January 29, 2011

dejected swan

Still unearthing a bunch of old work as a result of producing the dummy haiku book with Freeman. This started life as a diner placemat drawing in brown crayon. The full picture was of a large angry looking woman standing over the swan with her fists curled.  I copied the swan part and finished it as a pastel and then swiftly taped it into one of my style books. You can see the cellophane tape clearly crossing the image in a few places.

The drawing got a second treatment, again in pastel, this time all grey, which ended up in the haiku dummy.   Now the the place where the woman was is empty amorphousness and the swan has become a portrait of a man with a fur lined parka.  It’s being printed on it’s side but here it is properly oriented. If you can see the contour of the swan as the fur lining, the man’s face should jump out at you. It can be your a-ha moment for this ten minute segment.

Share
January 27, 2011

More catch up, with classical allusions

I intended to have and thought I had included this drawing among the eight I posted the other day.  This is another one of the drawings for the dummy print. It is a portion of a much larger sketch I did while talking on the phone.  Yes, I was doodling.   This is way back at pretty much the beginning of my output.  At the time, everything I made had to be run through at least two processes: a process of discovery and a process of copying.  Oo it sounds so rich and suggestive when I say it that way. To me anyway.   I redrew this portion once more and clarified it, calling it Winged Antaeus.  That was a third process I’ve tried to ditch since:  everything I made had to be further made by an obvious allusion to classical Greek mythology.  Classical Greek Mythology which may or may not have been in olden times attached to a common store of images with which artists might knowingly address their audiences.  The common store of images is still there, of course, it’s just that rough old name by which each image was called have mostly been forgotten. At least, I think they’re mostly forgotten.  Is there any way to hurry the process?  Artists are better off having to create meanings that must be felt rather than merely identified and checked against a list.

But to return to the question of process. In this case the process of discovery was the doodling.   And the copying — oh so mysterious to say — was done before I drew. Oo, deep!  Drawing as copying when there is no original.  I’m not in the mood to explore such an idea right now (my last post is clever enough to last me awhile)  but maybe somebody should explore it if it hasn’t already been explored.  Which is a big if.

Okay, you can sit back in your seats: I’m ready to share the whole truth.  My process for this and many pieces at the time was this divination I’ve spoken of before.  I’d soaked paper towels in watercolor, rolled them into a ball and then rolled the balls onto white sheets of paper. I took these sheets to the corner drug store (which was the only place one could find a copy machine at the time: at the time they were known as Xerox machines.) and enlarged them until I saw something interesting.

I thought I saw something interesting in this:

I attached a piece of heavy tracing paper to the top of it and the next time I was on the phone, I kept half my attention on the conversation and half on the ambiguous shapes the photocopied watercolors had created.

 Now, at this size this doodle is a muddy mess.  The original doodle for Winged Antaeus is dead center on the right edge of the drawing.  She is nicely lit up I think. Some people can’t see her at all.  She is a nude who spreads her wings  to take flight though her legs are encased in earth.  Poetical.

 The rest of the page is full of other winged people, children climbing up vertical beds, people suspended and crucified, and couples embracing. What I guess is the main subject of the drawing is visible in the detail below. A seated figure tugs at a noose around his neck  while a couple enjoys some wanton time beside him.  What always fascinates me about this kind of drawing is that, while it is inspired by random marks, the many individual passages are united by a common theme. The theme was in no way pre-meditated.  More like precognitive.

 

 

I liked the “lit up” quality of W.A. so much I scanned it again at full size.  I had completely forgotten about the green smears.  That was some kind of accident that happened years later. I don’t remember what happened, but I think it works.

 

To view this post in light of the previous one regarding Seurat’s marks, I can say phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny — my own course as an artist has repeated the course of Modernism — where first I threw off storytelling to let my rendering of object’s be my meaning, then I abandoned representing objects altogether.  The image is really the only bit of Winged Antaeus I still admire as drawing as opposed to idea.  

Still paddling down the stream of recent Art History I’ve since abandoned my previous abandonment and have happily returned to storytelling.

Share
January 12, 2011

The Healing Power of the Internet

 

I really enjoyed a recent post by the great illustrator Eleanor Davis (1/7/11).  She made an image that allowed her to delve into her interest in “in plants, and parasites, and our ability to remain human.” In the post she shares some of her inspirations, including a video about a fungus that grows on/desiccates insects.  The video adds a layer to my appreciation of her image.

It also reminded me of a series of images I’d seen of another insect parasite.  I came across it while I was researching images for my recent Santa illustration. I was looking at images of cloaca, both the sewer kind and the body part kind, as well as images of drainage stains and coral polyps and burrowing parasites.  If you read Freeman Ng’s story, you’ll understand why. 

The story was difficult to illustrate because the writing itself was largely a re-imagining of familiar images: Santa, his reindeer and his helpers.  That’s the experience the story offered the reader; I was initially trying to be careful not to over-illustrate and step in the way of the transformation the reader would experience in their own imagination.  Then I found the image above which is of a “false faced caterpillar” and my scruples scattered.   I really liked the idea of illustrating something I didn’t want to show by having it wear a mask.  Especially since, if I am understanding this correctly, the false face is on the creature’s rear end.  That really fell in with what I was thinking about cloaca and polyps…

But Eleanor Davis’s illustration really reminded me of another insect parasite I’d encountered google-image-searching.  I went looking for it again.   The one I had in mind spends part of its life cycle in the brains of certain caterpillars. It eventually breaks through the head with two horn-like structures. These structures, it turns out, function as lures. Suddenly the imposed upon caterpillar more closely resembles the favorite prey of some bird (I think it was). The bird is fooled, gobbles the wrong caterpillar, and the parasite is perfectly adapted to live the next part of its life in the intestines of this bird.

Well, I never did find those images again.

What I did find, however, answered a question that has haunted me for probably more than 35 years.   Calling it a question hardly covers the experience.   It was a moment where I saw something that seemed so totally wrong but was so undeniably true that I had to shift my whole understanding of life in order to accomodate the fact of what I saw.  It was like asking a child to reverse an essential bit of learning: no, some monsters are real. 

This paradigm shift was never quite complete — my world was opened and the bounds were never quite reset — because for decades I had no firm identity for the thing I saw.  What I retained of what I saw was exactly my first impression, something that was wrong, something that seriously challenged my notion of the possible.

It was a July 4th party at my parent’s house sometime in the seventies. Almost the whole neighborhood was there, adults in the backyard, kids out front. I was sitting on the front step with friends . I retain no memory of what we were doing before I happened to look under the rail at the side of the step.  And there, clearly distinguished from the brick of the step, the dirt and leaves, the berried hedges, clearly moving on its own, animated, alive, was …  something. 

What it looked like was what I was politely taught as a child to call “dog dirt.” Precisely like a fresh moist average length of dog dirt except that it appeared to be equipped with googly eyes —  those craft store googly eyes I used to covet as a child. I think it was the combination that unnerved me. It appeared to be something “unclean” — animal waste –and at the same time, it appeared to have a face with eyes that looked like cutesy representations of eyes, false eyes, cartoon eyes, and then finally that this thing was clearly crawling up the step toward me, that it was clearly alive!  Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! But there it was!

My parameters of the real blew apart like a depressurized fuselage and I went into free fall.  That was it exactly: there are things that can so ferociously challenge your ideas that the bottom of your stomach drops out. I ran for the adults. The others may have come with me but I didn’t care. I needed help.

Among the adults was a biology professor who lived down the street in a house by the woods and the stream.  He was the only one who showed any interest.  He came around to the front, looked at the thing that was there and said, “ah, that doesn’t belong there.”  He went around back, returned with a container or a napkin or I forget what, and carried the thing off down the street toward his house. I always imagined he let it free in the woods. I don’t know, the incident was never spoken of again.

I never asked him what it was — who knows, he might have even said at the time but the answer was meaningless — the vision of this thing that shouldn’t be had penetrated so deeply, the tremors it caused shook everything into question. 

Well, I have told the story of that thing more than once in the time in-between. And now, thanks to Eleanor Davis, the story has an ending.  In searching for the caterpillar brain parasite, I came across the image below. The image of the very thing!  There it was, the drop in my stomach made it unmistakable.   It is called a Sphinx Moth Caterpillar. The googly eyes I saw were indeed false, though they fooled me as thoroughly as they fool any creature.  I searched independently for a picture that more strongly showed the dog dirt quality and indeed I found some, but I think this picture is adequate for my purposes.

Thank you, Eleanor, and thanks to the internet, because of them, one of the great mysteries of my childhood has been confirmed.

Share
November 18, 2010

To Stay Near the Wellspring

 

 

Commenting on my post, “My Most Enduring CollaborationsNick Mullins said, “Looking through artists’ websites, I sometimes see a thumbnail that looks really interesting, but when I click on it to get the full-sized image, I find that the real image is nothing like what I thought I was seeing in the thumbnail. Sometimes I have gone back and tried to do a sketch from what I thought I saw in the thumbnail. Your discussion of the fish that became a man in a tarp reminded me of that. Sometimes an accident of vision is more interesting than the reality.”

(Here’s an elaboration of what I replied to him:) Yes my efforts have always included either accident or collaboration — you get to new places faster. Plus, employing accidents it’s easier to appreciate what others might see in my work.  It’s only in recent years that I’ve realized that what I simply straight-forwardly produce is a new place to a person seeing it for the first time. It was the most obvious thing but it hit me like a thunderbolt.

But generally I like to think that the accident or other kind of unexpected input points us to a reality we wouldn’t have conceived of without it. I don’t mean that in any mystical way. I mean in just the same way a new sound of music will direct our attention to or express a mood we’ve never heard expressed before. Novelty and re-cognition are wrapped up together. Our ability to invent ways to express our experience, to share our experience, always lags behind experience itself. When someone finds a way to say something new about something true, its like a gift we already possess.

I totally get the thumbnail experience. Very often I screen capture a thumbnail at the resolution I like it and then blow it up in photoshop.   The resolution might be fuzzy but most times it retains the thing I saw in it.

It’s true of my own work. I like to work really small: I tend to make less marks and their interrelations are clearer. Then when I blow it up — used to be on xerox machines or cameras, now it’s scanners mostly — I work to catch the rhythms evident in the little one. Yeah, without projectors, cameras, etc., most of my work would be postage stamp sized.

 Speaking of stamp-sized:
 

The first image in this post, which I’ve just renamed “At the Waterfall”  is based on this one here. This one is reproduced at it’s original size.  I got the larger image from this small source by a kind of divination.   I used to use this process all the time.  It combines the two things we just talked about: seeing things in small things and seeing things accidentally. The larger image is a painting mind you: I started with a penciled-in grid and painted all those little dots myself.  So there.  The smaller image is from a photo from a black and white newspaper which I hand-colored and amended with pen. It is hard to tell now but the original photo was of a boy staring at the camera from behind a fence. The fragment I used shows (or used to show) his fingers poking through chain links in the fence.

Share