To Draw is to Be Human Response

I thought the comparisons between drawing and painting in "To Draw is to Be Human" by Emma Dexter were very provocative.  It really made me think about the difference between the two.  While I see why the author thinks what she does about drawing involving line and background and painting involving a process of covering, I'm not sure I agree. There are works considered as paintings that do not cover up the background, whereas some works considered drawings cover everything.  I think it depends more on the artist's intent.  If an artist feels like he/she is painting when using charcoal, I think the piece can be considered a painting.  Many artists who use paint proclaim their pieces as drawings.  Besides, there was a time when drawing and painting were inseparably intertwined.  Renaissance painters considered drawing to be an invaluable tool for their masterpieces.  They would "draw" on the canvas before "covering" it with paint.  When artists like Titian began painting without first creating a drawing they faced criticism from the more traditional artists.  The traditional artists believed you couldn't have painting without drawing.  I'm still not sure there really is a difference between the two.

The article did inspire me to draw though.  It makes it seem as if even terrible drawings are great masterpieces.  I definitely appreciate the concept of drawings more after reading that.

Maggie Wurzer


Also, here is a picture of a series of paintings I did last semester.