split infinity


This is what all of us start out with: a rectangular piece of paper. Not a window on (part of) the world, but a blank world in itself, waiting to be 'peopled'.
Now, place yourself in the middle of a vast open space, by the sea, for example. Feel every fiber of your being joined with nature, with space, light, wind, the elements. And then have the courage to look down at that piece of paper on your knees and say: "Within these four edges I'm going to endeavour to create en equivalent of this echoless space, this play of the wind, this temperature and density of light, the rain on my back, the cold, the heat..."
Not only will you concede that the undertaking is quite impossible, that indeed you cannot draw, not this overwhelming reality (of which you are an integral part), but anything else either: a face, an apple, or a blade of grass.


The first thing one tends to cling to, is the horizon. This convention is the basis for perspective; the rationalist conquest of space. That it is no more than a convention is for many hard to grasp, but just consider the drawing: I've only added an horizontal line, and already we start orientating ourselves in this new space. It seems that one could walk for days before reaching a fixed point on this horizon (yet, even in the best of circumstances, our outlook does not reach further than about 5 km). However, if you can enjoy the privilege of a 'clean' broad horizon, you will notice that it looks more like this:

  
Admittedly, this view requires moving your head from side to side. But that is too is 'seeing', in fact it is a much underrated part of our vision (about which later).

Let us return to our conventional split infinity, and walk the conventional road, in order to further explore this space. 


No-one will need an explanation as to where to find the road in this drawing. That is because it is another convention. Let me be extremely clear about this: it is not reality, it is not realistic, merely a convention, a code which most of us have learned to agree upon. The point were the converging lines meet is far away, we have been conditioned into accepting. Renaissance artists such as Brunelleschi elaborated upon this, and made it into a system: scientific (measurable) and integral (when you accept part of it you have to accept the whole system - it rules out any other 'visions').


It is very difficult indeed to deny rationalized perspective: it is logical, measurable, reliable and safe. It makes us forget that it is still no more than a convention, an abstraction of an idea or concept. 
Yet other cultures have for centuries agreed upon different views. The conventional road in oriental art looks more like this: 


It might seem wrong to 'modern' Western eyes, or quirky, or childish, but it is no more so than our own Renaissance solution.

To conclude:
In drawing, all means at our disposal are abstractions: the conventional size of rectangular paper, the black inklines. We are not looking at nature, but are part of it. Everything we try to grasp in order to 'recreate' what is in front and around (and above and under) us, is convention: horizon, perspective. 
In the end, the great adventure is to stubbornly keep on trying to incarnate our presence in nature, bereft of everything we relied on so heavily, for so long. I believe we should  forget our photographic eye and use our senses. To me, that is the true meaning of 'aesthetics'. What we see, is 'image' - how we see, is creation.


(see also: Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, L'oeil et l'esprit (Editions Gallimard, 1964)