1
Ingold, T. (2007). ‘Drawing, writing and calligraphy’ in Lines: A brief history. New York: Routledge, pp. 120 – 151.
Ingold’s text was useful in bringing the idea of drawing into the context of my work, as I had been approaching the learning through the lens of writing alone. However, his question of the line between drawing ending and writing beginning poses similar questions for my own learning: at what stage does the transcribing of marks, lines and letters, become writing? Does it have a correlation with my fluency with the language itself, or with the handling of the pen? The body begins to take on a more important role in the work, as it does in the text as well, where Ingold writes how “feeling or observation would be described in the movement of a gesture and inscribed in the trace it yields” when writing on a page. As I document my progress, I realise that while these may be exercises in language proficiency, they are also training the body to express that language, which in turn is expressed in marks on the page. As such, there is an emerging relationship between drawing, the body and the language, which at this point, doesn’t even begin to consider the content of the language itself.
2
Smithson, R. (1966). A heap of Language [Drawing]. Museum of Modern Art, New York. Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/149054. (Accessed January 20, 2023).
I appreciate Smithson’s approach to using language to catalogue language itself which, being specifically process-driven has an impact on the visual outcome as well. The process entailed copying entries from Roget’s Thesaurus under the word ‘language’ but with specific omissions. It would be interesting to apply this approach to my own learning exercises as currently, I have just been transcribing whatever is being dictated in a linear process. What would happen if I was more selective about what I wanted to write and as a result, learn? Suddenly, content becomes more important within the context of the work. Formally, the slant of Smithson’s heap mirrors the slant his eyes were making while transcribing the words, hence the omissions. As it stands, the repetition engrained in my exercise is what determine the form of the drawing/writing (rows of straight lines repeated), but how can the form then determine the content of the exercise?
3
Hashmi, Z. (2004). Letters from Home [Woodblock]. Tate Modern, London. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hashmi-letters-from-home-p80181. (Accessed January 15, 2023).
I find my work resonating most with how Hashmi translates the preservation of language from archival materials into other artefacts. In this case, it’s the creation of molds from her sister’s handwritten letters that are then used to reprint those same letters. Again, process is key to the work and language is treated a material to be reproduced, much like Smithson’s work. There’s almost a second layer of preservation at play here. Similarly, my exercises are preserving my mother tongue as well as the process of not only my learning, but a collective practice that many Urdu speakers would have had to undertake as children, to learn the language. Plus, in basing them on existing learning materials, I am also engaging in a process of translation, like Hashmi. Another key aspect of Hashmi’s work is that once reprinted, the texts’ legibility is reduced, which suggests that that content isn’t as important (as no translations provided). This is interesting when thinking of the audiences that will engage with my work — is legibility a barrier or rather, a result of the learning process? I feel it’s important to determine the role that understanding of the content itself, versus the understanding of the process, plays in the project.
4
Elbow, P. (1985). ‘The Shifting Relationships between Speech and Writing’, College Composition and Communication, 36(3), pp. 283 – 303. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/357972
This text speaks to the notion of permanence in language through the written versus spoken word. It explores both sides of the argument, comparing whether writing is indelible and speech ephemeral, or vice versa. Elbow concludes that the two ultimately coexist and that language’s function is context driven. One aspect of this that I see in my work is the idea of the written work becoming autonomous once imprinted onto the paper. As the mark making develops into letters, it’s almost as if the shift from drawing to writing is determined by the autonomy of the letters existing as forms that now hold meaning. But, as Elbow also describes, writing is characterised by a sense of pre determinacy, rules and strictness — we tend to think before writing and adhere to more conventions than when speaking. So, is it possible to create new knowledge through these exercises despite them being predetermined? I find that the challenge will be to find a way to work through them without the expectation of an outcome, despite the very act of learning a language being driven by the single outcome of fluency.
5
Larsson, V. (2022) MOTHER TONGUE / מאַמע-לשון / MAME LUSHEN. Available at: https://futuress.org/stories/mother-tongue/. (Accessed January 23, 2023)
This project is driven by similar intentions to mine — the desire to connect with a native language that one isn’t fluent in but has grown up surrounded by. The act of doing so, in the case of both Larsson’s and my project, is through the drawing of letters rather than repetitive speaking or listening exercise. Describing the reason behind this, Larsson writes: “I needed to store the letters in my muscle and cognitive memory”. A powerful sentiment that I recognise in my own iterations, I too am learning the importance of the connection between muscle and verbal memory in language learning. Larsson’s observations of the direct relationship between the script and the hand, where the outcome is d dependent on relationship between body, paper and ink is one that mirrors my own and that I have come to understand better. It’s as if the project is about learning Urdu through hand motions, rather than the language itself in some ways. But comparing the two projects, Larsson’s is concerned with bridging the gap between two cultures while mine is monolingual, which makes me wonder if there is a purpose to the project beyond my own personal improvement. What purpose are the characters I’m writing serving?