To erase or not to erase, that is not the question: Drawing from observation in an analogue or digital environment

J. Christie, Mathew Reichertz, Bryan Maycock, R. Klein
{"title":"To erase or not to erase, that is not the question: Drawing from observation in an analogue or digital environment","authors":"J. Christie, Mathew Reichertz, Bryan Maycock, R. Klein","doi":"10.1386/adch_00023_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Erasing when drawing occurs for a variety of reasons. While the most obvious may be correction of mistakes, at other times erasers are used to create such things as highlights or marks that introduce particular aesthetic elements. When a drawing is made on paper, partial erasure ‘marks’\n can provide a useful record of a drawing’s evolution. For the teacher, this historical record can be a catalyst for helpful commentary and criticism. While programmed to simulate an analogue eraser, in a digital environment the erase function can eradicate a drawing’s history with\n a single click. We studied analogue and digital tool use behaviours (including erasing) to compare the frequency of erasure and the effect of erasing on observational accuracy in adults between the age of 17 and 64 with various levels of drawing experience from less than two years to more\n than ten years. The study involved participants making one drawing on paper with traditional drawing tools and one drawing on a digital drawing tablet. We then had the drawings rated for accuracy. Among other interesting results, we found that erasing occurs with greater frequency when participants\n work in a digital environment than in an analogue one and that, while there were significant tool use differences between the environments, those differences did not result in differences in the accuracy of final drawings indicating the adaptability of our participants using different means\n to achieve the same effect.","PeriodicalId":42996,"journal":{"name":"Art Design & Communication in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Art Design & Communication in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00023_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Erasing when drawing occurs for a variety of reasons. While the most obvious may be correction of mistakes, at other times erasers are used to create such things as highlights or marks that introduce particular aesthetic elements. When a drawing is made on paper, partial erasure ‘marks’ can provide a useful record of a drawing’s evolution. For the teacher, this historical record can be a catalyst for helpful commentary and criticism. While programmed to simulate an analogue eraser, in a digital environment the erase function can eradicate a drawing’s history with a single click. We studied analogue and digital tool use behaviours (including erasing) to compare the frequency of erasure and the effect of erasing on observational accuracy in adults between the age of 17 and 64 with various levels of drawing experience from less than two years to more than ten years. The study involved participants making one drawing on paper with traditional drawing tools and one drawing on a digital drawing tablet. We then had the drawings rated for accuracy. Among other interesting results, we found that erasing occurs with greater frequency when participants work in a digital environment than in an analogue one and that, while there were significant tool use differences between the environments, those differences did not result in differences in the accuracy of final drawings indicating the adaptability of our participants using different means to achieve the same effect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
擦除还是不擦除,这不是问题:从模拟或数字环境中观察得出
由于各种原因绘图时进行擦除。虽然最明显的可能是纠正错误,但有时橡皮擦用于创建诸如突出或标记之类的东西,以引入特定的美学元素。当画在纸上时,部分擦除的“标记”可以提供画的演变的有用记录。对于老师来说,这些历史记录可以成为有益的评论和批评的催化剂。虽然编程是为了模拟模拟橡皮擦,但在数字环境中,擦除功能可以通过一次点击消除绘图的历史。我们研究了模拟和数字工具的使用行为(包括擦除),以比较擦除的频率和擦除对观察精度的影响,这些成年人年龄在17至64岁之间,具有从不到两年到十年以上的不同绘画经验。在这项研究中,参与者用传统的绘画工具在纸上画一幅,用数字绘图板画一幅。然后我们对图纸的准确性进行了评估。在其他有趣的结果中,我们发现,当参与者在数字环境中工作时,擦除的频率比在模拟环境中更高,虽然环境之间存在显着的工具使用差异,但这些差异并没有导致最终图纸准确性的差异,这表明我们的参与者使用不同的手段来达到相同的效果的适应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘How can I say this politely?’: Remodelling peer critiquing in design education and revealing compassionate critiques Identity and empathy: Pushing boundaries and transgressing barriers Introduction to Design Education: Theory, Research, and Practical Applications for Educators, Steven Faerm (2023) A photo-elicitation as an arts-based method for exploring the experiences of LGBTQ+ students in higher education in Ireland Access and Widening Participation in Arts Higher Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1