The article discusses some basic elements of drawing, along with some equally basic behavior with respect to drawing. Considering one of the most repeated assumptions or stereotypes of the Western drawing discourse, namely that drawings are characterized, and cherished, by their potential for revelation, i.e. to disclose something beside them, something other than and prior to them, which may account for their appearance, I sketch an argument away from that assumption. To regard a drawing as revealing is to charge it or have it re-enact itself, although any attempt to ontologize drawing through a distinction between a previous act and a posthumous fact is too simplistic. By considering the ways in which drawing has been compared to painting and photography, how it relates to shadows and projection, I bring up a number of issues of relevance in coming to terms with drawing: lines and dots, signs and marks, figure and ground, space and erasure. Examples range from van Gogh and Rembrandt to Oldenburg, Michaux and Rauschenberg. Action drawing applies, most Importantly to Our interpretative activities faced with the drawing as a fact, although no clean temporal or conceptual cut exists between act and fact; the act is still there in the result.
2009. Vol. 78, no 2, 92-103 p.