Jenny Hart's hairdryers
I was so pleased to come across these little drawings in the sketches of OCA student Jenny Hart.
Jenny keeps an eloquent and wryly humorous log, and took to all the shenanigans of drawing two with grace. I expect those who have done Foundations Drawing will feel more at home with Drawing 2 if they elect to study it. It’s a second level course which investigates the character of drawing with some intensity, but it is a bit of a shift in concept from the current Drawing 1. It’s much more experimental in nature which can leave people wondering why they have just tied a pastel to the cat or in Jenny’s case, a crayon to an electric whisk. Which is exactly the point.
Anyway, these drawings have been made using touch to give the brain the necessary information to make the drawing (rather than the more usual sight). In this case, the drawings were made blindfold, so both the drawing and the subject had to be felt. By purposefully removing the usual method for making a drawing, and putting blocks in the way of automatic information processing, this exercise introduces new sensitivities and openness. Hopefully by highlighting just how much more sensitive it is possible to be to your subject (by stripping away the potential for using technique or craft to cover up lack of focus) these exercises are a reminder which can then be absorbed into practice when the blindfold comes off.
Often this task is so hard that the drawings don’t have much purchase on the original subject. In this case however, these drawings are actually a better rendition of a hairdryer than the one done the usual way. They have picked up on the contrast of the flex to the body of the dryer and I particularly enjoy the Picasso like confidence of the final black felt pen version which has a snail like quality and nails something essential about the hairdryer with remarkable economy. Generally, the drawings have a greater sensitive to materials and touch, and a wider range of mark making and tone. They are also much more interesting and beautiful.
I thought the first drawing was a penis and scrotum. What does that say about the process of communication?
perhaps that drawing is about more than naming and recognising objects.
I’m new to this having just started Drawing 1 and with no previous experience in the Visual Arts. I tried the sample exercises in Foundation Drawing. I have looked at Vitamin D and find it very difficult to access. I think I must be stuck in recognising and naming objects and have no clue how to move out of it.
I am reminded of the Rorschach ink blot test which is still used by some psychologists as a diagnostic tool and as a tool for personality testing. Winnicott used the “Squiggle Game” in his work with disturbed children, to access their thinking and emotional states . He drew a squiggle on a page and invited the child to make it into something. Usually the child would respond by creating something meant to be recognisable as an object and name it. A difficulty with this could be taken a demonstration of a disturbed connection to reality.
Then there is the phenomenon of the “islands of ability” which some people with autism demonstrate. This can be mathmetical ability or talent in very accurate portrayals of objects, often buildings.
These are examples of the interest we have in the workings of the brains of other people. Is one of the functions of drawing to explore this? It is a very private and often isolated process, isn’t it?
Hi Alison, Try looking at the back catalogues for the Jerwood Drawing Prize (Bryan Eccleshall gave me that lead – they are available to download.) I’m glad you are open to new ideas and I expect that you will make your own sense of things and develop your own relationship with drawing as you progress. It’s early days.
Brilliant stuff!
These drawings have a poetic feel to them- by that I mean the subject is approached in such a way that says more than just a depiction of the object.