This reading was incredibly fun for me, especially for the brain food it proposes when it comes to defining drawing. I think that having conversations about what drawing isn’t as opposed to what it is, proposes an interesting way of definition. I am not completely sure I agree with the argument against digital drawing. I do understand the rationale about pixels misrepresenting an image and I can also understand the sentiment towards the materiality of placing something on something else to create a mark. In this sense, I don’t think it takes away from the placement of marks upon a surface, even if it’s not physical in nature. I always took a drawing as a byproduct of its verb. Drawing seems like an action that demands interaction from a user to a surface (tablet, paper, rocks) with an intermediary that allows these marks to get recorded on the surface. I think a computer can draw, the same way a human can, but the computer has to be able to move externally to create these marks (like a robot) on another surface (could be another computer). These sorts of questions make me think also about the relationship between drawing and writing, and writing and typing. The computer and stylus as intermediaries for some output are really interesting, especially while compared against each other.