This is why people like Bank adopted drawing once their faux-vanguardism won approval. Painters who take painting seriously, on the other hand, abjure drawing in order to save painting. DJ is a painter who doesn't paint, and gives painting a shot in the arm by hunting out a species of drawing that we all thought was extinct. I can convince myself that DJ is fighting the good fight against residual myths from a reaction against antecedent myths, but I can never fully settle. Something unnerves me.
Embarrassment is contagious.
Not only does this mean that every last trace of drawing has to be rooted out and eliminated by the serious artist, but everything contiguous with drawing becomes subject to suspicion. I don't know if DJ has forgiven drawing for its past life or whether he has sectioned off a type of drawing that is not culpable, but for those of us still under the spell of the prejudice against drawing, our intellectual understanding of the value of the project is continually pricked by a vague sense of unease. I can agree with you on all of the points you make about DJ's work and its relation to architecture and so forth, but the one thing I can't concede is that the router shelters him from the implications of drawing. John Chilver DJ is capable of fetishising a sheet of formica when he sees one. He gets moist faster if it's a full-on saturated colour.