‘Feeding the hand’ I like that idea. It’s like we’re not even using sight, which is for obvious reasons generally so important to the visual arts, but we’re empowering our hand with a way of being. Or we’re empowering ourselves by means of a concentration upon the being of the hand.
Interesting also to think of drawing as being a kind of link between the hand and eye, like — these are linked biologically in a person obviously– but maybe they are also linked through art — like the hand-pen-paper-eye is a solid connection in the way that the nervous system, or other tissues and networks of the body, are a solid (or maybe not so solid)connection.
Is what you’re saying though that drawing/ art is ‘Tai Chi with a pen’ or other implement? Is it that? So if a renowned master of the martial arts were to put crayons and pencils to his finger tips, and if he were to consider his antagonist the paper, or something along those lines, is something like this what you’re calling the artistic process. If we were to meditate and have somehow our minute motions be recorded could that be called your artistic process?
I would restrict this to drawing but I do think something like that, yes — though when you put it that way I begin to consider there may be some unresolved problems with my view. For example, I can’t consider that the martial arts master would be concerned much if he made a bad drawing –he would be concerned with the movement that made the drawing– whereas I would think that the artist is very much concerned with the effect — with whether or not his movement resulted in a good drawing.
Is there an artist or sort of artist that would accept a good movement even if it resulted in a poor painting? Hold it. What do we mean by movement. Because I trust that ‘movement’ is not the same as ‘technique’.
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 