Diagrams Their Relevance To Art.wps

DIAGRAMS: THEIR RELEVANCE TO ART JOHN A. WALKER (COPYRIGHT, 2009)

Front cover of Control Magazine no 9, 1975 with diagrammatic and photo layout by editor Stephen Willats. Copyright the artist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Even the most cursory examination of past issues of Control Magazine reveals the importance of diagrams to its contributors, especially to those artists whose writings are influenced by such disciplines as cybernetics, systems theory, linguistics, semiotics, sociology and psychology, all of which are concerned with logical information and all of which frequently present that information diagrammatically. In spite of the obviousness of the fact that many contemporary artists employ diagrams, it has attracted little critical

attention. (1) One would have thought that those critics who constantly stress the 'visual' nature of the visual arts would have commented on the use of such eye-catching devices. If diagrams had maintained their modest role as auxiliaries to written discourse one could have understood the critic's neglect, but since diagrams, or diagrammatic layouts, have become integral to the work of a number of major British artists it is not possible to do so.

John Stezaker, From Jam Press Phase One (P08006-P08015; complete) 1. 10 and 1. 11 (1973-4) Lithograph on paper, image: 559 x 441 mm

Tate gallery collection. Copyright the artist. Structualist-type diagrammatic layout.

Alfred H. Barr, front cover of his 1936 book showing the evolution of abstract art diagrammatically. A famous example by an art historian and museum curator, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In 1972 I began to collect diagrams which appear in art books and in art periodicals. My aim was not to amass an exhaustive collection but to gather

together representative examples from each of the main groups that generate the. literature of art, namely, art historians, art critics, art educators, philosophers and psychologists of art, artists and designers. What intrigued me about the diagrams was that although they were usually adjuncts of written expositions, their graphic character made them more akin to paintings and drawings than to texts. Two questions puzzled me: first, what was the difference between paintings and diagrams? And second, what was the relationship between linguistic and graphic means of presenting information? Furthermore, as an artist whose faith in the continued viability of painting was under severe strain - firstly because of the temporary triumph of sculpture in the mid 1960s, secondly because of the priority given to language as a medium in conceptual art, and thirdly because of the mediocrity of most contemporary painting - I had a premonition that a study of diagrams might yield evidence that would redress the balance of power in favour or visual rather than verbal modes of communication. Once a corpus of material had been assembled it was subjected to analysis. (2) Although the diagrams were produced over a long period of time, the analysis was synchronic not diachronic. In order to establish the specificity of the diagrammatic it was necessary to contrast it with an analogous system, hence a comparison was made with painting. In a paper recording my findings I quoted a dictionary definition of the word 'diagram' but made no attempt to distinguish between diagrams, charts, graphs, tables and maps (this task is best left to semioticians). In other words I simply used 'diagram' as a cover term for all graphic devices

encapsulating logical relations; qualities or processes. Other writers have suggested 'paragrams' as an alternative cover term. I will not repeat the detailed examination of particular diagrams contained in my first paper but develop the more general issues raised by that research.

Diagrams and paintings compared Although diagrams and paintings both present visual information, they do not, generally speaking, enjoy the same art status. (3) Paintings are regarded as belonging to the Fine Arts while diagrams are regarded as belonging to the Applied Arts. This difference is institutionalised in the organisational structure of art colleges where painting is studied in Fine Art departments and diagrams in Graphic Design departments. One important distinction between diagrams and paintings which the American philosopher Nelson Goodman has identified is that the former are allographic while the latter are autographic, that is, diagrams (like text) are designed for mass replication and any copy just as valid as any other copy while paintings are unique originals which cannot be exactly duplicated. (4) No doubt this is the main reason why diagrams are not counted as visual artworks equal in status to hand-painted canvases. In keeping with their utilitarian character diagrams are usually anonymous (they may, like the London Underground diagram, have been designed and re-designed by a number of graphic artists over the years) whereas paintings are generally signed to emphasize their individual authorship. (Even if a painting is unsigned, the personal character of the artist's 'handwriting' [brushwork]

functions as a signature.) During my examination of art diagrams I noted that some art historians attempted to synchronize the pictorial style of their diagrams with the style of the art serving as subject matter. In general the results of such synchronization were utterly absurd: the introduction of a gratuitous aesthetic component only distracted attention from the information the diagrams were supposed to convey. Thus it became clear that an ideally functional diagram, such as the one employed in the London Underground, attains during use a condition of transparency (the aim of the diagram designer is to make his medium of expression unobtrusive). In contrast, painting is a reflexive art in that the physical medium and history of production are regarded as part of the subject matter of painting, hence painters always st ress them in some way. Goodman also points out that "the constitutive aspects of the diagrammatic as compared with the pictorial character are expressly and narrowly restricted", thus in a diagram only certain features are relevant to its meaning; other aspects, such as thickness of lines employed, absolute size, the relationship of figure to field and of image to framing edge, are unimportant while in a painting all such factors are essential to its meaning. In fact the first task confronting the viewer of a diagram, or a painting, is to distinguish between the functional and non-functional components of the work. For example, the import of a scatter graph - a graph consisting of small dots - may be crucially affected by black spots caused by imperfections in the paper on which the graph is printed. Similarly, how we interpret scratches in the paint surface of a picture will depend upon whether we

decide they are intentional or accidental. Another striking difference between a diagram and a painting is that the former requires to be read (again like text) in a particular order while the latter does not usually specify one reading sequence rather than another: diagrams direct the viewer along linear pathways while paintings invite multi-directional browsing. A consequence of such differences is that a diagram's meaning being overt, can be virtually exhausted while the meaning of a painting can never be fully comprehended because there is always a residue of mystery and ambiguity. Since the direction of recent art has been towards logical clarity and explicitness one can readily understand the popularity of diagrammatic presentations and the concomitant decline of interest in painting. Psychological studies of the development of children's drawings (up to the age of four) show that an evolution from random scribbles to schematic pictorial representations occurs and that a diagramatic stage of crosses, squares, triangles and circles intervenes. (5) From this one might conclude that diagrams are more primitive than pictorial systems but as far as adults are concerned diagrams are in some respects more sophisticated than pictures because they are orientated towards the conceptual rather than the perceptual. In other words, the artist who creates conventional pictorial representations concentrates on the surface appearance of reality while the diagram designer concerns himself primarily with the conceptual infrastructure of reality. (Clearly this remark does not apply to abstract paintings.)

Nor do representational paintings exhibit the variety of coding mechanisms found in diagrams; the former generally make use of the iconic mode while the latter make use of analog, digital, symbolic and linguistic modes in addition to the iconic. Although abstract paintings are nearer to the condition of diagrams than representational pictures, nevertheless, an essential part of their rationale is to provide a perceptual experience which is enjoyed for its own sake and while it is obvious that diagrams must be seen to be understood their primary purpose is to communicate information external to the diagram. In short, diagrams are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves; we tend to look through diagrams and at paintings.

The visual versus the verbal A number of art theorists maintain that art objects exhibit two kinds of information, namely, the semantic and the aesthetic (some writers prefer the alternative terms logical/affective) which correspond to the categories of mental experience cognition and perception. Semantic information is that part of a message which can be translated from one medium to another, while aesthetic information is that part which is unique to the particular stimulus and receptor. (6) It is important to emphasize that the distinctions occur in the plane of analysis not in the plane of experience. Because painting is perceived via the eyes it is generally defined as a 'visual' art

form (in spite of the fact that such a characterization creates enormous problems.) As a result, some critics have asserted that painting's ultimate goal is pure opticality. In addition, numerous painters have accepted the doctrine of Formalism and have developed the aesthetic component of their paintings at the expense of the semantic component. When other artists reacted against Formalism they claimed that art was addressed to the mind rather than the sense organs and forwarded the notion that art was a linguistic, or semiotic, activity. Inevitably some of this latter group of artists gave priority to language in the belief that it was a more suitable medium for conveying logical, or semantic, information and rejected painting on the grounds that it was primarily concerned with affective, or aesthetic, information. (7) However, it is my contention that diagrams demonstrate conelusively that logical information can be presented visually. Leibniz, Euler, Venn and Boole all developed the logical potential of graphs but perhaps the most sophisticated system of logic diagrams yet devised was that created by Charles S. Peirce in the period 1896 to 1913. (8) Peirce regarded his 'existential graphs' as his greatest achievment and once remarked "I do not think I ever reflect in words; I employ visual diagrams." This statement reminds us that mental images playas important a role in thinking as words do, though the capacity for visualization is often allowed to atrophy, particularly by those concerned with abstract thought. This was the first fact discovered by Francis Galton when he undertook his pioneering investigation of mental imagery in the second half of the nineteenth century. (9) And it is only in recent years that psychologists have begun to study this human

faculty with the same degree of attention already lavished on language. (10)

Several thousand distinct human languages exist, therefore communication between speakers of different languages is a major problem in human society. This disadvantage of language has provoked some innovators to devise universal systems of communication based on pictorial symbols in the belief that such systems transcend language barriers. One such system, called "Semantography", was created by Charles Kaiser Bliss. (11) . A full-scale comparison between pictorial and linguistic systems cannot be undertaken here but it is worth making the point that a simple one-to-one comparison is impossible because language occurs in two forms: first speech, and second, writing. F. de Saussure claims that the object studied by the science of linguistics is the spoken form (a sign comprised of concept and sound image) not the graphic representation of language. (12) Thus a comparison between pictures and language involves two different sensory modalities - sight and hearing. If, on the other hand, one compares pictures and writing (or type) then one is dealing with two "visual" products. A further complication is caused by the fact that the linguistic sign is arbitrary, or unmotivated, while in many pictorial schemes the signs are motivated (generally they are iconic), that is, a natural bond exists between signifier and signified. Saussure uses the example of the symbol of justice: a pair of scales; this sign cannot be replaced by, say, a chariot without altering its meaning.

Ultimately, the antithesis between the visual and the verbal, between pictures and speech, is false because in mental experience all such oppositions dissolve. Even Peirce's existential graphs are not wholly independent of language because to grasp their meaning one needs to know a series of axioms, or rules, governing the combination of the various elements - circles, dotted lines, tinctures etc. - from which each graph is constructed; these rules are expressed in language.

Images associated with sequences of numbers supplied by various persons supplied to Francis Galton. Plate one from Inquires into Human Faculty and its Development, (1883). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Charles S. Peirce’s existential graphs, illustrated in The Existential Graphs of Charles S. Peirce by Don D. Roberts (The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1973). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of language symbols devised by Charles K. Bliss illustrated in Drawings of Language Symbols, (Sydney: C. K. Bliss, n. d. ) typescript. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It might appear that paintings are not language dependent in this way but in fact

their meaning is clarified linguistically by titles, artists statements, and critical writings which adhere to all pictorial works. This does not mean that language is a superior medium because while pictures may depend upon language, language depends equally upon imagery. Therefore the verbal and the visual complement each other; the close alliance of the two is demonstrated above all in composite media such as advertisements, film, theatre, and television. Diagrams by their use of multiple coding devices also fall into this latter category.

Conclusion In part, the recent decline of painting as a viable medium of expression is attributable to the progressive downgrading of the semantic component of painting by contemporary artists in favour of the formal, or aesthetic component; however, the ability of diagrams to communicate logical information suggests a way in which painters could, in spite of the differences between diagrams and paintings outlined earlier, increase the semantic component of painting and thus make it more meaningful art. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes and references (1) The only other discussion of art diagrams of which I am aware is by Anthony Hill: "Programme, paragram, Structure" in DATA: Directions in Art, Theory and

Aesthetics: an Anthology; ed. by A. Hill (London: Faber, 1968), pp. 251-265. Bernar Venet has written a short article on a diagram: "Study of: graphic representation of the function y=-x2:4" Extra (2) October 1974, pp. 5-11. Also, a description of the use of diagrammatic scores (called musical graphics) occurs in Erhard Karkoschka's Notation in New Music: A Critical Guide to Interpretation and Realisation, (London: Universal Edition, 1972). (2) A slide-tape presentation of my earlier research was given at The Gallery, London in January, 1975. (3) An exception to this rule are the Yantras and Mandalas of Tantra which are treated as artworks in the West. (4) See Goodman's book Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, (Oxford: O. U. P., 1969). (5) See the summary of the paper "What children scribble and why" (1955) by Rhoda Kellogg contained in The Biology of Art by Desmond Morris (London: Methuen, 1962) pp. 115-140. (6) These arguments derive from Abraham Moles’ book Information Theory and Aesthetic Perception, (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1966). (7) The artists who have given the greatest priority to language are of course the Art & Language Group. At a public lecture Terry Atkinson explained that language was adopted because it was "the most powerful medium". However, even language appears to be inadequate for the needs of A & L judging from the fact that they

increasingly use symbolic logic, and most recently graphic displays (the latter even employ colour). (8) See The Existential Graphs of Charles S. Peirce by Don D. Roberts (The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1973). See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_graph

(9) See Francis Galton's Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, 2nd ed. (London: Dent, 1907).

(10) See Rudolph Arnheim's Visual Thinking (London: Faber, 1970) and Robert H. McKim's Experience in Visual Thinking (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1972).

(11) C.K. Bliss, Semantography (Sydney: Bliss, 1946-49). Patrick Wallis Burke "One writing for one world - the pioneer work of C. K. Bliss,’ Icographic (8) 1974, pp. 2-5. See also the website http://www.semantography.com/

(12) Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, rev. ed. (London: Fontana/Collins, 1974). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This article was first published in Control, no 9, December 1975, pp. 18-20, Control

is an artists’ magazine edited and published by Stephen Willats. See website http://www.controlmagazine.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------John A. Walker is a painter and art historian. He is the author of the booklet A Few Semiotic Paintings of 1975, Unknown and Destroyed. See http://www.pdfcoke.com/doc/17092444/A-Few-Semiotic-Paintings-PDF-File

And an article about the London Underground Diagram, see http://www.pdfcoke.com/doc/19934169/LUD-Articlewps He is also an editorial advisor for the website: "http://www.artdesigncafe.com">www.artdesigncafe.com