Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Experiences of Marion Milner and Frederick Franck
Introduction
The quality of drawing depends on various factors, and one of the most crucial aspects is how people understand the purpose of this process. At the same time, it is important to examine available sources, personal experiences, and background knowledge about the object of drawing to achieve the best results. In Chapter 5, Cain (2010) focuses on recognizing practitioners drawing practice by examining the works by Marion Milner On Not Being Able to Paint and Frederick Franck Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing: Meditation in Action. Both authors shared their visions on how to start drawing and combine their personal feelings with the rest of the world. The major difference between the offered approaches is that Milner addresses the basics of psychoanalysis, while Franck relies on meditation impact. Dialectic experiences by Milner and drawing as a whole by Franck contributes to Cains discussion of self-learning in drawing and the creation of an enactive account through mind-body thinking, boundaries, and the relational loop.
Dialectic Experiences by Marion Milner
Milner wrote her book with the main intention of learning how to draw and revealing all those hidden issues of the creative process. However, as soon as she began investigating the topic, she faced serious challenges because when people painted, it was hard to plan and predict every detail. The distinctive feature of her experience was a duality in thinking: intellectual knowledge and awareness from lived experience (Milner, as cited in Cain, 2010). Addressing these two modes of thinking, Milner introduced the concepts of a narrow focus (seeing life through blinkers in the head) and a wide focus (knowing the whole parts of the body) (Cain, 2010). Such dualism of the dialectic continued to grow and strengthen as a meaningful part of the painting process. There were differences between the human mindset and the drawing, but it was impossible to ignore the fact that even spontaneous works required planning and evaluation.
It was not enough for Milner to examine narrow and wide focuses in drawing only, and the author paid attention to other concepts of the dialectic process. For example, she distinguished the characteristics of expression and expressing because the former was about the already obtained feelings and experiences, while the latter underlined the importance of the current emotions related to a particular real event or subject (Cain, 2010). Sometimes, it is better to let feelings go and remove boundaries to promote the connection between practitioners and their works. A narrow focus of drawing is usually predictable because it is based on common knowledge and real observations. Milner believed that a wide focus was more imaginary and unplanned as it was rooted in the selfless sense of self (as cited in Cain, 2010). Relational knowledge can be helpful and provocative at the same time because much depends on how people are able to use it and keep a balance between the preferred ideas and real actions. The differences between wide and narrow focuses predetermine the main idea of drawing and define the quality of the process and the final work.
Drawing Experiences by Frederick Frank
Another perspective on how people should create their drawings was related to Francks work and his desire to underline the worth of connectedness in practice. The author believed that it was possible for practitioners to improve the awareness of themselves through painting when seeing and drawing activities are combined (as cited in Cain, 2010). Self-reflection and the fusion of several processes have their own benefits, and Francks goal was to implement the sense of being and the understanding of the world into a drawing. There are several important steps to be taken in this method: to de-condition the eye, understand the differences between seeing and looking at, establish contact with the world, keep on feelings, and draw (Cain, 2010). It seems that Franck makes practitioners reject their consciousness and concentrate on the activity as it is, which allows them to see a new way of presenting an idea.
One of the possible effects of drawing is to pay attention to the issues that really matter to people. Franck underlined the worth of engagement and drawing as an act of self-awareness (Cain, 2010). It was possible to be involved in painting, forget about the challenges of the outer world, and focus on self. The connection between human emotions, knowledge, and available resources creates a solid foundation for a drawing process. People might experience difficulties accepting the act of awareness, but Franck offered a solution to concentrate on resonant characteristics and follow a preferred way of working (Cain, 2010). Sometimes, practitioners are not ready to let their knowledge go and provide their imagination with all privileges. However, it is the essence of drawing as a whole when people stop looking at something and begin seeing the object and share their vision with others on paper. Meditation, in this case, is a way to identify and accept transformative processes and create a world where changes motivate and inspire.
Summary of Processes
Milner and Frank introduced interesting ideas on how to improve and understand the process of drawing for people with different backgrounds and abilities. According to Cain (2010), they added a lot to explain the necessity of feeling and intelligence fusion as the major process in painting. For example, Franck discussed the role of the heart as a way of thinking to bring drawing to life and share its spirit with the viewer (as cited in Cain, 2010). Similar ideas were presented by Milner when she talked about the distinction between narrow and wide focuses that brought logic to creative work. The processes the chosen authors used facilitate practice because the practitioner can not only introduce some visual records of their experiences but advance their awareness (Cain, 2010). Therefore, drawing should no longer be interpreted as a regular activity with planned and unplanned purposes and an enactive phenomenon.
Milner and Franck motivated their readers to engage with different drawing processes and analyze personal discoveries, comparing what participants knew and did not know at the moment. Transformative experiences may be difficult and unpredictable, but their effect provokes certain qualitative changes and improve their understanding of the world (Cain, 2010). Therefore, the combination of such processes as critical thinking, personal observations, evaluation, breaking the boundaries, and following the heart, and combining is critical for drawing.
Reasons for an Enactive Account
The final section of the chapter in Cains book is devoted to the reasons that explain each account as an enactive account in drawing. First, although Milner and Franck introduced different approaches, they underlined the importance of thinking with the head and the heart at the same time. Milner addressed the idea of contemplative action, while Franck mentioned the worth of seeing over looking at (Cain, 2010). In other words, people need to see what happens around them to create a particular image in their head, elaborate on it, and draw.
The second explanation is based on the lack of boundaries and the moment when the practitioners lose their concentration. There are certain borders between what the subject and self introduce. When a person starts drawing, it is necessary to be fully involved in the process (Cain, 2010). The only way to take this step successfully is to break most of the boundaries, remove all conscious associations, and use an empty piece of paper where only unconscious thoughts are.
Finally, attention is paid to the relational effect in an enactive account. Milner and Franck agreed that there was no need to stop when the realization of one project was over (Cain, 2010). The point is that it is impossible to experience the same feelings a person had before drawing at the end of the process. The relationships between the artists and the viewer and the impact of the experience on the practitioner could not be ignored. A portion of self-learning was obtained, and some impact on the self and the world was made, changing the environment and human perceptions of reality.
Conclusion
In general, the analysis of the chapter and the experiences of Milner and Franck proved that drawing should never be interpreted as an easy or one-sided process. Despite the fact that there is only one person who draws, many other individuals could be actually involved in this activity. When the practitioner paints, the choice between narrow and wide focuses should be made. To take this step, past experiences and knowledge should be implemented, underlying the role of teachers and other contributors to self-awareness. At the same time, when the final line is added to the drawing, the process is not over because the impact of people who view this work adds the meaning and interprets the outcomes.
References
Cain, P. (2010). Drawing: The enactive evolution of the practitioner. Intellect Books.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.