Published in TRACEY | journal
Drawing Knowledge
May 2012
Drawing and Visualisation Research
DRAWING YOUR WAY INTO
UNDERSTANDING
Lucy Lyonsa
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
lucylyons68@yahoo.co.uk
a
This paper examines how we can come to know something by drawing
it. It claims that relationships that develop between object and viewer
during the process of drawing are central to gaining greater
understanding of an object and that this information can be
communicated to others offering new insight and knowledge.
Drawing is shown to be a phenomenological activity that is a flexible and
adaptable research tool that not only initiates the process of gaining
knowledge but also evidences the progression of this journey. Evidence
of how understanding has developed is embedded in the marks and
smudges made by the observer. This I refer to as ‘Drawing your way into
understanding.’
The use of drawing as a research method is presented here in a
description of some of my research undertaken since 2004. Projects
and case studies have all been based within the field of medical science
and include investigating a rare disease, intervention with science
researchers and aspects of experiences of ageing. Central to supporting
claims made in this paper are data from groups of participants who
used drawing as a method for investigating medical artefacts. They also
raise new questions concerning how, where and what kind of knowledge
is generated during this process.
www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/
sota/tracey/
tracey@lboro.ac.uk
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
INTRODUCTION
This paper briefly outlines the PhD research, case studies and postdoctoral research
undertaken since 2004 investigating the drawing process as a phenomenological activity
that leads to further understanding of encounters with objects. Case studies were based
within fields of medical science and predominantly conducted in medical museums.
This research was based on the seemingly simple premise that we do not spend enough
time simply looking. The activity of drawing is vital in engaging us in the all-important
process of looking and the act of looking begins with the willingness to acknowledge the
existence of an observed phenomenon in the first instance. Drawing both initiates the act
of looking and is dependent on it, and engenders dignity as it involves investing time in the
presence of an object and spending time observing it. 1
The notion of dignity means that nothing should be taken for granted and often we stop
looking at the everyday and the overly familiar in detail because we think we know these
things so well. Close observation and the activity of drawing reignites interest in the viewer
and reveals the unexpected qualities and idiosyncrasies not previously noticed in the
familiar object.
Spending time really looking makes us not just take away that momentary snap of what we
think we have seen, like tourists taking photos on holiday, but makes us participate in a
reciprocal relationship that involves understanding and respect. The presence of the object
is as crucial as the presence of the viewer engaging with the object. The presence of the
drawer is an intrinsic part of this process and the traces of marks and smudges embedded
in the paper are evidence of the drawing activity and make that presence explicit, revealing
the relationships that have formed. Drawing is not used merely to record but is a
participatory activity.
This paper will touch on three key aspects of the research. The first two, drawing the
unfamiliar and drawing the familiar, are described within the case studies from my PhD and
outcomes from a short British Council funded research project that followed soon after. The
third key aspect looks at embodied knowledge in drawing as a noun and drawing as an
activity i.e. a verb. This is outlined in descriptions of a study undertaken during a two-year
postdoctoral fellowship at the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Copenhagen.
The investigation of drawing as a phenomenological activity in which knowledge is
embodied and evidence that understanding and insights are communicated to others,
within the context of medical science, has been the central foci throughout my research.
However, the case studies and investigation workshops conducted more recently have
1 Lyons, L. ‘Dignity: drawing relationships with the body’, chapter in A Imagem na Ciência e na Arte: Representações do Corpo na Ciência
e na Arte, Cristina Azevedo Tavares, (Ed.), Fim de Século, 2012
1
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
thrown up new perspectives and questions concerning how and at which points during the
process individuals generate different kinds of knowledge in a variety of ways.
DRAWING YOUR WAY INTO UNDERSTANDING – THE UNFAMILIAR
‘You should see these Delineations…that you may appreciate their value not as art
but as instruments of medical science by means of which more precise, more
accurate and more perfect information may be acquired and communicated
respecting the various and numerous organic changes to which the human body is
subject.’ (Carswell, 1831)
My research has been concerned with investigating three key aspects. The first aspect was
concerned with examining drawing as a method that embodies knowledge of encounters
with the unfamiliar and was the focus of my PhD, Delineating Disease: a system for
investigating Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva. This research looked at how drawing
the unfamiliar and unknown led to further understanding of a disease and my experiences
of it. Evidence showed that insights and new information were communicated to others
through the finished drawings.
The research involved the development of a system of drawing I called delineation. This
was based on the descriptions of the 19th Century pathologist Sir Robert Carswell who
believed his delineations would communicate knowledge. He began his career as an artist
before switching to medicine and used his skills to portray specific, detailed encounters
with disease that reflected his experiences with these encounters rather than make
composite drawings to provide general examples of diseases. Delineation developed into a
system that used closely observed detail that was not added to or embellished in any way.
Drawings were only made whilst in the presence of the object. Colour was not used and
shading avoided. Marks made and rubbed out remained evident and were essential to
revealing the development of understanding as the drawing continued. They were sensitive
and reflective of the accumulation of experiences. These marks revealed the development
of my understanding as the drawing progressed and demonstrated sensitivity and
respectfulness towards objects being observed.
Having spent many years drawing anatomical specimens and cadavers to learn about the
structure of the body and its systems, I began to focus on pathology. This is the study of the
body when it has changed and is not working in the usual way. For me this became a
switch from the generic i.e. how the body should be, to the specific i.e. how it should not be.
I could no longer make assumptions about what the body looked like and could not take
anything for granted. Close attention had to be given to all encounters. Each was new,
different and unfamiliar and each specific example of every encounter with a disease was
unique and had to be treated as such.
2
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
In this case the unfamiliar, the unknown and when first encountered, unbelievable
phenomenon I researched was a disease called Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva
(FOP). This is a rare congenital disorder affecting about 600 people worldwide. Connective
tissue turns to bone both through trauma and spontaneously. A secondary skeleton forms,
grows and joins up with another area of bone, permanently locking the person within a
bony prison. It is horrific – almost beyond imagination and the effects are shocking.
My first encounter with a whole FOP skeleton in 2005 was beyond any previous experience.
I could not understand what I was seeing until I began to ‘draw my way into understanding
it’; drawing the details, realizing things were not how they seemed and spending time
visually unpicking and attempting to understand what I was encountering. The confusion of
excess bone was visually difficult to interpret, more so when presented as a photograph as
everything becomes flattened and tonally similar.
FIG.1
(DELINEATION 4. MR. JEFFS 2 CLOSE UP,
LUCY LYONS, 23/09/05, PENCIL ON PAPER,
29.7CM X 42 CM)
FIG. 2
(DELINEATION 62. 8149 FACE DOWN, FINAL, LUCY LYONS
9/1/08, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42 CM)
It was not until my second attempt that I began to really look and started to understand
how the shocking consequences of this terrible disease had affected the skeleton. I could
only begin to really ‘see’ it clearly by drawing whilst remaining in the presence of the object.
The lines I made related directly and immediately to the observed encounter as it
happened and marks were placed with as much precision as I could achieve. Drawings
were not embellished further and no information was added or removed at a later stage.
3
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
Details were presented as clearly as possible and delineation developed as a way of
understanding something so complicated and unusual. Every time I came back to it, I resaw it and re-engaged with it, finding new information and insight with every viewing.
Professors Jim Triffitt and Paul Wordsworth of the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital, University
of Oxford are experts on FOP. They were responsible for contacting patients who wanted to
contribute to my research and supported my work with the two donors who had previously
been their patients. They reviewed the progress of my research and were generous with
their advice.
For a period of five years, based in the conservation department at the Royal College of
Surgeons of England I drew the ongoing process of maceration of the bodies of the two
donors being prepared for display and drew two other skeletons from a museum collection
in Switzerland. I also drew living patients with FOP. The aim was to demonstrate a greater
breadth of experiences of FOP than had previously been realized.
Often people with diseases are depicted as being vulnerable, gazed at by clinicians,
medical students, nursing staff, carers and visitors. They begin to lose their individuality
and sometimes their dignity. Encounters with disease and illness might cause us to stare in
horror, or make us turn away not wanting to see, afraid that by looking we may ourselves
somehow be tainted by another’s illness or disease. I felt it was important that patients
were given the opportunity to be seen as they wished, and they actively participated in the
project in a way that maintained their dignity. They were in control of where and when I
drew them.
There is humanity in the action of drawing that restores the dignity and respect that can be
sometimes overlooked in the medical gaze. This is where a relationship is formed through
the engagement and mutual participation in the dialogue created. There is willingness to
be drawn and willingness to understand the experience being observed and it is this
balance that is found and developed by the drawing activity.
Evidence that the drawings offered new insight and information into the breadth of FOP
came from three sources; patients, medical experts and reviewers of the exhibition.
Patients felt the research promoted awareness of a little known disease but paradoxically
were shocked by the detailed information embodied in the drawings which in their opinions
offered more understanding of their conditions than X-rays and scans.
Medical experts in the field of FOP research who responded to the research included
Professors Triffit and Wordsworth of the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital, University of Oxford
and Frederick S. Kaplan M.D. The Isaac & Rose Nassau Professor of Orthopaedic Molecular
Medicine and Chief of the Division of Molecular Orthopaedic Medicine at the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
4
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
These experts claimed they saw clear evidence in my drawings that confirmed theories
about ossification and tissue connection expressing that close observation was a good way
to collect and generate information as it prevented important detail from being overlooked
and showed ongoing changes and effects of FOP clearly, rather than just the appearance of
the skeletons. They described the drawings as offering clearer visual information than Xrays or CT scans. The drawings offered detail into many aspects of the disease, ‘Drawing is
a very successful way of bringing out the information about where all the new bone is.’ One
specific example cited was Delineation 29. 7646, (Fig. 3) in which marrow in the newly
formed bone was observed and drawn, something that had not been previously seen.
Professor Wordsworth stated not only were insights and helpful new information revealed
to in the drawings, but also that the drawings evidenced clearly how I had become
knowledgeable about FOP and gained an understanding of the breadth of this disease.
Essentially rather than just depicting FOP the drawings gave further insight into what is
actually going on.
FIG. 3 (DELINEATION 29. 7646 MARROW, LUCY LYONS, 10/5/06, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42 CM)
The drawings were the outcomes of case studies made at Royal College of Surgeons of
England and Naturhistorisches Museum Basel and were seen as a sensitive approach to
bringing new understanding through closely observed detail about FOP to specialists,
people with FOP and the general public. The result was an exposition of drawings in an
exhibition at the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons of England and by
5
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
thesis. Many people including medical and surgical experts had never heard of the disease
and the drawings were felt to reveal detail with clarity and sensitivity.
Frederick S. Kaplan M. D. visited the exhibition and stated there were examples of FOP he
had never seen before that raised new questions about the pathways of progression of
ossification and cells that were affected. He also felt ‘you showed us an aspect of “looking”
and “observing” that brought us to the patients in a participatory way, something that most
never get to do.’
Further evidence that the drawings offered new insight and information came from a third
source. Two reviewers described the drawings as sensitive and respectful depictions that
demonstrated the relationship that developed with the objects. 2 Another reviewer
emphasized the valuable information about the disease the drawings provided.3
Whilst drawing as a research methodology cannot claim to bring answers within the field of
medical sciences, there is proof it has a role for revealing new insights and raising new
questions as well as confirming previously held views. Understanding was gained
progressively throughout the duration of the activity of drawing and then communicated to
others through drawing as a noun.
DRAWING YOUR WAY INTO UNDERSTANDING – THE FAMILIAR
‘To have sat for an hour and drawn an old panelled door is to create a respect for
the object…[of its] qualities or beauty…the sketch rather than the instantly obtained
photograph is means to this awareness.’ (Edwards, p 7)
After investigating drawing as a method for gaining understanding of the unfamiliar, I
began to consider the second key aspect of my research, the use of drawing as a method
to examine the every-day and overly familiar. This began with a short study at Gulbenkian
Institute of Science (IGC) in conjunction with Drawing Spaces at Fábrica Braço de Prata in
Lisbon, funded by the British Council’s Darwin Now Award. This project involved a series of
interventions with science researchers in which they were asked to draw the material they
handled and used every day in the lab.
In one example, extra anatomical information previously missed was noted. Despite
examining fruit flies in experiments under the microscope for three years, the researcher
had not noticed the small extra hairs on the abdomen of the female until she drew it.
Another researcher had never noticed the ‘bump’ on a plant they had been researching for
2 (Hales, 2008, Interface, Reviews, a-n website) (Gillions, 2008, Review, 24 Hour Museum)
3 (Wallace, M. 2008, BMJ Medical Humanities)
6
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
several years. The activity of drawing had made them re-engage with familiar material and
re-see it allowing new information to be revealed. Realization of the potential of this
method led to their concerns about what further information may be missed. They felt this
issue was so important they changed their daily work routine to allow extra time to include
drawing as part of their laboratory protocol.
This part of the project resulted in almost all the researchers claiming the drawing activity
showed them details and information they had previously missed.
Another part of the project involved asking members of the public to draw bacteria viewed
under a microscope. The aim of this was to demonstrate the use of drawing as a way to
examine the details of bacteria and reveal it as something different from their
preconceived ideas of being dirty, disgusting and something to be avoided. Visitors to the
space not only spent time looking at something they would not normally want to look at or
worse would wish to destroy with cleaning products, but became actively engaged with
understanding it. Some evenings queues formed as people waited to look at and draw
bacteria. The drawings made the public and myself, were placed together and exhibited on
a nearby wall. New drawings were continuously added to ones made previously and
reflected the growth of the bacteria. The activity of looking and drawing was participatory
and connected the public with the bacteria giving them greater insight and appreciation of
the phenomenon they encountered. This research study revealed new understanding was
gained both by scientists and members of the public.
FIG. 4. (BACTERIA DRAWING – INSTALLATION, LUCY LYONS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, MAY 2009, PENCIL ON
PAPER, DIMENSIONS VARIABLE)
7
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
ASPECTS OF AGEING
Since I began my Postdoctoral fellowship in 2009 at Medical Museion at the Center for
Healthy Aging at the Faculty of Health Sciences in University of Copenhagen, I have
continued to examine how the activity of drawing informs and offers new insight into the
familiar i.e. allowing us to re-see or ‘come to know something in a new way’. My current
research has focused on how the role of drawing can reveal aspects of experiences of
ageing. Unlike FOP, ageing is not a rare disease and you do not die from it. It is not an
exciting condition but one that is often overlooked and perceived to be uninteresting and
unremarkable. We take ageing for granted because it is inevitable, not worthy of our
attention due to its over familiarity and it becomes invisible.
Drawing has been used to investigate the experiences of the everyday processes of change
through ageing, including the things we associate with the elderly, the lifestyle adaptations
required and common procedures encountered. This comprised spending time drawing
residents at a care home for the elderly and utilizing objects connected with ageing like
walking sticks and rollators from the collections at Medical Museion. Close attention was
paid to the details of seemingly mundane and often overlooked objects and the beauty,
dignity and specific qualities of different individuals were revealed. I spent time with the
residents in the care home and drew them whilst we were eating, talking and playing bingo
together. Drawing revealed them as unique individuals and focused on positive, active
aspects of ageing, rather than depicting them as vulnerable or incapable.
FIG. 5. (RESIDENT AT LOTTE, LUCY LYONS, 24/11/10, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42 CM)
8
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
I have also been drawing objects we associate with ageing especially rollators, wheeled
walking frames that are very popular in Nordic countries. Like many items associated with
ageing they are not seen as aesthetic or positive but as ugly, embarrassing and something
to hide, not spend time looking at and appreciating. I drew these rollators to understand
them as aesthetic, essential objects that help maintain independence and quality of life
and to acknowledge their presence when they are objects we usually ignore.
FIG. 6 (ROLLATOR, LUCY LYONS, 29/09/10, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42 CM)
In encounters both with the familiar and the unfamiliar the activity of drawing prevented
assumptions being made and forced attention to focus on specificity and uniqueness of
individual encounters rather than generalizations. This has reinforced the role of drawing
as a research method that can help re-evaluate the overlooked or things deemed
unimportant, as the activity of drawing involves picking out details during specific
encounters and revealing greater scope of understanding than previously found.
A SHARED, PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITY
Having tested the theory that the activity of drawing unfamiliar observed phenomena
brought understanding to the person drawing and communicated information in a drawing
as a finished product, i.e. drawing as a noun, I wanted to further examine the theory that
the activity of drawing also engenders knowledge in non-artists. To do this I reframed my
research question to investigate if knowledge was generated/embodied in the activity, i.e.
9
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
drawing as a verb, not only within my own process as I ‘draw my way into understanding’,
but in others, including non-artists.
I touched upon this third key aspect when I asked science researchers in labs to observe
overly familiar objects by drawing them. This resulted in most seeing new detail and gaining
more information. Members of the public engaged in drawing bacteria had the opportunity
to look at a familiar phenomenon in a new way. The drawing activity allowed them to see
detail and beauty they would never have noticed. Continuing with this focus I devised a
programme of workshops as part of a two-year Postdoctoral fellowship investigating ways
to communicate issues in healthcare.
THE WORKSHOPS
Since December 2009 I have conducted 16 investigation workshops as part of my research
at Medical Museion, University of Copenhagen. 158 people participated and a total of 408
drawings were produced. Throughout the duration of the project, drawings made by
participants were displayed in the Investigation Room. This is a public space in Medical
Museion where the workshops were conducted. This is a brief, general overview of the
sessions and their outcomes.
The aims of these workshops were to examine the viability, transparency and transferability
of drawing as a phenomenological activity that initiates and engenders knowledge.
As I have claimed looking is essential to the drawing activity and integral to gaining
understanding, research investigating correlations between frequency of looking with
drawing accuracy are relevant. However, my research does not attempt to define
measurements of accuracy or judge drawing skill. Whilst emphasis was placed on spending
time actively looking at objects being drawn, I found that lack of visual engagement with
the object had less to do with the production of less skilled drawings in terms of accuracy
and more to do with the fact the drawings were not of the objects that were present.
Instead they were of imagined or partially imagined phenomena rather than the actual
artefacts encountered. The workshops were also not intended as a part of an educational
programme to teach or improve drawing techniques, nor to reflect upon developing my own
drawing practice or the practice of other artists.
The question being asked was far more subjective and results were gathered in three
forms: discussion/writing during each session, responses to an open question emailed a
week after each session and the drawings themselves. In the case of the largest group
consisting of students, I employed the help of six PhD and Postdoctoral researchers from
my department, none of whom were artists. They devised categories for the drawings in
terms of how much they felt the observer had come to understand the object. This was of
course a very subjective method and by the end of two years it became apparent that the
10
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
question had shifted and was less concerned with demonstrating IF knowledge was
generated but to one concerned with WHAT knowledge was being sought and how were it
was gained and embodied.
In every workshop an object from the collection at Medical Museion was present, a group
observed and investigated the object, and the activity of drawing was used to evidence the
embodiment of developing knowledge. Except in the student workshops, I also participated
in the drawing activity so we all shared a common experience. The format of the workshops
remained more-or-less the same but can be divided into three groups.
FIG. 7. (WORKSHOP DRAWING, ANONYMOUS PARTICIPANT IN GROUP 1, 14/12/10, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42 CM)
GROUP ONE: NON – ARTISTS
In the first group, none of the participants came from an artistic background. Those who
took part in the 8 workshops that formed this group included; academics, support staff,
museum technicians and researchers.
During each session participants spent between one and one and a half hours investigating
a single object from the museum collection. Only a few guidelines were given though
emphasis was made on looking at the object as much as possible and they were
encouraged to move around and draw the artefact from several angles if they wanted. A
week later they were sent an email inviting them to respond to the experience.
Everyone received the same email, which read:
11
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
‘Dear *****
Thank you for participating in the investigative workshop, I hope you found it
interesting. I wonder if you would please send me your thoughts, feedback and
opinions about your experience. Long, short, random thoughts or feelings that were
evoked through the activity, all responses are relevant. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Many thanks!
Lucy.’
The information gathered comes from a combination of the drawings made, discussions
held during the workshops and responses sent some time after the workshops. Often
thoughts sent at a later date express feelings and opinions the participant did not make
during the sessions. This may be because they had more freedom to describe their feelings
privately and had time to reflect upon the workshop when replying to the email. Results fell
into three main themes, ‘Inner image’, ‘More is less’, and ‘Drawing as a stand in’.
INNER IMAGE, IMAGINATION, MEMORY, ASSOCIATION
Being in the presence of an object and responding to that experience is not
straightforward. Often it is not the object present that is being observed but the imagined
one that resides in one’s memory. In the first workshop a participant began drawing the
inner image she had of the object; her imagined, memory of it as a picture in her mind that
she was trying to copy. Her dialogue was with this internal, mental picture and she forgot to
look at the actual object. I spent an hour observing her drawing and noted that she very
rarely looked up from her paper to look at the object. She focused so much on what she
already knew of the specimen and tried to render her imagined image rather than to build
up a new relationship with the object by observing it in detail and drawing what she saw.
Once finished she was very disappointed with her effort. She started a second drawing and
this time concentrated very hard on looking. Her second attempt showed details she had
missed and she felt she saw the whole object at last, rather than just the sum of its parts.
For a participant in another workshop her feelings and memories dominated her time spent
in the presence of the object. Her drawing softened and rounded the specimen and she
drew it with a delicate flowing touch. She emphasized this in her discussion describing her
empathy with the artefact and her attempt to portray the sadness she felt the object
exuded. The same specimen brought memories and associations for another participant
who felt they could only see, draw and gain understanding of the artefact in terms of their
12
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
emotional response to it. For them the object became their memory of their feeling towards
the object and the emotions this evoked.
How participants felt during the session became relevant and issues of dignity and respect
were raised as one participant pointed out that by bothering to spend so much time
actually looking at an object one not only came to see it and understand it better but also
started to care for it.
In workshops investigating an object used for measuring urea, a participant described
imagining hands holding it and turning it. Several others described drawing what at first
seemed to be a boring object, which then became more fascinating to them as more time
was spent observing and drawing it in detail. In another session, a participant could only
see the object as the things it reminded her of and drew these instead. So accordingly it
became a cicada, a duck then a character in a grass skirt.
MORE IS LESS
Some participants described their experiences of drawing an object that at first appeared
to be simple, perhaps boring, and how it shifted from one generalized whole to many
detailed parts that made up the whole. Something simple when observed so closely could
then appear complex as more and more detail became revealed. This seemed to have two
effects. It was either appreciated and the participant rose to the challenge of engaging with
these further details, embodying this new knowledge in the marks on the paper, or they
found it too much to deal with and felt it obstructed their understanding. One described the
experience as seeing so much she stopped being able to see anything at all and talked
about there being, 'Too much visual noise.’
Some objects that at first appeared to be very boring became fascinating and beautiful
when time was spent coming to know them more through time engaged in the drawing
activity. ‘That one object can look so different from different viewpoints is amazing.’
For some, changing viewpoints and re-seeing the object again as new was both rewarding
and frustrating. Too many times the object shifted and changed and some found the
background or the case the object was in or the reflections were creating too much visual
information that they were unable to capture.
DRAWING STANDING IN FOR ANOTHER SENSE
A significant opinion voiced was that observational drawing in the presence of the artefact
created a sense of touching the object without actually touching it. Using drawing to gain
understanding about an object was described by a participant as being ‘like touching it with
your fingers through the pencil by drawing the contours of it.’ Another said it was like
13
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
‘seeing with the tip of the pencil.’ One felt drawing allowed them to empathize and relate
more with the object as drawing diminishes ‘boundary between yourself and the object.’
This was almost opposite to the feeling that the more detail was revealed, the further away
the object moved. Interestingly a participant felt, ‘Touching would teach me more about
looking,’ rather than touching teaching them more about the object.
For another participant the activity brought greater awareness of their own presence and
they saw drawing as a useful tool to make ‘complicated philosophical ideas more concrete
and bring them closer to lived experience.’ Similarly another described drawing as giving
them a sense of how the object felt, how it was handled, crafted and assembled but not in
terms of trying to understand its functionality but in the context of its presence. One even
described the activity as a way of changing the nature of an object and how it might be
displayed. Whilst drawing the object it changed from being a purely clinical object that
would usually be shown in this context to being a hand crafted sculptural object of beauty.
She even suggested the investigative workshops might act as a methodology to assist
curatorial decisions concerned with choosing artefacts and how they might be displayed.
Others found the drawing activity had practical research uses and it was described by one
participant as being very useful because they saw it as similar to the process of taking
notes during a lecture. It was the act of taking notes not the notes themselves that
‘embodied whatever subject was being discussed thereby facilitating understanding.’
Two participants found the activity useful as an analytical methodology that they could
incorporate into future studying methods. One went on to say he found it a useful way of
seeing objects and not taking for granted what they looked like. Hidden mysteries and
beauty in them became apparent when he concentrated on observing them closely and
drawing them. Another suggested ‘if it would be possible to study objects or read nonfiction texts in the same concentrated way as in the drawing workshop.’
Of course not all participants agreed. One in particular was frustrated with the limitations of
their own drawing skills and uncomfortable with the silence into which groups naturally fell
during each session as everyone concentrated on the activity. They found the workshop
unsatisfactory explaining that for them, words, discussion and textual description
concerning materiality, mechanism and functionality were far more productive. They
suggested that silence was unnatural in a group activity and suggested that this should be
tested. It was tested in the final workshop and I will describe the impact of this later.
SILENT CONCENTRATION
Drawing was perceived to be a much more tiring and intensive activity than participants
had expected and in general they were tired and hungry after an hour or so of drawing but
also felt time had gone much quicker than they had realized. In all the sessions, a natural,
14
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
concentrated silence gradually descended on the groups and the activity of drawing
became a far more intense and focused activity. This was not imposed upon any of these
groups but the phenomenon became a significant factor. The focus on using drawing to
engage and gain knowledge was sometimes so intense the silence continued for stretches
of 15 or 20 minutes without interruption, as all the participants were so absorbed in the
experience. All the participants agreed that there had been no other occasions when they
spent an hour looking at one object and were surprised at how much energy it took but how
rewarding the experience felt.
FIG. 8. (WORKSHOP DRAWING, ANONYMOUS STUDENT PARTICIPANT IN GROUP 2, 01/12/2010, PENCIL ON PAPER,
29.7CM X 42 CM)
GROUP TWO: STUDENTS
Group two produced the largest amount of drawings. The description here is very brief and I
aim to produce a much more detailed analysis of results from this series of workshops in
the near future.
This group included 6 workshops and participants consisted solely of first year students
from the Medical Engineering BSc programme. The format for the students was quite
didactic; they were divided into three groups and each group spent 15 minutes
investigating a museum object placed on a table. They were also asked to answer three
questions. This task was then repeated until everyone had investigated all three objects.
Each session lasted approximately one hour.
The questions they were asked were:



What the object was and what was its purpose?
What were the materials in this object?
When was it made?
15
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
Objects students encountered included a hearing aid from 1930s, a Heart Mate from the
1980s designed to fit inside the body and act as a temporary heart, an X- ray tube from the
early 1900s and a fracture clamp from the 1920s. Students wrote their answers to the
questions on the back of their drawings.
The students had never encountered any of these medical artefacts before and by their
own admission they would probably have walked past and ignored them if they had not
been required to sit and investigate them. They found some objects far more interesting
than they expected; all admitted they had not sat and looked at a single object for so long
before and thought it was an interesting experience. During the sessions a natural silence
descended and students worked intensely and quietly for most of the time.
The same general categories were applied to these drawings as in the previous groups. In
the ‘inner image’ category students tended to engage with what they imagined or thought
they saw or what the object reminded them of. Some of these were artistically embellished,
mark making was emphasised and additional shadows or imaginary flourishes were added.
Many were stylized and generalised versions of the specific objects in question. The ‘more
is less’ category was lost as students tended not to be concerned with any visual aspects
beyond the scope of their encounter with the object and did not draw the table or sheet the
object was placed upon. It seemed they were seen to be extraneous information and not
relevant to their investigation of the objects. A ‘Fragment or incompletion’ category
described drawings where the student did not draw the entire object and included drawings
where the object was drawn on the extreme edge or corner of the paper and/or was very
small. Some of these were similar to the ‘Inner image’ category as they generalized the
objects but this was due to a lack of visual information rather than the addition of
embellished or imagined visual information. The ‘drawing as a stand in’ category also
included drawings where the object was accompanied by additional text and where the
desire to understand functionality and mechanism were evident in the drawings. Many of
these included directional arrows, labels with label lines and instructional notations.
Analysis of these drawings and the correlations between them and the accuracy of the
answers given to the three questions the students answered about the objects will be
discussed in a future paper.
16
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
FIG. 9 (WORKSHOP DRAWING, ANONYMOUS PARTICIPANT IN GROUP 3, 03/08/2011, PENCIL ON PAPER, 29.7CM X 42
CM)
GROUP THREE: IN DEPTH
The last two workshops, which formed the third group, were slightly different. Participants
in these included practitioners in design, performance art, dance, film, sculpture,
photography and philosophy of art. Despite being from creative backgrounds, almost all
regarded themselves as being non-drawers. In the first of these workshops more
instructions were given to participants than in workshops from group one. They were also
encouraged to write on the back of the drawings. About a week later they were sent the
same email described previously, inviting them to respond to the experience.
In this workshop the participants spent an hour and a half drawing a medical object they
had never seen before. This was a speculum used for gynaecological examinations. One
participant said drawing helped her to really see details she missed and another described
the luxury of slow looking brought about by the activity of drawing, ‘I’d like to slow down
and look properly at the world more often.’ Many in the group responded to the object
through the sensation of touch, ‘feeling’ the object with the pencil and attempting to
understand it and experience it by this slow looking. As most of them were designers,
photographers or performers they were conscious of any limitations of their own drawing
ability. The ritualistic aspects of drawing together and the silence that became part of the
activity were recognised and incorporated into the experience and there was an overall
appreciation of the hand made aspect and the eye and hand coordinating to evidence the
experience of their specific encounters with the object.
The final workshop was the only one not held at Medical Museion. This took place at the
Nordiskt Sommeruniversitet’s (NSU) summer conference in Sweden as part of a workshop
for the artistic research: embodied knowledge study circle. In this, different criteria were set
from previous workshops and I asked participants to try and locate where and when
knowledge was generated during this activity.
17
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
20 people from a broad range of artistic backgrounds made 60 drawings of 3 artefacts I
brought with me from the collections at Medical Museion. None of them were familiar with
any of these objects. They spent around one and a half hours drawing and wrote their
views on the back. A few weeks later they were also invited to respond to the email sent to
previous participants.
They were divided into three groups and each group spent around 15 minutes investigating
a museum object placed on a table. They were also invited to write as much or as little as
they wished on the back of their drawings. This task was then repeated until everyone had
investigated all three objects. Each session lasted approximately one and a half hours.
Most significantly – I requested they all keep talking to each other as much as possible.
The aim of this was to test the view of the one participant who felt silence was an unnatural
and unproductive phenomenon in these workshops.
It became apparent that people had a different understanding of what knowledge they
were seeking and focused on different aspects of the process. Some wanted to understand
the object sensuously and others felt coming to understand it could only occur in terms of
knowing how it worked, what it did, i.e. its functionality. Others who had the opposite
opinion in fact did not want to know how it operated or its mechanism but drew what it felt
like to them or incorporated memories and associations it triggered. In some cases this
understanding took over from the reality of the object observed and its presence was
acknowledged within the boundaries of fantasy. For some, the object was not the focus of
their experience and understanding at all.
One participant felt they did not need to look at the object all the time to engage with it.
They engaged with it when it was reconstructed in their mind, engaged more by
representing more than by trying to understand. Understanding to them meant
knowing ‘how it works.’ For them and a few others it was knowledge of functionality that
mattered, knowing the object’s position in the world. Others used the activity of drawing to
show them greater detail and to help them understand the object better in terms of
functionality.
In some cases the thing that became understood was not the object as such, but the
process of drawing itself and how the participants understood themselves, and their
sensing of the world through this activity. Artists with their own established practice found it
harder to separate understanding of an object and understanding of their own process and
marks being made on the paper. For them, knowledge was embodied in their
understanding of the drawing they were making and its creation rather than in the activity
of drawing leading to greater insight into sensuous understanding of an object. In fact the
element of engaging and coming to know the object was perceived by some as a barrier to
their own aim of focusing on the act of drawing itself.
18
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
INNER IMAGE, IMAGINATION, MEMORY, ASSOCIATION
One group of participants were not interested in functionality at all and found the activity of
drawing involved using their imagination and associations. Although they were not drawing
a copy of this mental image of the object held in their imagination in the same way as the
participant in Group one described earlier, they sensed and responded to the object within
the framework of their associations with it, and through this method their knowledge of it
grew. In this way they felt the object became part of them and their focus shifted from the
actual object to the drawing. The activity of drawing and the drawing itself became the
centre of their experience. ‘I wanted to be in the act of drawing and use my senses, also
the eyes, as tools.’
In many ways the activity of drawing could be seen as a catalyst. It acted as a method for
remembering and communicating back and forth between drawer and object. It was also a
method for perceiving and sensing the world around us and embodied our awareness of
our own presence. For some, the activity was the sole focus of experience and
understanding and for others it allowed them to see more detail and know the object more
deeply. Others found the activity got in the way of understanding the object’s functionality
as they saw it in their own mind’s eye, and others found this knowledge got in the way of
the drawing as a noun. The activity was also seen to trigger imagination, associations and
memories. One participant said, ‘For me it’s impossible to separate imagination from
perception.’
For these participants objects were seen, understood and drawn as sewing machines,
dragons and instruments of torture and sensual associations with childhood. One enjoyed
imagining all the objects as animals and was disturbed how the activity of drawing brought
her back, unwillingly, to the object.
MORE IS LESS
The role of drawing was understood by one participant to be about the involvement of
marks and lines documenting the journey taken of coming to understand the object as a
series of spaces in between lines. Another found that the experience changed their
relationship to drawing by shifting the emphasis from expected outcomes to the activity
itself, making them more aware of the act of looking. Conversely it also forced them to
engage with objects and they were not always comfortable with this, ‘Instead of just
passing them by I had to engage with them. That wasn't always what I wanted to
do: suddenly these foreign objects got so close, closer than was comfortable.’
This lead to a paradox as they felt the more knowledge they gained through the activity of
drawing, the more it got in the way of the drawings and continued, ‘The more details I saw
the more incomprehensible the objects seemed to become, almost as if in opening their
19
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
details to me they were at the same time withdrawing away from me.’ Another participant
had a similar experience describing how things seen became lost when putting pencil to
paper. These feelings were summarized by a participant who wrote ‘I feel that to try to
understand the object gets in the way of drawing it.’
DRAWING STANDING IN FOR ANOTHER SENSE
Many in this group were performance artists, dancers and actors all of whom use their
bodies to understand and express themselves. For these members of the group
particularly, the drawing activity touched upon their own notions of ways to sense and
articulate the world around them and was perceived in terms of the body’s interaction with
the space around us. The moving arm and pencil were seen as extensions of this.
Drawing was also referred to as being almost like touching and in a similar way to a
participant from Group one who described the activity as ‘seeing through the tip of a
pencil,’ it was described as ‘feeling with the eyes.’ For another participant drawing was
seen to be an activity that went beyond the delimitations of their own body and time, ‘I
sometimes stopped with the pencil on the paper waiting for the object to continue to be
‘drawn’.’ For some, the drawing activity was seen to go beyond boundaries and bring the
object closer to them. When looking at the object, one participant described the object as
looking back at them and drawing triggered their imagining the hand that had once held it.
Another described how drawing took her back to sensing the world. She felt that a dialogue
developed through the process where the object even talked back to her. Similarly another
claimed drawing brought about awareness of their own presence.
The activity of drawing for some was seen as a way to capture, own or control the objects.
The activity was difficult for all but rewarding for those who felt they were successful and
very frustrating when they felt they had failed. ‘I’ve engaged with the objects, but suffered
by my lack of capturing it through the extension of a pencil.’ They felt the life of the object
was ‘kinaesthetically touching’ them, but their frustration was similar to several others as
they claimed they perceived the object, engaged with it but could not capture it. This aspect
raised the question does making a ‘bad’ drawing mean you didn’t ‘see’ the object properly?
A participant who felt this keenly, claimed they related to objects more through their
associations with them than through the activity of drawing because it was so difficult for
them to draw and they was frustrated by what they described as, ‘The gap between what I
see and what I had drawn on the paper.’
SILENT CONCENTRATION
To test the relevance of the phenomenon of silence during these workshops, I instructed
participants to talk during this final session. This proved difficult as without continual
20
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
prompting from me a silence descended and although it became clear that my request for
conversation was unwanted I repeated the instruction throughout the workshop.
All agreed that talking was unwanted and unnatural component and for some it made the
investigative drawing process very difficult. One described the problem. ‘Talking whilst
drawing feels unnatural- even fake – to me, that’s why I’m not doing it. It feels like
performing or pretending to talk, not real conversation.’
Another claimed, ‘It was difficult for me to sit and chat with the others. It disturbed my
concentration and after a while I therefore didn't obey this instruction.’
One found the act of talking so intrusive, ‘It actually distracts from the act of drawing….One
of the things that I love about drawing is the silence.’ Another participant, a dancer saw the
drawing activity as relating to dance and the value of silence. ‘This articulating vision
through movement - not through words, brings a strange mute understanding to the fore
that is familiar to me from dancing and often seems to make silent, even unable to speak.’
The evidence therefore points to silence being a natural occurring and necessary part of
the concentration needed when engaged in observational drawing and conversation is not
usually welcomed. For me, the broken silence breaks the relationship that has developed
between viewer and object. The object deserves our undivided attention and it is
disrespectful to break that concentrated connection.
DISCUSSION
The initial aim of my research was to investigate if the activity of drawing as a method of
gaining understanding. The final workshop centred on asking how and where this
happened. However, instead of answering these questions the workshop created an
environment where different participants wanted to understand different things in different
ways. It was only later when analysing the drawings and responses I realized that whilst I
had the opinion the object and my experience of my encounter with the object were bound
up together, this was not the same experience for everyone.
My assumptions were that generated and embodied knowledge would be directed at the
objects and the experiences of participants’ encounters with these objects. These were not
the intentions of participants. For some the object could only be understood through
finding out its functionality and purpose. Others had no interest in this, and only
understood the object in terms of their feeling, imagination, memories and associations.
For some the process of trying to understand the object in fact got in the way of their
objective, which was to understand their drawings and the process of their drawing.
The new questions that arose no longer asked IF knowledge is generated/embodied in the
drawing activity, but asked WHAT knowledge is it that was being sought or found and how.
21
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
For some, gaining an understanding of the functionality of an object was their aim and
defined their knowledge of an artefact. For others it was a far more sensual experiencing of
a phenomenon that defined their understanding. In the last groups a split became evident
and participants were divided about WHERE knowledge was generated. For some the
information and knowledge gained was concerned with understanding their own practice
and for others it was of the world around them.
The activity of looking and drawing requires a commitment to time, needs focus and
concentration. We always bring our own experiences and limitations to bear on every
unique encounter. Whilst it is a simple idea in reality drawing is not always an easy
endeavour. That the activity of drawing embodies and generates knowledge of some kind
has been shown in this paper but the questions that arise revolve around what kind of
knowledge this is, and where and how it is generated. If drawing as a phenomenological
activity can be shown to bring further insight by us ‘drawing our way into understanding’
then the question must be asked, understanding of what?
REFERENCES
Bailey, G. H. (1982). Drawing and the Drawing Activity: a phenomenological investigation. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of London.
Carswell, R. (25 June, 1831). [Letter]. Held at University College London Special Collections.
Carswell, R. (1838). Pathological Anatomy. Illustrations of the Elementary Forms of Disease. London:
Longman Orme Brown Green and Longman.
Cohen, D. J. (2005). Look little, look often: The influence of gaze frequency on drawing accuracy. Perception &
Psychophysics. 67 (6), 997-1009
Edwards, B. W. (1992). Understanding Architecture Through Drawing. (1944 ed.) London: E & F N Spon.
Gillions, J. (2008). Review. Hunterian Museum Exhibits drawings of rare disease. Retrieved 5 October, 2008
from http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/exh_gjx_en/ART61332.html
Hales, A. (2008). Review. Interface, a-n website. Retrieved 10 September, 2008 from http://www.an.co.uk/interface/reviews/single/462218
Jannoff, H. B., Tabas, J. A., Shore, E. M., Muenke, M., Dalinka, M. K., Schlesinger, S., Zasloff M. A. & Kaplan F.
S. (1995). Mild Expression of Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva: A report of 3 cases. Journal of
Rheumatology, 22, 976-8.
Kaplan, F. S., McCluskey, W., Hahn, G., Tabas, J. A., Muenke, M. & Zasloff, M. A. (1993). Genetic Transmission
of Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery America, 75A(8),
1214-1220.
MacDonald, Juliet (2010) Drawing around the body: the manual and visual practice of drawing and the
embodiment of knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1992). Smith, C. (trans.). Phenomenology of Perception, (1962 ed.). Routledge & Kegan
22
TRACEY | journal: Drawing Knowledge 2012
Paul Ltd.
Midgley, J. (2010). Drawing Lives-Reportage at work. Studies in Material Thinking, (4). Retrieved 5
September, 2011 from http://www.materialthinking.org/papers/12
Moran, D. (2004). Introduction to Phenomenology. Routledge.
Petherbridge, D. The Primacy of Drawing: Histories and Theories of Practice, 2010, Yale University Press, New
Haven & London
Rawson, P. (1987). Drawing. (4th ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wallace, M. (2008). Crossing Over and Delineating Disease. Review. BMJ Medical Humanities, 34:115-116
23