Argument for Drawing

I have nothing against the medium of photography the above Adams photograph is obviously a great one. I still think most painting that employs photography is less for it's use. Photography though as a medium uses it's strengths to it's advantage. 

Just that I have to explain this points to the problem. I am thinking here mostly of landscape based painting. And these remarks are in relation to what we or I am now calling Earth concern. This I mean in light of the realization that our environment is in trouble.

Painting employs abstract principles which may be difficult but are learned or maybe it does seem somewhat just used to be natural. Photography has helped hasten the forgetting of these feelings.

One used to learn these principles of drawing by drawing the figure. One has a piece of paper. One makes a stance on ones feet which is balanced and in relation to the figure in front of one. One makes a mark on the paper and has a felt relation to the paper's reality and to the figures presence.

One could say the artist has ones feet planted in the Earth.

Out in the landscape drawing, this is obvious. A click of the camera's shutter is different.

I'm trying to say that I think drawing could save the Earth. I'm saying that this level of felt experience teaches one to make the right decisions.

I think photography is a surface of non differentiated grid orientation, and hastens commercial considerations of reality.

Finally what has always been called Art is arranged in a heirarchy of Philosophy, and Poerty vying as our highest human aspiration. I'm saying drawing is that important as to what art has been.

These last two sentences still need some illumination:

How has photography really made any of these points better in our awareness to our world?


Drawing is a better language for the understanding of Reality.