Since I've been just ridiculously in pain the last few weeks I haven't done my laundry -- oops! So today I decided I had to do a couple of loads no matter what -- having run out of T-shirts. Anyway, I reckoned I'd put the second load in and wait downstairs for it to wash, then remove load one from the dryer, replace it with load two, and take load one upstairs. I sat on the stairs and waited, and that left me with time to contemplate the fellow-who-lives-below-me's framed prints. Straight in front of me was a tastefully framed (although to me anything above a single mat is tacky) print of a rather radical Monet landscape, Ile St Martin.
If you turn it upside down you can see it's a huge "R." That amused me for a while -- before that I was just interested in how the composition worked, and just how wild it was. Yes, yes, I've seen it a billion times before as has everyone, I'm sure. However, spending time wholly focused on it was different than just casually looking. It's a beautiful painting, but I am against the idea of litho prints -- people should have original artwork on their walls, listen to live music, and go to the theatre -- well, ideally. And, of course, go to the movies and listen to records, etc. I just think those things should be in some part live and not regurgitated. We are like baby birds being fed regurgitated cultural worms.
For one thing, paintings reproduced for mass consumption have altered color and scale, and then too they have no texture, which is a huge thing. I was amused to see that in "There," the color/pattern used to cover objects is referred to as "texture," which to me it isn't. It's akin to people making things for the tube or monitor, and saying the things are 3d -- we know what they mean by that but although there's an illusion of depth the things are 2d and that's that. I have children who draw something -- say letters of a name -- and then "make them 3d." I used to always train the children to draw, and to depict three dimensions on a two dimentional surface, but now that I haven't been working with the whole school on that I'm saddened to see the drawings I get now are terrible. Not only that, but children in quite high grade levels have shown me coloring they've done as part of class projects. Coloring! I'm appalled.
I did a rough of the pow-wow poster and emailed it to the v.p. for the committee meeting yesterday. When I got home from jin shin and stepped out of my car into the garage I could hear the v.p. on the phone, so I staggered in and spoke with her -- she was relaying a few changes they wanted, and a few design suggestions -- one of which was to replace the childrens drawings that run up and down the sides with the school logo repeated ad nauseum. I laughed -- said I wouldn't as it was a horrible idea, and said "Everyone thinks they're a graphic designer." I asked her who'd suggested it, and she mentioned two men, one of whom IS a graphic designer. The v.p. had shown me, on Tuesday, the logo they have decided on for the pow-wow, which is horrible, and which I refused to use. So there you are. It all boils down to -- chacun a son gout. I will suggest that next year instead of trying to graft his work onto mine, with a resulting Frankenstein's monster effect, they just give him the whole thing. Then they can remove every reference to children and generally have their own way.
posted by - 12:11 PM