Drawing vs. digital: A category error

References

1. Biederman, Irving (1987), ‘Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding’, Psychological Review, 94:2, pp. 115–47, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bourriaud, Nicolas (2002), Relational Aesthetics, Paris: Les Presses du Reel.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bryson, Norman (1983), Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze, London: Macmillan.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Chamberlain, Rebecca, McManus, I. Chris, Brunswick, Nicola, Rankin, Qona and Riley, Howard (2015), ‘Scratching the surface: Learning styles, training and the acquisition of high-level representational drawing ability’, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:4, pp. 451–62, https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000011.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Coward, Fiona (2016), ‘Scaling up: Material culture as scaffold for the social brain’, Quaternary International, 405, pp. 78–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.064.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cumming, Laura (2022), ‘Turner Prize 2022 review’, The Observer, 23 October.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Danesi, Marcel (2017), ‘Visual rhetoric and semiotic’, Oxford Research Encyclopaedias: Communication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.43.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Danto, Arthur C. (1964), ‘The artworld’, Journal of Philosophy, 61:19, pp. 571–84, https://doi.org/10.2307/2022937.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dissanayake, Ellen (2009), ‘The artification hypothesis and its relevance to cognitive science, evolutionary aesthetics and neuroaesthetics’, Cognitive Semiotics, 9:5, pp. 136–58, https://doi.org/10.3726/81609_136.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Dunbar, Robin (2003), ‘The social brain: Mind, language and society in evolutionary perspective’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 32:1, pp. 163–81, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gibson, James J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gombrich, Ernst H. (1960), Art and Illusion, Oxford: Phaidon.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Gordon, Ian (2004), Theories of Visual Perception, 3rd ed., London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (1999), Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition, London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Leach, Edmund (1983), ‘Anthropological structuralism and artistic communication’, in M. Ross (ed.), The Arts: A Way of Knowing, Oxford: Pergamon Press. pp. 5–17.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Maynard, Patrick (2005), Drawing Distinctions. The Varieties of Graphic Expression, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Miller, Geoffrey (2001), ‘Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria’, Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2:1, pp. 2–25, https://doi.org/10.10.37e514542010-007.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Mithen, Steven J. (1996), The Prehistory of the Mind, London: Thames & Hudson.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Mortimore, Tilly (2003), Dyslexia and Learning Style: A Practitioner’s Handbook, London: Whurr.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Nanay, Bence (2016), Aesthetics as Philosophy of Perception, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Nist, Sherrie L. and Mealey, Donna (1991), ‘Teacher directed comprehension strategies’, in R. F. Flippo and D. C. Caverly (eds), Teaching Reading and Study Strategies at the College Level, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 42–85.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Ostrofsky, Justin and Kozbelt, Aaron (2012), ‘A multi-stage attention hypothesis of drawing ability’, in A. Kantrowitz, A. Brew and M. Fava (eds), Thinking through Drawing: Practice into Knowledge, New York: Columbia University. pp. 61–66.
    [Google Scholar]
23. O’Toole, L. Michael (2011), The Language of Displayed Art, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Petherbridge, Deanna (2010), The Primacy of Drawing: Histories and Theories of Practice, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Ranciere, Jacques (2009), Aesthetics and Its Discontents, Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Rankin, Qona, Riley, Howard, Brunswick, Nicola, McManus, I. Chris and Chamberlain, Rebecca (2017), ‘Talking the line: Inclusive strategies for the teaching of drawing’, Drawing: Research, Theory, Practice, 2:2, pp. 287–304, https://doi.org/10.1386/drtp.2.2.287_1.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Renfrew, Colin (2008), ‘Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: The factuality of value and of the sacred’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, pp. 2041–47, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0010.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Riley, Howard (2001), ‘The intelligence of seeing: An enquiry into the relationships between perception theory, communication theory and the practice and teaching of drawing’, Ph.D. thesis, Swansea: University of Wales Trinity Saint David, https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/1078/. Accessed 7 November 2025.
29. Riley, Howard (2008), ‘Drawing: Towards an intelligence of seeing’, in S. Garner (ed.), Writing on Drawing, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 153–67.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Riley, Howard (2014), ‘Analysing pictures: A systemic-functional semiotic model for drawing’, in A. Maiorani and C. Christie (eds), Multimodal Epistemologies. Towards an Integrated Framework, London: Routledge. pp. 83–93.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Riley, Howard (2024), ‘The domains of aesthetics and perception theories: A review relevant to practice-based doctoral theses in the visual arts’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 58:2, pp. 78–126, https://doi.org/10.5406/15437809.58.2.06.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Ryle, Gilbert (1949), The Concept of Mind, London: Hutchinson University Library.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Simmons, Seymour (2021), The Value of Drawing Instruction in the Visual Arts and Across Curricula: Historical and Philosophical Arguments for Drawing in the Digital Age, New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Straffon, Larrissa M. (2014), ‘Art in the making: The evolutionary origins of visual art as communication signal’, doctoral thesis, Leiden: Leiden University Repository, http://hdl.handle.net/1887/28698. Accessed 1 July 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Straffon, Larrissa M. (2019), ‘Evolution and the origins of visual art: An archaeological perspective’, in A. M. Prentiss (ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Research in Archaeology, Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 407–35.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Straffon, Larrissa M. (2022), ‘Origins of art: The intersection of cognitive and cultural evolution’, in J. Culbertson, A. Perfors, H. Rabagliati and V. Ramenzoni (eds), Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Toronto, Canada, 27–30 July, Merced, CA: eScholarship University of California, pp. 1616–22, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4mv9n2vx. Accessed 13 September 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Willats, John (1997), Art and Representation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Hodgson, Derek (2019), The Roots of Visual Depiction in Art, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 164–65.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Mithen, Steven J. (2007), ‘Seven steps in the evolution of the human imagination’, in E. Roth (ed.), Imaginative Minds, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–29.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Rankin, Qona and Riley, Howard (2021), Observational Drawing for Students with Dyslexia: Strategies, Tips and Inspiration, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Riley, Howard (2023), ‘The drive to draw: Perceptual attention and communicative intention’, Leonardo, 56:5, pp. 501–08, https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_02405.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Ryle, Gilbert (1938), ‘Categories’, Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, 38:1, pp. 189–206, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/38.1.189.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Simmons, Seymour (2012), ‘Philosophical dimensions of drawing instruction’, in A. Kantrowitz, A. Brew and M. Fava (eds), Thinking through Drawing: Practice into Knowledge, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 39–44.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Simmons, Seymour (2019), ‘Drawing in the digital age: Observations and implications for education’, Arts, 8:33, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010033.
    [Google Scholar]