’Kane Plans for The Past and The Future Installation views, Plan 9, Bristol, UK 2009 Page 60 Eamon O’Kane Plans for The Past and The Future Installation views, Plan 9, Bristol, UK 2009

93

Hyperdrawing.indd 93

17/05/2012 10:46:24



Artwork Details Page 61 Eamon O’Kane Deadwood I Charcoal on wall Installation view 600 x 300 cm 2006 Eamon O’Kane Philosophy of Furniture Mixed media installation 2007 Page 62 Garrett Phelan Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Monitor, Rome, Italy Dimensions: variable June 2009 Courtesy the artist and Mother’s Tankstation Garrett Phelan Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Paradise Row, London, UK Dimensions: variable June 2009 Courtesy the artist and Mother’s Tankstation Page 63 Garrett Phelan Interruption as part of ‘At what point will common sense prevail’ Matt black paint, airless spray gun, PA system, FM radio transmitter and transistor Location: Lewis Glucksman Gallery, Cork, Ireland Dimensions: variable June 2008 Courtesy the artist and Mother’s Tankstation Photograph by Matthew Packer

Page 64 Kim Schoenstadt Closer to Nature Series (Mobile Drawing): Still Pond Ink on vinyl canvas In front of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC 126 x 272 inches 2006 Courtesy the artist and Art not Ads Organised by Street Scenes: Projects for DC, September 2006 Kim Schoenstadt Closer to Nature Series (Mobile Drawing): Falling Water Ink on vinyl canvas Top image in front of the Washington Monument, Washington, DC 126 x 272 inches 2006 Courtesy the artist and Art not Ads Organised by Street Scenes: Projects for DC, September 2006 Page 65 Kim Schoenstadt Chicago Series: #10 (Previous Episodes) Marker, acrylic paint and oil stick on wall with framed photos and text (not shown) Installed at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, IL Dimensions: variable 2007 Courtesy the artist Photograph by MCA Chicago Page 66 Kim Schoenstadt Diving Board Helix Pen and paint on wall Installed at Galerie Sabina Knust, Munich, Germany 137 x 80 inches 2005/2009 installation Courtesy the artist and Galerie Sabina Knust, Munich, Germany Photograph by Siegfried Wameser

Kim Schoenstadt Tell Me Something Good A collaboration between Rita McBride and Kim Schoenstadt Vinyl on wall Installed at Alexander and Bonin, New York Dimensions: variable 2009 Courtesy Rita McBride, Kim Schoenstadt and Alexander and Bonin Gallery, New York Page 67 Simon Schubert Untitled (Mirrored hallways) Paper 125 x 180 cm 2010 Page 68 Simon Schubert Untitled (Mirrors and mirrors) Paper 75 x 100 cm 2010 Simon Schubert Untitled (Stairwell) Paper 75 x 100 cm 2010 Page 69 Uta Siebert Plantagen Drawings on paper and wall, ink, spray paint, painted rubber (Caoutchouc) Artrepco Gallery, Zurich Dimensions: variable 2006 Page 70 Uta Siebert Plantagen Drawings on paper and wall, ink, spray paint, painted rubber (Caoutchouc) Artrepco Gallery, Zurich Dimensions: variable 2006

94

Hyperdrawing.indd 94

17/05/2012 10:46:24

Artwork Details Page 71 Suzanne Treister ALCHEMY/The New York Times, 6th February 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008 Courtesy Annely Juda Fine Art, London Suzanne Treister ALCHEMY/The Times, 30th September 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008 Courtesy Annely Juda Fine Art, London Page 72 Suzanne Treister ALCHEMY/Le Monde, 6th October 2008 Rotring ink on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008 Courtesy Annely Juda Fine Art, London Page 73 Suzanne Treister A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions:Weapons, Warfare and Security (No. 4 of 15) Rotring ink and watercolour on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008 Courtesy Annely Juda Fine Art, London Suzanne Treister A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions:Weapons, Warfare and Security (No. 15 of 15) Rotring ink and watercolour on paper 21 x 29.7 cm 2008 Courtesy Annely Juda Fine Art, London Page 74 Suzanne Treister A Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions:Weapons, Warfare and Security Felt pen and watercolour on wall Collective Gallery, Edinburgh, Scotland 211 x 552 cm 2010

Courtesy Collective Gallery, Edinburgh, Scotland and Annely Juda Fine Art, London Page 75 Ulrich Vogl LimeLight Ink-felt pen on wall, foil on mirrors, and light 2008 Page 76 Ulrich Vogl Kronleuchter Dia Slide projector, slide frame, aluminium foil 2006 Private collection Page 77 Ulrich Vogl Kronleuchter Construction Lamp Enamel and construction lamp 2005 Private collection Page 78 Ulrich Vogl Meer Silver Enamel, glass and diffraction curtain silver 140 x 140 cm 2006 Private collection Page 79 Ulrich Vogl Radioskop I Enamel, glass and glitter fabric 186 x 160 x 9 cm 2009 Page 80 Ulrich Vogl Radioskop I (Detail) Enamel, glass and glitter fabric 186 x 160 x 9 cm 2009

Page 81 Kerry Walton Triptych Triangle 16 Ink on paper 40 x 28 cm 2008 Page 82 Kerry Walton Quarter Circle 1 Laser-cut silk organza 80 x 80 cm 2009 Page 83 Kerry Walton Contrast Scribble Cut 3 Laser-cut silk organza 40 x 28 cm 2009 Page 84 Gosia Wlodarczak Desire 2: Phantom 506 panels drawing installation + four boxes Pigment marker, acrylic on wallpaper on cardboard Wall installation: 200 x 81 cm Three boxes: 12 x 32 x 24.5 cm (each), one box: 8 x 32 x 24.5 cm 2007 Courtesy the artist and Arc One Gallery, Melbourne Photograph by Longin Sarnecki Page 85 Gosia Wlodarczak Dust Cover Ezri Situation A car, pigment marker, gesso on linen Three days outdoor performance drawing Private backyard in Brighton, Melbourne 2009 Courtesy the artist and Arc One Gallery, Melbourne Photograph by Longin Sarnecki

95

Hyperdrawing.indd 95

17/05/2012 10:46:24



Artwork Details Page 86 Gosia Wlodarczak Stills from ‘Desire 1 Yohji’ Computer-generated animation DVD, duration 3:15 Photography: Longin Sarnecki Music: Yohji Similitude Duration 3:15 Original score: Gosia Wlodarczak Digital sound realisation: Alistair Noble 2007–08 Gosia Wlodarczak The Bench Performance drawing Participants in the situation, objects, pigment marker, acrylic on linen 162 x 320 cm 2008 Courtesy the artist Photograph by Longin Sarnecki Page 87 Gosia Wlodarczak The Bench, Situation Participants in the situation, objects, pigment marker, acrylic on linen 2008 Performance drawing at ‘Marking Time’, International Drawing Conference, 3–4 October 2008, College of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Courtesy the artist Photograph by Longin Sarnecki Page 88 Sarah Woodfine Somewhere Pencil on paper in perspex box 23 x 60 x 23 cm 2007

96

Hyperdrawing.indd 96

17/05/2012 10:46:24