How did “to draw” shift to mean “to depict with lines”?












9















"To draw" originally meant "to drag, pull", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind.




Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ...




Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb.



What does "to produce artwork" have to do with pulling or dragging?



btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.






meaning etymology semantic-shift







share|improve this question

























  • . etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

    – Cascabel
    12 hours ago








  • 4





    Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

    – Mitch
    7 hours ago













  • Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

    – Phil Sweet
    5 hours ago











  • You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

    – jamesdlin
    3 hours ago


















9















"To draw" originally meant "to drag, pull", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind.




Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ...




Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb.



What does "to produce artwork" have to do with pulling or dragging?



btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.






meaning etymology semantic-shift







share|improve this question

























  • . etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

    – Cascabel
    12 hours ago








  • 4





    Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

    – Mitch
    7 hours ago













  • Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

    – Phil Sweet
    5 hours ago











  • You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

    – jamesdlin
    3 hours ago
















9












9








9








"To draw" originally meant "to drag, pull", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind.




Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ...




Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb.



What does "to produce artwork" have to do with pulling or dragging?



btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.






meaning etymology semantic-shift







share|improve this question
















"To draw" originally meant "to drag, pull", and it's pretty easy to make sense of the many meanings of the verb with that in mind.




Draw a sword, draw a card, draw water from a well, draw breath, a drawer, withdraw, ...




Even for the most farfetched ones, I can see the figurative stretch. But not for the main meaning of the verb.



What does "to produce artwork" have to do with pulling or dragging?



btw I'm not sure if I cann technically call it a semantic shift if the original meaning is still in use.






meaning etymology semantic-shift




meaning etymology semantic-shift






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







Teleporting Goat

















asked 12 hours ago









Teleporting GoatTeleporting Goat

1586




1586













  • . etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

    – Cascabel
    12 hours ago








  • 4





    Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

    – Mitch
    7 hours ago













  • Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

    – Phil Sweet
    5 hours ago











  • You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

    – jamesdlin
    3 hours ago





















  • . etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

    – Cascabel
    12 hours ago








  • 4





    Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

    – Mitch
    7 hours ago













  • Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

    – Phil Sweet
    5 hours ago











  • You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

    – jamesdlin
    3 hours ago



















. etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

– Cascabel
12 hours ago







. etymonline.com/word/draw#etymonline_v_15889 'to make lines" is c. 1200.

– Cascabel
12 hours ago






4




4





Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

– Mitch
7 hours ago







Similar to how 'drive' is for cars now but was earlier about directing cattle. The history of the word 'post' is like metaphor after metaphor after metaphor.

– Mitch
7 hours ago















Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

– Phil Sweet
5 hours ago





Take a piece of string, put chalk on it, draw it taught, and snap it. You have just drawn a line.

– Phil Sweet
5 hours ago













You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

– jamesdlin
3 hours ago







You're dragging ink/graphite/etc. from the writing instrument?

– jamesdlin
3 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















28














Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material — pen, pencil, chalk, etc. — across an appropriate surface:




Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.— Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Draw a plow across a field.

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago











  • For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

    – jkf
    3 hours ago











  • Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago



















6














There is not really a significant semantic shift, given that to produce a "drawing" one must still drag/pull the pen/pencil/chalk across a surface. The real issue is the appropriating of physical metaphors[1] for digital artifacts (window/file/folder/drawing)[2]. This also occurs when referring to digital representations as their physical counterpart (such as when a user might say they are "viewing the drawings of DaVinci" online, when they are, in fact, viewing digital representations of photos of the drawings). This has led to any type of visual representation in digital form to be referred to as if it were the original, physical thing itself, such as when a program that produces a visual output consisting of lines is referred to as a "drawing". This is not specific to "draw", but occurs across a wide range of terms.[3]



[1]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155776687.pdf see chapter 2.2



[2]:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=17685&context=rtd see chapter 1.2



[3]: http://prior.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/ams_bdy.htm see the lists of terms






share|improve this answer










New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

    – Florrie
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    @Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

    – enharmonic
    8 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484375%2fhow-did-to-draw-shift-to-mean-to-depict-with-lines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









28














Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material — pen, pencil, chalk, etc. — across an appropriate surface:




Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.— Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Draw a plow across a field.

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago











  • For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

    – jkf
    3 hours ago











  • Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago
















28














Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material — pen, pencil, chalk, etc. — across an appropriate surface:




Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.— Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392.







share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Draw a plow across a field.

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago











  • For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

    – jkf
    3 hours ago











  • Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago














28












28








28







Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material — pen, pencil, chalk, etc. — across an appropriate surface:




Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.— Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392.







share|improve this answer















Emerging ca. 1200, draw in the graphic sense comes from drawing some implement or material — pen, pencil, chalk, etc. — across an appropriate surface:




Draw thanne by thi rewle a lyne fro the hed of aries to the hed of libra.— Equatorie of the Planets, Ms. Cambridge, Peterhouse 75, ca. 1392.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









KarlGKarlG

21.8k52959




21.8k52959








  • 1





    Draw a plow across a field.

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago











  • For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

    – jkf
    3 hours ago











  • Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago














  • 1





    Draw a plow across a field.

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago











  • For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

    – jkf
    3 hours ago











  • Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

    – p.s.w.g
    3 hours ago








1




1





Draw a plow across a field.

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago





Draw a plow across a field.

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago













For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

– p.s.w.g
3 hours ago





For those of us who don't read Middle English, could you provide a translation?

– p.s.w.g
3 hours ago




2




2





@p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

– jkf
3 hours ago





@p.s.w.g "Draw then by the rule a line from the head of Aries to the head of Libra"? IANGC (i am not geoff chaucer), but that's my guess.

– jkf
3 hours ago













Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

– p.s.w.g
3 hours ago





Ah excellent. That's pretty close to my guess as well (couldn't figure out a few of the words).

– p.s.w.g
3 hours ago













6














There is not really a significant semantic shift, given that to produce a "drawing" one must still drag/pull the pen/pencil/chalk across a surface. The real issue is the appropriating of physical metaphors[1] for digital artifacts (window/file/folder/drawing)[2]. This also occurs when referring to digital representations as their physical counterpart (such as when a user might say they are "viewing the drawings of DaVinci" online, when they are, in fact, viewing digital representations of photos of the drawings). This has led to any type of visual representation in digital form to be referred to as if it were the original, physical thing itself, such as when a program that produces a visual output consisting of lines is referred to as a "drawing". This is not specific to "draw", but occurs across a wide range of terms.[3]



[1]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155776687.pdf see chapter 2.2



[2]:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=17685&context=rtd see chapter 1.2



[3]: http://prior.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/ams_bdy.htm see the lists of terms






share|improve this answer










New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

    – Florrie
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    @Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

    – enharmonic
    8 hours ago
















6














There is not really a significant semantic shift, given that to produce a "drawing" one must still drag/pull the pen/pencil/chalk across a surface. The real issue is the appropriating of physical metaphors[1] for digital artifacts (window/file/folder/drawing)[2]. This also occurs when referring to digital representations as their physical counterpart (such as when a user might say they are "viewing the drawings of DaVinci" online, when they are, in fact, viewing digital representations of photos of the drawings). This has led to any type of visual representation in digital form to be referred to as if it were the original, physical thing itself, such as when a program that produces a visual output consisting of lines is referred to as a "drawing". This is not specific to "draw", but occurs across a wide range of terms.[3]



[1]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155776687.pdf see chapter 2.2



[2]:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=17685&context=rtd see chapter 1.2



[3]: http://prior.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/ams_bdy.htm see the lists of terms






share|improve this answer










New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

    – Florrie
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    @Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

    – enharmonic
    8 hours ago














6












6








6







There is not really a significant semantic shift, given that to produce a "drawing" one must still drag/pull the pen/pencil/chalk across a surface. The real issue is the appropriating of physical metaphors[1] for digital artifacts (window/file/folder/drawing)[2]. This also occurs when referring to digital representations as their physical counterpart (such as when a user might say they are "viewing the drawings of DaVinci" online, when they are, in fact, viewing digital representations of photos of the drawings). This has led to any type of visual representation in digital form to be referred to as if it were the original, physical thing itself, such as when a program that produces a visual output consisting of lines is referred to as a "drawing". This is not specific to "draw", but occurs across a wide range of terms.[3]



[1]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155776687.pdf see chapter 2.2



[2]:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=17685&context=rtd see chapter 1.2



[3]: http://prior.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/ams_bdy.htm see the lists of terms






share|improve this answer










New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










There is not really a significant semantic shift, given that to produce a "drawing" one must still drag/pull the pen/pencil/chalk across a surface. The real issue is the appropriating of physical metaphors[1] for digital artifacts (window/file/folder/drawing)[2]. This also occurs when referring to digital representations as their physical counterpart (such as when a user might say they are "viewing the drawings of DaVinci" online, when they are, in fact, viewing digital representations of photos of the drawings). This has led to any type of visual representation in digital form to be referred to as if it were the original, physical thing itself, such as when a program that produces a visual output consisting of lines is referred to as a "drawing". This is not specific to "draw", but occurs across a wide range of terms.[3]



[1]: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155776687.pdf see chapter 2.2



[2]:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=17685&context=rtd see chapter 1.2



[3]: http://prior.sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/ams_bdy.htm see the lists of terms







share|improve this answer










New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago





















New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 9 hours ago









enharmonicenharmonic

612




612




New contributor




enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






enharmonic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

    – Florrie
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    @Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

    – enharmonic
    8 hours ago



















  • I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

    – Florrie
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    @Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

    – enharmonic
    8 hours ago

















I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

– Florrie
8 hours ago







I feel your argument is sort of similar to the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea; that is, the photo of a drawing created by DaVinci (or rather the digital representation of that photo) is not, in fact, the original drawing, but it does convey the drawing. You wouldn't point at the arrangement of pixels on the screen and claim you possessed the original artwork; but it would nonetheless "be" the art that DaVinci created. Although, in any such case, this topic is not really related to the question at hand; this is a separate, interesting discussion, but not what the asker was asking about.

– Florrie
8 hours ago






1




1





@Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

– enharmonic
8 hours ago





@Florrie yes, I did have the "C'est n'est pas une pipe" idea in mind, but not for the purpose of philosophy as such, but for the purpose of showing how the term "drawing" is used in contexts where no dragging or pulling has taken place in reality (which begs the OP's question of how that term has come to mean "produce artwork"). Historically, the only way to produce a drawing was by pulling/dragging, but with computers, artworks can be produced without any true "drawing" (pulling/dragging) taking place, yet they are still referred to as "drawings" because of the referred/referent blurring.

– enharmonic
8 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484375%2fhow-did-to-draw-shift-to-mean-to-depict-with-lines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Image
1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C...
Read more

Vallis Paradisi

Image
Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para...
Read more

Tabula Rosettana

Image
Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a...
Read more