Chip Ahoy's curly-necked storks reminded me of a sketch I did last year. It's three scenes from an unfinished flip book called "Ouroboros For Our Times."
Ouroboros For Our Times Ball Point Pen on 8 1/2" x 11" white copier paper
But is it high end copy paper aged for a minimum of 12 years in a Hewlett Packard 1987 machine. If not, then the market value is a fraction of what it could be.
I loved HP calculators because they used "reverse-Polish logic" and nobody else ever wanted to borrow it. This is probably a reason why I still have it.
Observation: too many words. It's a word-book. The mechanisms individually scant, art minimal, seemingly disinterested. Not altogether bereft. Longer than most. Worth the cost. Especially Amazon Prime. That's the way to go. Or used.
The good thing about used pop-up books is you get to repair them, and by repairing learn how to make them.
Compare the art, if you like, to the artistry in this one.
The mechanisms in the first are meager but solid. The mechanisms in the second are meager and not solid.
I figured out what disturbs me about the second. The decisions made to throw things off kilter, each of those decisions leads to weaker construction. Then attaching oversized panels onto the mechanisms too small to function reliably. So wings flop out, and cloud banks flop out, and off kilter angles chosen on purpose to create a disturbing unsettled dreamscape, so the spindle that could stick straight up, or project solidly, flops up incompletely erect, so fully opened position is always kilter. The tower of London leans inward while the cloud bank on a similar but separate mechanism leans in the same direction outward off the top of the card. Instead of the tower leaning outward toward the viewer, the natural choice with that mechanism, and then fill the space between them, the natural choice for that dual arrangement, but no, the artist wanted the tower to lean inward disturbingly unsettled as if floating around in the sky. The tongue in the wolf is reversed unnecessarily. The snout pointed where it could have been rounded. All poor choices, it seems. The flower that opens is scored indicating an intention to fold, but the petals are not folded. Of the dozens of ways to produce a flower, I believe this is the worst that I've seen. It's careless. It works, but unreliably, everything flops listlessly. All pages are like that. The nose of Pinocchio leans up instead of straight out. It would have been easier to make it straight out, or chop down.
Having said all that I copied an idea having to do with a lacy table and learned the value of concealment, and the value of art over mechanisms. The artist conceals great art with mediocre art to fantastic mysterious effect. The viewer ends up moving it all around stressing it to the max just to get glimpses of the art behind cutout peep holes. Covers beauty with bugs and makes the viewer work to see it, then, wow! I like that idea.
16 comments:
But is it high end copy paper aged for a minimum of 12 years in a Hewlett Packard 1987 machine. If not, then the market value is a fraction of what it could be.
I think there is something organic either on the paper or on the copier glass.
You did that sketch? I thought it was from The Little Prince.
I thought it was from The Little Prince.
Lacks: (a) ouroboros aspect and (b) allusion to intergenerational wealth or debt transfer on account of baby boom.
Don't you get nuance?
Don't you get nuance?
Settle down, Ann.
(Or is that too harsh?)
designed for the finger or ear, they would make cool jewelry.
Thanks, EBL!
But is it high end copy paper aged for a minimum of 12 years in a Hewlett Packard 1987 machine.
OT but I still use a 1980s vintage HP-11c scientific calculator. On the back it's stamped "USA"
I loved HP calculators because they used "reverse-Polish logic" and nobody else ever wanted to borrow it. This is probably a reason why I still have it.
That, along with the words DETROIT-US-OF, should be our new flag.
Ace!
The Little Prince in pop-up form.
Observation: too many words. It's a word-book. The mechanisms individually scant, art minimal, seemingly disinterested. Not altogether bereft. Longer than most. Worth the cost. Especially Amazon Prime. That's the way to go. Or used.
The good thing about used pop-up books is you get to repair them, and by repairing learn how to make them.
Compare the art, if you like, to the artistry in this one.
The mechanisms in the first are meager but solid. The mechanisms in the second are meager and not solid.
I figured out what disturbs me about the second. The decisions made to throw things off kilter, each of those decisions leads to weaker construction. Then attaching oversized panels onto the mechanisms too small to function reliably. So wings flop out, and cloud banks flop out, and off kilter angles chosen on purpose to create a disturbing unsettled dreamscape, so the spindle that could stick straight up, or project solidly, flops up incompletely erect, so fully opened position is always kilter. The tower of London leans inward while the cloud bank on a similar but separate mechanism leans in the same direction outward off the top of the card. Instead of the tower leaning outward toward the viewer, the natural choice with that mechanism, and then fill the space between them, the natural choice for that dual arrangement, but no, the artist wanted the tower to lean inward disturbingly unsettled as if floating around in the sky. The tongue in the wolf is reversed unnecessarily. The snout pointed where it could have been rounded. All poor choices, it seems. The flower that opens is scored indicating an intention to fold, but the petals are not folded. Of the dozens of ways to produce a flower, I believe this is the worst that I've seen. It's careless. It works, but unreliably, everything flops listlessly. All pages are like that. The nose of Pinocchio leans up instead of straight out. It would have been easier to make it straight out, or chop down.
Having said all that I copied an idea having to do with a lacy table and learned the value of concealment, and the value of art over mechanisms. The artist conceals great art with mediocre art to fantastic mysterious effect. The viewer ends up moving it all around stressing it to the max just to get glimpses of the art behind cutout peep holes. Covers beauty with bugs and makes the viewer work to see it, then, wow! I like that idea.
OT but I still use a 1980s vintage HP-11c scientific calculator. On the back it's stamped "USA"
You mean ... they used to make stuff HERE?
youtube: pronunciation of ouroboros
Chick, it did suggest to the baby boom population bulge...that was my best guess.
Chick, it did suggest to the baby boom population bulge...that was my best guess.
You're saying that boa in The Little Prince was swallowing its own tail? I've only ever seen it flat and linear.
No, that's what I thought your drawing might be representing.
And I am a snake head eating the head on the opposite side.
I palindrome I.
Man, oh man.
Post a Comment