Talk:Drawing

Definitions
This encyclopedia article on drawing ignores the practice of entopic graphomania (in which dots are made at the sites of impurities or shifts in colour in a blank sheet of paper), in which the "subject" of the drawing is neither what is seen before the eyes nor what is in the imagination but what is in the actual drawing surface itself. --Daniel C. Boyer

Should include something about automatic drawing. --Daniel C. Boyer
 * Resolved both problems. --Daniel C. Boyer

There is a question about how or whether to deal with the question of movement of liquid down a vertical surface (when done in ink) in this article. --Daniel C. Boyer

The definition of painting is given in painting. If it is repeated here, how do we keep track of changes or change it automatically? Also I agree with Boyer about the restrictive definitions given here. They set distinctions that ignore many techniques. For example, saying that drawing does not allow pre-mixing of colour is restrictive as it is quite easy to mix colours and draw with the mix. This could also imply that Seurat was making drawings and not paintings. So the definitions for painting and drawing have to be consistent. They could also be the same, coudn't they? Drawing and painting are both the application of colour to a surface, generally. Examples might let the reader decide his/her own interpretation for fringe cases. The Da Vinci drawing on that pas is clearly a drawing. But for example, many painters will start a painting by making a "drawing" of the subject. When does it stop being a "drawing"? I have changed the definition of painting to make it more general. I will wait and see if the modified definition holds and then try to refine the definition here.Rawbear 10:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the definition is repeated in the Media section: "The medium is the means by which ink, pigment, or color are delivered onto the drawing surface". Also, why specify that ink and pigment can be delivered? It is all about the application (or delivery) of colour to a surface. Then, this is that same as painting...


 * Ink, pigment and the drawing surface *are* the media. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

-- Presently, Drawing is defined as a "method". I don't see that. Drawing can be a verb (to draw) or a noun (a drawing). How is it a "method"? Furthermore, last night I made a very radical edit of the article, making the point that to draw means to deliniate a shape. This is an important concept, but I don't see it mentioned in the article. I'm new to Wikipedia editing processes, so I'll sit back and see if my comments get feedback.

I saw the change to "deliniate a shape". This might be a restrictive definition: you can fill a shape with colour without ever defining the edge. On the other hand, although everyone has a pretty good idea of what a drawing is, keeping only one definition might be the restrictive option. Hence, your change is valid, but I'm thinking of adding to it. I am beginning to see drawing the same way I see painting: the application of colour to a surface (including black, as in graphite and ink, of course). Only the tools change. Rawbear 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Painting are drawing are in that way synonymous. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- The edit to suggest that a drawing delineates a figure is far too narrow and prescriptive. Drawings are not only made with lines; drawings do not only record figures. Drawing (verb) is the act of making marks on a surface which creates a visual image of a form or a shape which is called a drawing (noun). I am changing the introduction to agree with people above who have also identified that this article fail to make distinction between the noun and verb use of "drawing". Cosmopolitancats 10:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ---

Would a link to the website be relevant? Kaydrawing 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) September 2007


 * There are a million websites like this, no need to link one, everyone has google. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Drawing techniques
A section on drawing techniques has been included and some reorganization performed. However there is much more that can be added and improved in that part, espectially in the artistry section (such as on the topic of composition). &mdash; RJH 15:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that the topic of composition is substantial enough to require an article in its own right - as indeed it already has. A link to composition (visual arts) would be appropriate - although that topic could do with more work. Cosmopolitancats 10:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there needs to be a lot more on art techniques on wikipedia. E.g. Not even a mention of gesture, really/wtf? 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Graphics is currently nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you want to contribute.--Fenice 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed Kurt Vonnegut from the list of notable artists. Too early to say anything about that, to say the least. Too contrast, perhaps some more emphasis on less "academic", more free, less focussed on technical details, forms of drawing may be required.

Can you please identify yourself when you make a change.

I disagree about less emphasis on the academic. I do agree that it should include more reference to contemporary developments. This whole article lacks adequate coverage of drawing as an important form of visual expression in art history and identification of different forms of drawings and approaches to drawing - over and above the pure techniques for making marks on paper.

An article on drawing techniques might be required which links to this page.

See below - I've referred this article for review. Cosmopolitancats 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of articles with a meta-page is probably in order. There are a few art technique articles already up, but they are no where linked together. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.

______

The current article focuses on some aspects drawing process but in my opinion clearly does not meet the criteria to be listed as a good article. This is a very large topic which is inadequately covered at present.
 * its focus is far too narrow eg
 * no reference to the history of drawing, the changes in the importance of drawing over time and
 * no reference to the different types of drawing and different approaches to drawing (over and above techniques for mark-making)
 * no commentary on draftsmen (but maybe this should be a different article which should then be linked here)
 * no reference to drawing societies
 * no reference to important academic sources re drawing
 * no reference to important collections of drawings
 * no reference to contemporary developments
 * Failure to cite important references and quite a lot of opinion being expressed
 * it fails to make links to all other relevant parts of wikipedia

Some thought needs to be given to how information can be organised and what might be more appropriately contained in a related article (eg drawing techniques). I'll come back and keep working on this but would appreciate more input from people with a good knowledge of drawing from a fine art/history of art perspective.

I've put this article up for review to address the issues identified above. Cosmopolitancats 11:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) _____


 * Good feedback. Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"no reference to important academic sources re drawing" There doesn't really exist many/any important academic sourses re drawing, but this would be a good idea if there were. "no reference to drawing societies" These have very little influence anymore, but they would be worth mentioning in a historical section. "Failure to cite important references and quite a lot of opinion being expressed" True enough, but we're going to be hard pressed to cite a lot of this very well, most drawing information seems to be passed down through an oral/visual tradition. There is not a lot of writing going on. "what might be more appropriately contained in a related article (eg drawing techniques)." Drawing techniques deserve articles. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense. There is a huge academic literature on drawing. But this conversation was in 2007, & the article long demoted, rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to other parts of Wikipedia
I've included links to Sketch (visual drawing) and sketchbook in the reference section. the latter now includes links to online versions on the sketchbooks of famous artists Cosmopolitancats 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On further investigation it would appear that most people, like me, are not aware that there is
 * a Drawing Category
 * a number of sub-drawing categories
 * a large number of individual pages devoted to drawing topics

As a structure for this broad topic area has already been established I therefore propose to review the existing article and move quite a lot of existing text to more specialist pages as I believe it has been inserted here in ignorance of what exists elsewhere already. I will first establish a plan for movement of text and proceed with this if there are no other comments.

I have made a start by inserting a link to the Category where ther sub-categories and drawing pages are listed at the top of this artcile.

Please do not add any more text to this page without first consulting the Drawing Category / sub-categories and all other Drawing pages  Cosmopolitancats 06:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Subject
I'm afraid the assertion that most drawings are representational demonstrates an ignorance of developments in contemporary drawings and of the practice of some artists in the past. This section needs to be revised and I'll have a go on my next visit Cosmopolitancats 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Computer software
A couple of online drawing communities have been added to the computer software section without any discussion on this page. first they should not appear in this section - they are not software. Second if an article on drawing communities is required to support this main article it needs to be drafted. Third - the request not to add any more text until we've thought about how best to restructure this page was ignored.

I propose to delete the online drawing communities on my next visit - but retain a note of them on this page - until a new article is proposed and drafted unless there are any dissenting voices. If you don't agree can you suggest what would be a more appropriate treatment bearing in mind there are a lot more online drawing communities than the ones listed.Cosmopolitancats 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

wiki drawing tools
Looking for web sites that allow people to draw via the browser to a wiki. Please ping me or post same.--DennisDaniels (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The computer drawing option
Last sentence in Materials section reads "A new tool for drawing is the computer's 'drawing option'." Sounds like the result of mistranslation or unfamiliarity with computer technology. Suggest removal or expansion/clarification. 71.195.58.112 07:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits, all coming from IPs in the same area, have introduced trivia, non-notable references to a gallery and brand of pen, and non-encyclopedic links (blogs, porn site). I have twice reverted the information which I believe compromised the encyclopedic content, explained so in my edit summaries, and twice been reverted by said IPs--multiple IPs can operate in unison w/o breaking the 3 revert rule. JNW 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - admins please watch! Johnbod 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags have been placed re: external links and poor and irrelevant examples. A review of IP edits from October 13 and 14 reveal the edits of concern. JNW 04:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition: drawing vs. painting
I have a problem with this paragraph:

"Drawing is distinct from painting. The techniques of "drawing" and "painting" can be confused, because similar tools can perform both tasks; the operations are distinct in that painting involves the application of pigments, usually by means of a brush, onto cloth or prepared surfaces, whereas drawing is generally concerned with the marking of lines onto paper."

I believe that over-emphasizes differences in the support material. It's just as easy to find someone drawing on canvas as painting on paper.

Not sure how to define this better. Some differences suggest themselves, such as between line vs mass, monochrome (or very limited palette) vs color, "traditional" drawing media vs, well, paint, and so forth. I don't want to just jump in and rewrite the thing without a whole lot better idea of it... comments? __Just plain Bill 07:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One of those instances where the more you try to define the differences, the more exceptions come to mind; I wonder if the distinctions made in the paragraph, while generally true, are even necessary. Line and mass are both properties of drawing; monochrom(ism?) is a more appropriate, but inadequate, description. I will look at this when I have more time. Passages that can still be trimmed are those on 'police sketch artists' and 'incredible nib' pens--of little or no relevance here. Good work! JNW 12:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fluid nature of paint, and use of brushes, vs the solid nature of the pigments in drawing (unless in ink), has to be the distinction. Gouache is in the middle, but on the drawing side I think.  Of course many Western drawings are worked over with wash, using a brush; similar Chinese works would be described as brush-paintings. Johnbod 13:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, guys, thanks! I intend to let this one simmer for a little while & see what we come up with... ___Just plain Bill 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Teaching figure drawing and figure painting, I've long been conscious of the distinctions. But these seem to be an issue primarily in the West; Asian art has long drawn (pun not intended) little distinction between drawing and painting. It is in the Western culture that drawing functions both as preparatory instrument and as an end in itself. If this is not already in the article, I can add something along these lines, with cites...time permitting. Today I'm teaching. JNW 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll throw something together while I'm still on a roll here. Feel free to gut it and start over, if need be. I won't be able to supply cites; more of a writer, musician and handyman here. As far as graphic arts go, I is more of a dilettante with some interest and atelier exposure. __Just plain Bill 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
Here a couple dozen images from Wikimedia Commons, in no particular order. I'm thinking of putting a gallery towards the end of the article, before the Notes section. Some of these are, in fact engravings or plates from books, originating from a drawn source... __Just plain Bill 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the Commons, which is indeed a mess. Only actual photos of drawings belong here, and good quality ones (well reproduced I mean). But we certainly need more images in the article. Ones to illustrate the main media etc. As always the detail info texts on the Commons pics are awful. Johnbod 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice to go for quality images, I agree. Finding that in free images may take some time, and meanwhile I could see putting up a handful of these as examples. Nothing in the current rev. of the wikipedia is graven in stone, and if better images come along, they can go in the gallery instead. If we're lucky, keeping the gallery from getting bloated will be fun... __Just plain Bill 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Masters of Drawing
Masters of Drawing changed to Notable Draftsmen. Calling these people Masters of Drawing is highly POV, especially when it does so for artists who are often thought to be pretty poor draftsmen. E.g. Pascin (http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/stevenskf/.mids/pasc2.jpg), and Van Gogh, (http://www.vggallery.com/drawings/jh_0155.jpg). 38.112.4.154 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they & others could just be removed from the list frankly. Pascin was more a famous character who drew really. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Draftsman vs. Draughtsman
This article was very inconsistent in its use of these terms. As debates over national variations are discouraged per WP:ENGVAR, I edited the article to consistently use the American form "draftsman/men" over "draughtsman/men" due to the fact that the former appears 8 times and the latter 4. The same policy discourages changes from one to the other arbitrarily but calls for consistency within an article. Since this article is not particularly related to either a US or UK context, I went with the term that appeared more commonly and wanted to leave a note regarding that choice. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Article illustrations
I would like a more thoughtful set of illustrations for this article. Some considerations:

Is there an illustration for drawing in antiquity, since drawing is mentioned as one of the most common arts? Are there ancient cave drawings which could be shown, for example?

Are various media adequately represented? Currently we have Rembrandt's (reed?) pen and wash, Toulouse pen and ink, Masson ink on paper, da Vinci (self-portrait) line drawing in sanguine (chalk), an Ingres (graphite?) pencil portrait, a computer rendering of two-point perspective, a Bouguereau drawing with black and white chalk or crayon, and one by a drawing machine using biros or Indian ink (according to Desmond Paul Henry).

Are various subjects adequately represented? Out of these eight drawings, four are human figures or faces, a fifth is an animal, six and seven are abstract, and the eighth is diagrammatic. There are no landscapes, architecture (besides the perspective diagram and the faint background of the Ingres portrait), still-lifes or regular decorative patterns. There are no representational drawings in a non-realistic (e.g., cartoon-like or anything drawn by a young child) style.

Besides all this, the illustrations have little direct connection with the textual content of the article.

Any help finding and placing more appropriate illustrations would be welcome. The captions of the existing images could also be improved to mention the media with which each was made. Hastyreader (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that an IP user restored the Herbert Wetterauer image I removed (in my judgment it was the least interesting and notable of the portraits, and too similar to the Rembrandt in technique), there are five human figures or faces.

One thing I am having difficulty with is the scope of this article. Should it be limited to drawing in the Western fine art tradition or artistic movements, or is it supposed to encompass all drawing anywhere? (e.g. Chinese or Japanese brush painting and calligraphy) The current definition in relation to mark-making, with no qualifications as to being visually representative or aesthetically pleasing. I believe that's part of why this article has languished so long: it is trying to cover too many things which are related but don't really fall belong together in a single topic.

Architecture: Ingres et al. were sent to Rome to draw various classical ruins. There should be a suitable image of architecture somewhere in these returned school assignments.

Landscapes: Rembrandt drew landscapes, though he's already represented with the lion; Wenzel Hollar did some watercolor landscapes which are in the Chatsworth collection (or were when Old Master Drawings from Chatsworth was published); Paulus Bril did at least one Roman landscape, according to my notes.

Studies: there are no images of studies in this article, but there should be numerous usable ones of anatomy and drapery by da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.

Still-lifes, decorations, caricatures: Not sure where to look. Dore was excellent, but how many of his drawings have survived apart from finished engravings? Hastyreader (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Persistent inclusion of minor drawing
This appears to reflect the desire of a single account, a dedication to retaining a minor drawing by a contemporary artist of marginal note. Let's add relevant examples by significant artists. Further thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Brush. I smell a WP:COI agenda. JNW (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too - removed from brush. still on about 25 language versions for Heidegger, & on lots of German articles though. Keep on keeping on J!! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JB. I'm away from home and checking in on an IPhone, so my abilities are limited. This looks like a determined long-term effort that might require more attention. There was also a prolonged discussion at the Heidegger page, but the rationale for removal there wasn't trenchant. JNW (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

suggestion..
Might it be better for such a general term with so many meanings to be the title of the disambiguation page (Drawing (disambiguation)) - then when people make links, they will be alerted to check; the links have more value in confirming the actual context that was meant. (drawing.. technical drawing.. drawing in CG.. drawing dividends etc). 86.176.242.250 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Boundary-pushing
In reading the article’s statements regarding the world-renowned, notable draftsman Jean-Michel Basquiat, who produced over 1500 drawings, I was puzzled by the following question: in exactly what way did he "push" the so-called "boundaries" of drawing? Also, is this unusual assertion someone's subjective opinion or is it an objective fact?173.72.115.153 (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)De Mikeal Tibbetts
 * I don't see anything specifically about boundary-pushing in the article on Jean-Michel Basquiat, so I will remove it from this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Drawing for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Drawing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drawing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)