Drawing as language: the systemic-functional semiotic argument

ABSTRACT

This article argues that drawing is a medium of visual communication, using any tool leaving a trace upon a surface, capable of referring to objects and events in the past, present and future, real and imaginary, functioning to modulate the viewer’s attitude towards the subject-matter through the systematic selection and combination of visual elements according to cultural conventions which are subject to challenge, change and misunderstandings. In other words, I argue that drawing operates as language, defined in terms of systemic-functional semiotic theory. The theoretical basis is explained and discussed, with examples of the author’s drawings demonstrating the theory as driver of creativity, facilitating the negotiation of meaning.

KEYWORDS:

• Drawing
• language
• semogenic
• systemic-functional semiotics
• visualcy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Howard Riley PhD MA(RCA) CertDes FRSA FHEA studied at the Hammersmith College of Art, Coventry College of Art, and the Royal College of Art. He holds a doctorate of the University of Wales in the practice and pedagogy of drawing. Academic papers at: https://researchgate.net/profile/Howard_Riley.

His drawings have been exhibited in Australia, Malaysia, Finland, Serbia, the USA and the UK. A selection at: https://howardriley.wordpress.com.

Riley is Professor Emeritus, Swansea College of Art, University of Wales Trinity St David, Wales, UK, and Tutor at the Classical Education Forum, Cardiff, Wales, UK.

ORCID

Howard Riley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8682-2587

Notes

1 It should be noted that this date is challenged by Slimak et al. (September 2018) on grounds of scientific dating techniques. They argue a date of 47,000 BP is more consistent with the archaeological background. Watch this space!

2 James Jerome Gibson explained his notion of ‘direct’ visual perception thus: ‘ … the seeing of an environment by an observer existing in that environment is direct in that it is not mediated by visual sensations or sense data. The phenomenal visual world of surfaces, objects, and the ground under one’s feet is quite different from the phenomenal visual field of colour patches. I assert that the latter experience … is not entailed in the former. Direct perception is not based on the having of sensations. The suggestion will be that it is based on the pickup of information’ (Gibson 1972, 215).

3 Elkins (2008, 1–2) notes the term ‘ … visual literacy has been in uncommon but intermittent use for over a hundred and fifty years’, and reports a definition as ‘understanding how people perceive objects, interpret what they see, and what they learn from them.’ My neologism, visualcy, embraces not only this sense of understanding, but also the facility for producing the means to understanding through the articulation of visual elements in the construction of images. This more pro-active definition is in line with Burkhardt et al.’s (2003, 15) acknowledgement of the demands of the expanded field of the digital age: visual literacy is described as ‘the ability to interpret, use, appreciate and create image and video using both conventional and 21st century media in ways that advance thinking, decision making, communication and learning.’ Ways of nurturing this ability, which I have described as an ‘intelligence of seeing’, are offered in Riley (2008) and Rankin et al. (2017).