About
In 1973, Vija Celmins painstakingly produced Galaxy #1 (Coma Berenices). A
velvety drawing of a remote constellation, with white patches registering as
blurred stars amid dense graphite marking, it packs a considerable amount of
cosmological grandeur onto such a small piece of paper. The Latvian-born Celmins
is concerned with changeable surfaces: she has made similarly meticulous drawings
of rippling oceans and dewy spiders’ webs, for example. But her art also testifies
to the power of drawing. What may be thought of as a modest medium is capable
of enfolding, and evoking, the farthest fields of space. And the diversity
of ways that artists have used drawing, particularly since the mid-twentieth
century, suggests something similar: that drawing is not a minor supplement
to painting and sculpture, but a significant art form in its own right.
Drawing is often associated with spontaneity and free expression, and the practices
of Abstract Expressionists such as Franz Kline in the 1940s and 50s and, in
a more lyrical vein, Helen Frankenthaler in the 1960s, would appear to confirm
that view. Early admirers of Abstract Expressionism argued that the gestural
mark, as a real-time record of the artist’s innermost feelings, was what counted.
In retrospect, Kline’s canvases have been revealed as less impulsive than originally
thought: he enlarged details of sketches on a Bell-Opticon projector, copying
them to get his speedy-looking strokes. But, myth-deflating aside, Kline’s
deft and vigorous Study for Black & White #1 (1952) and Frankenthaler’s
delicate Untitled (1961) seem to combine the energy of drawing and
the gravity of painting. Such works tap into an ancient impulse: the human
passion for mark-making.
Drawing is also, of course, a representational medium: a supremely flexible
vehicle for the recording of physical characteristics and responding to the
world. The American artist Philip Guston was vilified by his fellow Abstract
Expressionists when, instead of his acclaimed gauzy abstract paintings, he
returned to depicting what he called ‘tangible things’. His sometimes brutal,
cartoonish figures show an artist seeking ‘impurity’, and are as attuned to
newspaper comic strips as to the history of art. Guston’s Artist in His
Studio (1969) shows himself as a hooded Ku Klux Klansman labouring on
a self-portrait. The medium – charcoal – lends the image a particularly fragile,
nervous and confessional quality.
The idea of drawing as a transmission direct from the unconscious, implicit
in Guston, is made even more apparent in the German neo-Expressionism of artists
such as Walter Dahn, Markus Lüpertz and Georg Baselitz. The latter’s pen-and-ink
drawing Peitschenfrau (Whip Woman) (1964) is a deliberately
grotesque vision of humanity’s depravity and carnal urges. A year previously,
Baselitz’s first public solo exhibition, in Berlin, sparked a public scandal
over its sexual explicitness. The obscured half-human, half-animal portrait
in Rosemarie Trockel’s gouache Untitled (1983) is a complex of narcissism
and shame that anticipates her career-long interests in human attitudes to
the sexual divide and our relationships to animals. But it is enigmatic and,
like the Baselitz drawing, almost feels to have sped past the artist’s own
mental gatekeepers.
By contrast, and highlighting its ostensibly humble status, drawing can also
be a vehicle for understatement and calm restraint: mark-making as meditative
act. One sees this in American minimalist and post-minimalist art, such as
Brice Marden’s striped graphite rectangle, Untitled (1971). And, as
many of these works suggest, it is an intimate, private medium that can enable
a slowly achieved precision in the rendering of reality. In Chuck Close’s pseudo-pixilated Self
Portrait (1995), a shimmering image of the artist is patiently built up
point-by-point on a cellular grid. The characteristic use of loose circles
is due to the fact that, since becoming quadriplegic due to a spinal artery
collapse in 1988, Close now holds the drawing implement between his teeth.
Other artists look both backwards and forwards in time – at what drawing has
been, and what it might be now. The American painter John Currin, whose canvases
flaunt their fine draughtsmanship, appears in his drawings to look back to
the Old Masters for tips on technique. Yet his subject matter is resolutely
contemporary. The headless man being admired for his well-tailored apparel
in New Suit (1995) shows the artist’s concern with social convention.
In his droll works on paper from 1970-74, Ed Ruscha displays a restlessness
with the strictures of drawing, using materials such as blood, egg yolk, ketchup
and the liqueur Fernet Branca. In Coiled Paper (1973), made with gunpowder,
he calls attention to the materials of drawing itself.
Since the mid-1990s, artists such as the Californian Jim Shaw have made drawing
their primary means of expression. Another example is the young British artist
Charles Avery, who is possessed of a potent line and a runaway imagination
devoted to making a complex, character-filled imaginary world as real as possible.
This most venerable of cultural activities has proved equal to speaking for
our strongest and subtlest emotions, our need to represent reality and to transcend
it, our desire to mingle these various registers in a myriad of ways. Drawing,
it might be said, is the star that never burns out.
Text by Martin Herbert

Jenny Holzer From the Living Series,
Bench #16 1980-2
© ARS,
NY and DACS, London 2007
Enlarge