A Popular Misconception about Drawing

Sometimes when I sit down to draw from imagination, non-artist friends typically ask me how I’m doing that. “Do you first imagine the picture and then draw it?” My answer is “yes and no” most times. It’s because I don’t want to be bothered with getting into explaining how perception works and how messed up we all are in terms of understanding this. Well, I want to explain it now, if you’d like to listen.

When someone asks me if I first think of the image that I want to draw, the answer is obviously NO. I know the theme of my drawing. I know if I want to draw a bear, a pear or a group of zombies. What I don’t quite know is how exactly it will turn out. I discover specific detailing as I go along and in this sense I don’t know what I’m drawing. This is a process of finding the lines, features and specific characteristics as I go along. I think this is a process of years of looking at drawings, paintings and the like and constantly trying out different ways of making marks on paper.

And yet, this illusion that the artist first visualises before he draws affects me too. When I see one of my idols drawing I cannot help but form the thought “How is he doing this?”. It’s almost a reflex. Why does this happen.Why are we so convinced that every action is preceded by a cognizable thought that primes action? I know this seems correct in the face of everyday logic but it’s actually very idiotic.

Here’s an example. Let’s say that I need to start a sketch. To do a decent sketch perhaps I have to have a decent plan. A stupid plan will result in a stupid sketch right? But then a decent plan to be decent should have a decent plan. If you follow this train of thought you’ll see that it is endlessly recursive. plans to plan more plans. That can’t be right. What’s happening here?

Habituation to a certain kind of knowledge.

I run into a lot of auto-rickshaw drivers who consider themselves philosophers on life. The varied cultural and relegious backgrounds that they come from makes for very interesting theories on their part.  A Christian driver for instance once gave me an ‘intelligent design‘ pamphlet and explained to me how modern science is corroborating God’s plan for earth and so on. No matter how much I try to explain the logical absurdities in the watchmaker‘s argument, he just didn’t get it. His world-view is limited to his knowledge of the world around him. His habituation to thinking in a certain way leads to logical errors in other aspects of life!

Coming back to our theme, this way of dividing the human system into two is largely attributed to the writings of Descartes. His idea that man is composed of two separate systems – mind and body, suited the Church well since they too propagated the concept of a soul apart from the body. Science at the time heavily under the patronage of the church has used this widely and it has stuck right down to the modern day thanks to it’s inclusion into psychology and later, pop-psychology books that were easily available to lay readers.

Even today I can hear my friends say things like this…

• “I can hear it in my head”
• ” It’s a all just mind over matter…”
• “It’s all in the mind”
• “I’m ok, but my mind is messed up”
• “I do it better in my head” … etc

My friends actually think that there are two different domains that we live in. One is the physical world and the other some sort of strange, ethereal and intangible dream world to which only the individual has access. The body and the mind – so to speak. I even see advertisements with this dualistic thought. “Heal your mind”. or “Heal your soul.” (How about simply “Heal yourself!”) There are even programs that teach Mind management or Mind and body training etc.

This is crazy!

The human system is one beautifully integrated organism. There is no need for this unnecessary duality in our description of everyday life. I don’t need to say that “My mind is wandering”, when I can say “I cannot concentrate”. This sort of talk merely reinforces this habituation to a certain kind of knowledge. Which ultimately leads to errors in logic in daily life.

The Benefits of kicking the habit

For one, you’d be in the modern world. Science has long established that localised parts of the brain are at work when we conduct specific daily activities. That is, certain parts of our brains control balance, sight, hearing, ability to use language etc. The only big question left in most researcher’s minds are the workings of conciousness. It is impossible to localise. Still, they are able to detect electrical and neuronal activity in the brain when subjects are asked to think, and this more than proves we are one integrated unit.

What we tend to call the MIND, is nothing more than ourselves. The mind is just a  framework that is created when the human system is at work. There is no concrete, tangible, solid thing called a MIND that exists by itself. I’ve tried to explain this Elsewhere (last para), soI won’t repeat myself.The point is, there is no such thing as a MIND. Using the word MIND in any solid sense is to commit a mistake.

This is what Gilbert Ryle calls a category mistake. We assume that the mind is in the same category as brain, hand or intestinal juices. It’s like telling someone that Pencil Jam is a sketch club, so they come over, meet us and say “I’ve seen the members, the sketchers and the sketching. But where the heck is the club!!”  He doesn’t understand that a club is nothing more than a few people coming together to sketch. His mistake is that he’s putting the meaning of the word CLUB alongside the meaning of the words the MEMBERS, and SKETCHES. It’s a categorisation mistake.

Any sane person would avoid committing a mistake if he knew he is about to make one. In the long run, slowly training yourself to avoid making this mistake results in a more holistic picture of what you really are. This brings about an entirely new view of life and soon you cannot relate to mopes, manic depressives and other people who tend to view their minds as some sort of rich landscape where they nurture their emotions or some such.

When you practise non-dual thinking what results is some sort of spontaneity that is difficult to describe.The system reacts to any situation as and when something interfaces with it. And there doesn’t seem to be any baggage or carry over from one situation to the next since what we call the mind is nothing but a framework that morphs from one situation to another in a fluid manner. I get a sense of it from watching my friends deal with life. I know that my way of life is a bit different from the normative ones because of common sense observations from people that I interact with.

What this insight has done to me as an artist is very nice. I cannot seem to look at my work uni-dimensionally. I find myself creating in multiple media, and in different specialisations all at once. Things don’t seem that much different from each other. Everything seems interesting. I’m not saying I’m a better artist because of  practising non-dual thinking. Just a happier one, I think.

We are a marvellous synthesis of various processes coming together to form one organism. There is no need to create a wedge within ourselves and creating more baggage in the process. What we are is a spontaneous response to our environment.

So,um… what is the popular misconception about drawing then?

Oh that! The misconception is that you think you are putting down on paper what is in the mind. There is no such thing. When you are drawing you are quite simply creating spontaneously. There is no separate world where an image is first created and then replicated in this world etc. (Unless you’re drawing Mickey Mouse in a specific pose from memory) Thinking and acting is one integrated process. Which is why we have an entire category of posts on this blog called Drawing-Seeing.

So. This was a long post,but if you stuck with me to the end, you know why this insight is useful. Also, don’t just take my word for it. Please do your own research on this until you’re satisfied. Here are some authors who have a similar notion, if somewhat differently flavoured depending on context.

Further Reading

• The Concept of Mind – Gilbert Ryle
• Art and Visual Perception – Rudolph Arnheim
• The Yogasutras – Patanjali
• Art and Physics – Leonard Shlain
• Tripura Rahasya – Unknown Author
• Phantoms in the Brain – V.Ramachandran