E-Studio: The use of information and communication technologies in the development of drawing competences in different educational environments

Abstract In the age of COVID, art teachers face the unprecedented situation of teaching at distance a subject that involves hands-on activities with tangible tools and materials. Therefore, we have implemented e-studio workshops where the mentor and participants are not in the same room, but they interact as if they were. By using audio-video conferencing to link them together, it was possible to maintain two-way communication. This alternative option retains all the elements of live interaction. Since, unlike drawing in a real physical environment, the image on the screen that participants are asked to draw is the same for everyone, there are no views from different angles as in real space. This changes the relationship with the model and requires technical adaptations, which are presented in this article. The goals of the project included bringing distance learning closer to workshop providers, finding the optimal way to develop drawing skills at a distance, finding software that allows quality corrections, adapting the way knowledge is delivered to people with different needs, and enabling social interaction between participants and the mentor. Such an approach opened up new perspectives on the experience of drawing from a model and on the nature of drawing instruction.

Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where she graduated as an architect from the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism in 1987. In 1988 she moved to Slovenia and graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts at the University in Ljubljana in 1993. Later she did her Mr. Sc. in Sociology of Culture at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. She is an associate professor of Didactics of Art Education at the Department of Art Education at the Faculty of Education in Ljubljana, where she defended her PhD thesis on Experiential Learning and Spatial Design. Her areas of interest are visual art education, pedagogy of architecture, spatial perception, theory of architecture, geometry and art, interdisciplinary education. As we work under the conditions of COVID, we have the opportunity to improve our research. We have found that when we plan activities that involve experimentation with materials, we get better results using distance education. When students work independently and have ultimate control over space, time, materials, and equipment, the artwork is much better conceived and implemented. Our research interest is to introduce hybrid ways of working subjects other than drawing.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
In the age of COVID, art teachers face the situation of teaching at distance a subject that involves hands-on activities with tangible tools and materials. Therefore, we have implemented e-studio workshops where the mentor and participants were not in the same room. By using audio-video conferencing, it was possible to maintain two-way communication. Since, unlike drawing in a real space, the image on the screen that participants are asked to draw is the same for everyone, there are no views from different angles. This changes the relationship with the model and requires technical adaptations, which are presented in this article. The goals of the project included finding the optimal way to develop drawing skills at a distance, finding suitable software, adapting the way knowledge is delivered to people with different needs, and enabling social interaction between participants and the mentor. Such an approach opened up new perspectives on the experience of drawing from a model and on the nature of drawing instruction.

Introduction
Space and time are interconnected and define us in a particular way. What the best place to teach and learn looks like and how it needs to be designed to make these activities more effective and enjoyable are questions that need to be explored for the post COVID.
The project entitled E-studio: The Use of Information and Communication Technologies in the Development of Drawing Competences in Different Educational Environments presented here was one of the projects of the Creative Path to Knowledge program launched by the European Union-European Social Fund. The general aim of the program is to link higher education institutions with the business sector. Through the project, students should gain practical experience, additional knowledge and skills with creative, innovative solutions to the challenges of the economic and social environment.
The project was carried out from March to August 2020, including during the COVID −19 epidemic. Its objectives included bringing distance learning closer to workshop providers, finding the optimal way of teaching to develop drawing skills at a distance, finding software that enables high quality workshops and corrections, adapting the way of teaching knowledge to people with different needs, and enabling social interaction between the participants themselves and the teacher. The business sector was represented by a private art school that faced the same constraints, as attending workshops in the school's real space is not possible for many students. They wanted to find solutions to enrich their offer on the market. Within the didactic model developed for the workshops, the mentor and the participant are not in the same room, but they participate as if they were. By using a program that connects them, they can interact in a two-way communication. Using audio and video conferencing, we have developed an alternative method for teaching and learning drawing that provides all the elements of live contact between the mentor and the participants. Unlike drawing in a real physical environment, the image on the screen that participants are asked to draw is the same for everyone, there are no views from different angles as in real space. Such an approach opens new perspectives on the experience of drawing from the model and on the way of teaching drawing and is presented in detail in this article.

The context of Covid-19 pandemic
As a result of the declaration of Covid-19 as a pandemic, educational institutions had to change their working strategies quickly and spontaneously. Face-to-face classes became electronic classes overnight, and teachers and lecturers changed their pedagogical approach to adapt to the changing situation (Dhawan, 2020). This way of working is not really distance education, but a quick adaptation to existing conditions (Hodges et al., 2020).
It could be called distance learning in a state of exception. As part of distance education in a state of exception, universities quickly created virtual courses and offerings within their existing distance education platforms, using both synchronous and asynchronous forms depending on the content of the courses. In addition, some universities used informal platforms instead of or in addition to their existing distance education platforms (Dunton, 2020). Accordingly, art teachers faced the unprecedented situation of teaching a subject remotely, which often involves hands-on activities with tangible tools and materials in a state of exception.
As Kraehe (2018) notes, digital encounters involve actively making decisions about where to look, what to click on, whether or not to log on or off. Thus, even before students are confronted with the task of interpreting representations on a digital platform, the human-technology interface offers opportunities for self-directed looking as well as critical and creative responses. This is not to be expected when online art classes are viewed as school subjects with limited content, objectives, and minimum standards.
Although the offer of online art courses is very large, the content of most of them consists of explaining contents and tasks and showing examples, but often lacks the phases of assessment and evaluation of results, since in these cases students are not expected to develop their artistic activities in real time under the supervision of the teacher.
Teaching drawing from models in distance learning environments has always been considered practically impossible. Students only see the model from one side, the one shown on the screen, and cannot get closer to the model, touch it, or view it from different angles. The teacher cannot assess the students' work or make corrections.
Filling this gap in arts education and considering the situation in which we had to work was one of the general challenges that motivated us to embark on the project presented in more detail in this article.
Within the traditional view of acquiring skills in drawing or painting, it is questionable whether this is possible through a distance workshop. If the model, the students and the teacher are in the same room, they can get first-hand information about the object. In a distance workshop, the teacher must use all available means to help the student understand the features of the model. In a distance drawing workshop, the teacher should help each student synthesize the information about the model and guide the process to the final work, a work of art in which all the elements of rich observation must definitely be present. Close observation is a key activity to which the teacher must direct the students' attention.
In order to present the ideas that we had in mind when developing the tested didactic model, we need to explain some features that formed the theoretical background of our research, such as the characteristics of spatial perception in new media, the nature of digital spatial formations and images, the role of the computer screen and the use of digital tools in teaching and learning. These are the contents of the first part of the article. Since the particular aim of the research was to determine the extent to which the model we developed influences students' implementation of artistic tasks, motivation, satisfaction and understanding of art concepts, the results are presented in the second part of this article. Manovich (2001) sorts screens in a horizontal order. The classical screen, as he calls static art paintings and photographs, is followed by a dynamic screen type, which retains all the characteristics of the classical screen and has a novelty: an image that is dynamic and shows something that happens during a certain period of time. It requires the identification of the viewer with the image itself and the complete exclusion of the real space in which it is located. However, these conditions or visibility modes can be met if the displayed image fits perfectly on the screen. Any deviation of the image from the screen format causes the illusion of disintegration. A similar mode applies to the next type of screen, the real-time screen, which is a dynamic type that shows not the past or recorded event, but the present, the real-time.

Screen views
In explaining how screens function in new media, Friedberg (2006) describes the screen as something that can divide or more precisely define space, a membrane between surface and depth. It is also perceived as a frame that can limit our vision and reduce the external space from a three-dimensional to a two-dimensional surface. Just like a window, a screen is also a twodimensional surface bounded by a frame. Manovich (2001, 90) describes the exterior of a computer screen as a flat, rectangular surface designed for frontal viewing and divides it into three segments: Content, Frame, and Desktop. For the latter, he states that it consists of a series of icons with specific functions that turn the screen surface into a virtual, interactive control panel. The screen can thus be perceived as both surface and depth, as something that can be transparent or opaque. The images it depicts can be perceived as a space of illusion or as an instrument of action. According to Manovich and Wardrip-Fruin (2003) and Friedberg (2006), the screen can thus function as both a window into an imaginary space and a surface.

Space and body perception
The world we experience through electronic media is completely different from the world we experience when looking through the window of an apartment. When we look down at the street below our apartment block, we can easily determine the depth, colour, and distance to the objects and people there. If we were to set up a video camera in the same place from which we observed the street through the window, and record a completely identical scene as we saw it while sitting in front of the screen in another room, even if we could imagine ourselves standing in the camera's place, we would not be able to avoid the sense of dislocation entirely. The shot or perspective of the camera would be perceived as something belonging to the device, we placed there to take the picture, not us. We would feel that what the camera is recording is happening in real time, but not feel that it is happening in our immediate vicinity (Heydon, 2013). The author describes the feeling of transcending the physical boundaries of perception when the body becomes lateral in comparison to the dimensions of the mind. That is, to be able to perceive a camera shot as direct requires complete ignorance of the body. However, without images imprinted in our memory by which we recognize what the flattened screen is showing us, ignorance of the body is essentially impossible.

Digital spatial structures and images
In order to fully exploit the potentials of digital technologies, such as ease of access, stimulation of the imagination, video and photo management capabilities, ease of integration with other digital technologies, visualization capabilities, and directing attention to the screen, we should first focus primarily on learning or teaching, and only then on digital learning aids. Digital technologies therefore need to be integrated into the learning process to benefit both teachers and students. Zheng (2015) points out that the potentials of virtual reality in education include differences in the way of teaching and learning, the way of teacher-student interaction, and the way of assessing their performance compared to traditional teaching methods.

New media digital learning tools
Teaching tools today include cameras, projectors, computers, cell phones, and other digital technologies or inventions without which we cannot imagine modern teaching.
Smith-Stoner (2012) advocates the use of digital technologies, such as the mobile phone, because of its widespread use, noting that it is currently one of the most widely used forms of technology. Echeverría et al., 2011, 351) describe it as an attractive alternative to a laptop and according to Ito et al. (2005), it is said to stimulate our imagination as our brain has to compensate for the deficit that occurs when we limit our gaze to the size and format of a phone screen. Goggin (2006) also talks about the potential of the mobile phone in conjunction with video and photo management, emphasizing its easy connection with other representatives from the field of digital technologies. Rivière (2005) says that a mobile phone's camera can be used by virtually anyone. Mobile phones and their screens require us to almost completely exclude the immediate environment and reduce the wider field of attention at the expense of focusing on the stimulus or screen (Crary, 1992;Crary, 1999). Grau (2003, 7) notes that interactive media transform our notion of image into a sensoryinteractive experiential space with a time frame. Most virtual realities lead the viewer hermetically along a path that first shows external visual impressions, then addresses the plasticity of the objects presented, extends the perspective of real space into a space of illusion, and uses direct lighting effects to present the image as the source of reality.
However, despite all the positive effects, Billinghurst and Dünser (2012) point out that traditional learning tools and aids cannot be completely excluded from learning practice, as virtual reality is said to be most effective as a supplement to traditional learning methods and teaching aids. Indeed, like other didactic tools, it has its advantages and disadvantages when used in the learning process. Chandrasekera and Yoon (2018) emphasize the importance of visualization skills of teachers and learners. Visualization skills are the ability to mentally create images or the ability to mentally represent three-dimensional objects. Visualization skills include a person's ability to mentally slice, rotate, stack, combine two-dimensional objects, convert three-dimensional shapes into twodimensional shapes, the ability to manipulate mental images, and the ability to interpret visual information in the brain. Developed spatial representations are a prerequisite for the effective use of new didactic media and at the same time help in their development.
The approach to learning in art education always takes place in two stages: perception, which involves acquiring information about the model, whether based on observation, ideas, memory or imagination, and processing of the acquired data, which involves checking the meaningfulness of information and storing it. Learners perceive information in different ways: specifically, for example, sensory information through touch, sight, or hearing. The next step is processing the acquired information: Learners process it through active experimentation by performing specific activities. In the context of artistic activities, the teacher must facilitate gradual learning based on perception, experience and understanding, as well as the processing of information with visual signs in the creative act of artistic expression.

Description of the art workshop procedure
After analysing the partners' needs, we conducted four workshops with the same content and different participants. Seven students participated in the activities as mentors and organisers, were responsible for technical requirements and evaluation, and observed the workshops and took notes on their progress. Each workshop was supervised by two of the seven students. 39 students from Elementary Education, Art Education, Special and Rehabilitation Pedagogy, two-subject teachers in Biology and Chemistry and Architecture at the University of Ljubljana voluntarily participated in the workshops. The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 21 years old, as they were all in their second year of study and had no experience in drawing from models. They were divided into four groups according to the four planned workshops.
In each workshop, the mentors prepared a different still life (Figure 1), resulting in different drawings. They presented the drawing task by sharing the image of the model through the Zoom application. Participants could view it in different places on their computer or phone screens. Before they started drawing, there was a motivational introduction to the workshop where the mentors introduced the purpose, process and theme of the workshop. They also carefully explained the technical and didactic aspect of the workshop and introduced the participants to the still life motif ( Figure 2). The still life drawing procedure was clearly divided into steps to make the instructions clear and understandable (Hutchins, 1996).
The mentors strengthened the motivation of the students by explaining the sighting or measuring the proportions between the still life elements and transferring them to the drawing support, the use of the drawing materials, the procedure, where and how to start drawing ( Figure 3). The participants found the explanation understandable as it was carefully planned to achieve the desired results.
The participants had one hour to draw the still life. While drawing, the mentor could be asked for possible corrections or further explanations (Figure 4). At the end, the mentor asked participants to send an email with a photo of their drawing, which should be taken in sufficient light or better quality. The mentor then shared a view of his computer desktop with all other participants via Zoom share screen and commented on the participants' drawings ( Figures 5 and 6). Evaluation could also be done individually, but the purpose of the workshops was to learn how to draw and therefore it is important

Technical requirements
During the implementation of the workshops, we were confronted with various working conditions, which we regulated until the end of the implementation and for which we sought suitable solutions. These conditions were objective, namely one of them is the number of participants. The smaller the number, the easier it is to focus on each individual during the artistic expression, the choice of drawing materials, the brightness of the room where the still life was placed and the representation of the background.
As a condition for proper work, we pointed out to the participants that the sight should always be equidistant from the canvas on which the still life is viewed, which is ensured by the outstretched hand in which we hold the sight and by the position of the body, which should remain in the same position with an upright posture. For sighting during the actual still life observation, the two-dimensional view is advantageous because of the static nature of the view, so that the draftsman can always return to the identical ground plan throughout the observation and drawing.  In the studio, the angle of view changes slightly over time for physical and practical reasons, the standing or sitting posture of the draftsman.
Also, the camera should be far enough away from the still life to capture the entire subject as well as the relationship between the objects. It is necessary to keep the camera away from a natural or artificial light source to avoid glare and possible illusions of light that occur with too much or changing natural light. It should be placed in a darkened part of the room, and an artificial light source with white light should be placed next to it. White light from an artificial source allows for controlled shadows that do not change with changing weather, and represents colours as they are in reality. If  you are using a phone from which to shoot the still life, it should be positioned so that it can be put back in the same place despite possible movement. This is especially important for long videoconferences.
When the mentor receives the photos of the drawings, he or she transfers them to a computer and opens them in the photo viewer and shares the open photo across the split screen in Zoom. An extension of this step is to open the photo in Adobe Illustrator, where it is possible to collect photos of all the participants' drawings in one view and zoom in or out on each photo. This is especially useful for the next step, evaluating the drawings. It is useful that all participants take part in each correction, as the specificity and particularity of each virtual workshop is that all participants look at the still life from the same point of view. When drawing in a physical studio, each participant would view the still life from their own vantage point, as workshop participants are often placed in a circle around the posed still life. Viewing the subject from the same vantage point from which it is captured and transferred to a virtual environment allows for comparison of drawings and thus learning from one's own and others' mistakes or successes.
Using the screen, the drawer can accurately compare individual distances with transparencies. In an e-studio, spatial perception is heavily dependent on the perception of shadows and light components.
The key to reproducing the observed subject is the use of light-dark contrasts in lines that work on a subtle level despite their obviousness. A key difference between a virtual and studio workshop is also colour matching. Between the emitter and receiver of the wavelength of the colour in the e-studio comes an additional converter, a computer screen, which partially manipulates the colours depending on the computer settings and power. Colour differences are potentiated slightly differently in the e-studio. The most noticeable feature is the light contrast. The more the individual colours in the still life differ in colour brightness, the more legible they are as individual areas of the still life. The brightness or darkness becomes more important than the colour difference of the areas, especially with a lower resolution computer screen. Reflective or translucent objects are less visible because of the screen as a perceptual interface.
In a workshop in the studio, in principle, each student participates only in an individual evaluation, precisely because of the uniqueness of the view of the objects viewed. The difference that occurs in the e-studio is that it can become a group observation, correction and discussion, which is particularly suitable for acquiring drawing skills from both theoretical and practical aspects.
Giving corrections and feedback proved to be more challenging than when conducting live workshops, as in most cases the mentor has to be much more descriptive, whereas in live performance he can quickly point to a part of the artwork and comment on it more easily. Since some participants do not like group analysis of their work, the mentor can use Zoom and choose the private messaging mode and give immediate feedback or corrections in writing only to a specific participant.

Feedback survey after the workshop
We wanted to get feedback on the workshops that would allow us to improve them or make recommendations that could help us plan and deliver more workshops. At the end, the 39 students who had participated in the workshops were asked to complete an online survey in the form of a fivepoint Likert scale (Table 1). We ensured the validity of the online instruments by discussing them with external experts.
The results we were most interested in were related to the formal and technical aspects of organizing the workshops. We are aware that many other factors could be taken into account, such as the importance of socialization within the group and the mentor, or the possibility of students networking with each other to improve the quality of the activities.
The results show that there are factors which the mentor cannot control and which are the exclusive responsibility of the participants, and others which are within his particular sphere of influence. We asked whether the model's image on the screen was too small, too large, or too sharp. In this case, our job was to arrange the still life so that it could be seen clearly, but students using smaller format computers or tablets and phones might have difficulty seeing the details of the image. This was something we could not control. In a way, the statement that 25.64 percent of students partially agreed with, that they could not see the details of the subject and could not get closer to see better, expresses one of the difficulties that can be a problem, especially for those who are used to drawing models in real space. However, this could be solved with a high-quality image that could be enlarged if the drawer needed to.
Despite the fact that the answers differ among themselves, there is a clear statement expressing that it was easier to determine from where to where the drawing should extend than when drawing live. The fact that the computer screen has a frame restricts peripheral vision, which sometimes makes it difficult to focus on the fixation point needed to draw a perspective.
46.17 percent of the students reported that they could draw more easily on the horizontal surface of the desk than on a vertical stand, which was chosen by 28.20 percent. Based on these results, we can plan how to arrange the space if we repeat the experience with a group of students in the classroom and the mentor in a different location.
30.77 percent of students disagreed with the statement that they had a similar sense of 3D space with the image on the screen as they did with live drawing. 33.33 percent had no specific opinion and 35.90 percent agreed. The media grade was 3.95. On the other hand, 38.46 percent of the students disagreed with the statement that the experience was neither 3D nor 2D and they felt like they were transmitting a flat image from a flat screen while drawing. 30.77 percent had no specific opinion and 30.77 agreed with the statement. The media grade in this case was 2.90. These two statements contradict each other and were part of the survey because we wanted to reinforce these opinions as this question is fundamental to our research. The results confirm our assumption that drawing a computer image, despite its flatness, can create a sense of immersion in 3D space. This is an experience that younger generations are likely to understand well, as working with a computer, opening windows on top of each other is in some sense a spatial operation, not to mention playing games with images shown from different perspectives. These results are a response to those who are more reluctant to use ICT technology in drawing or painting lessons.
Another formal element that plays a crucial role in the preparation of the model are colors, light and shadow. They enable the draftsman to perceive the spatial relationships between objects. 48.72 percent of the students disagreed with the statement that they found it difficult to pay attention to the shadows between the objects on the model. 76.92 percent agreed that the lighting of the room in which the model was located was adequate. 85.62 percent agreed that the model was at an appropriate distance from the computer camera and that the mentor moved appropriately in the room next to the model. In relation to these questions, we can conclude that attention to these factors is very important so that students feel confident in understanding the features of the model being drawn and are not disturbed by the mentor moving around the model, which would interfere with the students' attention.
This result was underlined by the next question about individual corrections. 76.93 percent of the students agreed that these were made so as not to disturb other participants. The media score in this case was 4.18. 43.58 percent of the participants had no specific opinion on the statement that corrections could be done differently if the subject was taken from imagination. The rest of the results were scattered in both directions, i.e. agreement and disagreement. This could mean that drawing from model, which is quite a difficult task considering that the draftsman has to pay attention to proportions, scale from white to black, positive and negative spaces in the drawing, etc., was not an obstacle for the students but a challenge. Drawing from imagination seems easier because everything can be right and beginners often think that. The fact that the students volunteered to take part in the project even though they knew that the task would not be easy is a positive outcome. This is probably a positive factor in learning to draw through distance learning. In live classes, participants tend to compare themselves with each other during the process and many lose motivation when they notice the differences between the drawings, especially those who are not so familiar with drawing.
When asked what they would change about the workshop, all respondents indicated that they would not change anything. The 28.57 percent rated the workshops as good and the 71.43 percent rated the workshops as very good.
The seven mentors of the workshops also answered a short questionnaire. They were asked what technique and motive they would use if they were planning the workshops themselves. 3 students stated that they would choose drawing freely by imagination, 2 would choose painting in any technique, 1 would prefer watercolour and 1 a mixed technique. In terms of subject matter, 2 students would still choose a still life, and 1 would choose a self-portrait, a landscape, an imaginative subject, an architectural subject, and a current social event. One person could not identify with either the technique or the subject.

Discussion: Advantages and disadvantages of taking art correspondence courses
As part of the evaluation, we wanted to outline the factors that were most emphasized by distance learning participants and that we need to pay attention to when planning the next distance learning course.
According to the results of the survey, still life was sufficiently visible. We see room for improvement in the additional concern for the visibility of details or the ability to enlarge the image, as a quarter of the participants indicated that they had problems with this. Interestingly, several of them agreed that it was easier to position the drawing on the ground plane when they were drawing from a distance than when they were live, although there were very small differences between responses. There is also little difference between responses to the question of whether to draw on a vertical or horizontal surface.
These responses give a good direction as to what motifs could be developed in the workshops, especially if they took more time, and sharing motifs would be even more useful to diversify the workshops themselves. The diversity of motifs also opens up the possibility of adapting to different seasons and weather conditions, as in fine weather or summer the motif could be the outdoors or a landscape and in bad weather or winter it could be an interior or a still life.
The results of the two questionnaires show that conducting such art workshops remotely does not have a significant impact on the experience of artistic expression and the achievement of competencies in drawing, which is an encouraging fact to promote this model.
The results also show that attention was paid to subject placement and lighting in the preparation and delivery of the workshops. It is useful to consider the recommendation of one participant that the framing of the subject and the lighting itself should be checked several times during the workshop and adjusted, if necessary, as over time the lighting of the room may change or camera shift may occur. The results of the two questionnaires also show the appropriate approach of the mentors who maintained encouraging communication that was unobtrusive to the other participants in the art studio. It is also useful to consider the recommendation for corrections, namely that these should be made on an ongoing basis, during the art making itself. It would also be useful, as suggested in the questionnaire responses, for the activity leaders themselves to draw and show their work at the end, as this provides a positive role model for the participants. Both participants and mentors agreed that the number of participants was appropriate, i.e., that such workshops could be run with up to 10 participants so that the workshop could be ongoing. The results of the two questionnaires show that most of them would continue to participate in such workshops in the future.
The lessons learned are useful and meaningful and make the work easier for both the person conducting the workshops and the remote user, as we believe this increases the quality of the trainer's work and saves the time that would otherwise be spent searching for strategies to make the work meaningful.
The main advantage is that the workshops are accessible to all who cannot attend live, and the quality of delivery and interaction with participants is comparable to live workshops, which are of a high enough standard with today's ICT developments. The main potential advantage for companies may be lower implementation costs in the long term, as there are no room rental or travel costs.
The main disadvantage of conducting remote workshops is that the contact is not as personal or has a different character. We assume that this weakness is more pronounced for workshops with older people who are not as close to modern technologies, which is basically not true for younger generations. It is also difficult to provide feedback and corrections on the spot, which leads to a somewhat lower quality.
A possible weakness on the part of the participants is also the availability of technical equipment and the knowledge of how to use applications for mass videoconferencing. On the other hand, this way of conducting can offer new experiences and knowledge that can be useful in daily life.
We agree that the e-studio is most useful in small groups where the mentor can really focus on each participant. We also believe it would be very useful for people with special needs or older people (Manifold, 2019). People with limited mobility are often prevented from attending drawing classes only by obstacles in the buildings where the classes are held. This practically eliminates this problem, as a person with reduced mobility can attend the course directly from home. We think that this way of working is also useful for people who are not able to leave the safe environment of their home or hospital. On the other hand, participants have little opportunity to socialize and interact with each other. The mentor can improve this by encouraging participants to actively communicate and discuss.
One of the advantages is certainly that both the participants and the mentor can be at home during the course. As mentioned earlier, this allows those who are unable or unwilling to leave home for one reason or another to participate. Another advantage is that we do not need much for this type of work. Participants only need a computer with a camera to follow the mentor's presentation and communicate with the other participants, and a mobile device with a camera to photograph their product at the end, which most people have these days. It is also beneficial for participants to take photos of their product after class and send them to their mentor for review. The mentor already guides them in the creation process, but since the product is also photographed, there is the opportunity for a much more detailed and in-depth analysis. The downside is that the mentor cannot simply walk up to the participant and correct something on the drawing sheet itself. However, this requires greater independence on the part of the participant.
The disadvantage of this way of working, however, is that the technique can also fail. For example, during the project we often had communication breakdowns, bad pictures, bad sound. All this has to be taken into account when choosing this way of working, and this is especially important for the mentor who leads the workshops. The mentor must pay particular attention to having technologically capable equipment that can be seen and heard by all participants.
Based on the testing of the planned didactic model, we have gained a deeper understanding of the use of e-media and answered the question of what are the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the e-learning process using audio-video conferencing in drawing in relation to the cognitive and affective aspects of artistic engagement. We also tried to answer other open questions about the use of e-media in art education, such as the role of the mentor when not present in the room where the workshop participant is, what are the possibilities of giving feedback on the work, and what are the possible forms of sharing experiences between the participants of the art workshop.

Conclusion
In the world we know today and the times we are in, we are learning more and more about the dimensions of distance education and learning. As technology makes this more and more possible, telecommuting has taken on new dimensions and is a context in which we will sooner or later be forced to accept it. Be it replacing classes in school, presenting papers, gaining insights through webinars, sharing knowledge, ideas with a colleague or quarantine where the internet is virtually our only contact with the outside world.
Live contact can easily be replaced by contact via the Internet, and it is interesting to observe how certain elements change in this type of communication. What happens to the quality of what is said, the interpretation of the information we receive, what devices we use and how we use them. We asked ourselves what types of knowledge transfer are most useful for teaching drawing, what programs make this type of teaching possible, and what advantages and disadvantages they have. Since feedback is also an important part of teaching drawing, which in our case was done by drawing the work, we found different ways to correct it, which can be extended depending on the needs of the drawing class.
The project thus turned out to be even more important than we had imagined, because in 2020 the whole world will be forced to face the reality that almost every job will be done through digital media. Given the changes of the last year, we therefore believe all the more that it is important and necessary to develop and design new interactive methods of learning and teaching, to create new learning environments that take into account all the elements of practical activities, to test them and then to present examples of good practice so that they can benefit society as a whole.
Considering the future scenarios for schools (Fuster & Burns, 2020;Kennedy, 2014), teachers need to adapt to new scenarios and advance their personal and professional development in order to maintain their autonomy and the acquisition of the competences required to work in schools.