More thoughts on bridge art

Bridge arts- there is a need for curriculae that cross the boundaries between traditional art and digital art. As I have already stated earlier, for a traditional artist, an iPad should be considered as a front end device. But the power and availability of other applications on a desk or laptop computer should not be dismissed either.  Programs like the Adobe Creative Suite, Corel Paint, Poser, and many others offer us the possibility not only of extending traditional art forms, but also

 of creating new forms native to their respective applications. There are new forms of art as yet undiscovered which will grow out of these new tools, forms that  can only exist because of digital tools. We have already seen a profound revolution as a result of desktop publishing. It's rare to find a publishing house that still uses hand set metal type.  Many forms of printmaking, once considered fine art, have been retired to niches, or folk art status. 

In the process, we are losing many of the qualities that made the old forms so beautiful and enduring.  

At the same time,when drawing and painting programs struggle to replicate hand processes, in many ways they are missing the boat. The undiscovered methods that I mentioned earlier are ones which, rather than trying to replicate existing methods, should actually be exploring as well methods that fully exploit the new techniques available in the digital realm.  

When we set digital art free of the per conceived forms of pictures, stories, songs, movies, and start to move into a synthesis that contains all of those into something new, that's where the real excitement is. 

Artists, if you haven't bought yourself an iPad yet, here are some reasons that you should.

1. You will have a resource for drawing and painting that is more versatile and more portable than any other existing media.

2. There are hundreds of terrific drawing and painting applications which take advantage of the the direct interface.  That means that you can create images the way you always have, using your hands on a surface.

3. When you work on an iPad, you are using the same gestures you would for working on paper or canvas, so sketching and drawing on an iPad helps to hone your skills just as drawing on traditional media does - what you do on your iPad will improve your work on paper!

4. Unlike painting with traditional means, an iPad allows you to carry hundreds of brushes, colors, pens, pencils etcetera, and switch between them with a simple touch.

5. Images made on the iPad with apps such as Autodesk Sketchbook Pro, or Paper can be printed - giving you a way to quickly create cards and posters, and also a method for perfecting a master drawing and then transferring it perfectly to the media of your choice.  Consider this:  if you print your drawings on paper or canvas, you can paint over them just as you would any other master drawing!

6. You no longer have to waste precious resources when you want to sketch or doodle - do it on your iPad, save it on your hard drive.  Its so easy to organize the work that you can easily catalogue everything, and have it accessible via browser, either at home, or online.  No need to carry a massive portfolio with you either - your iPad can give your clients and potential employers the chance to see large selections of your work without muss or fuss.

7. With the integration of text, you can keep extravagantly illustrated journals, and post them online instantly.

8. With the photo and video features on your iPad, you can keep your customers up to date on the state of their commissions.  Work on a painting, and use your iPad to upload progress updates!

9. When you draw on an iPad, the work is done directly on the surface, in real time.  Unlike working with a desktop, or laptop and a Wacom Tablet, there is no divide between the drawing and the viewing surface - so its just like drawing!

10.  Although drawing with your finger can be very rewarding, there are also hundreds of styluses available, with different shapes, feel, and sensitivity, so you can pick the ones that feel the best, or that give you the most comfortable control.

For many more examples of what you can do with and iPad and the Paper app from 53, visit this link:
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/greenmanwest

A Page in Progress

So- the work continues.  These leaves have a long way to go.  The figure on the right is nearly done – the original sketch had the man in a ballcap, but as you can see, that grew in the telling.  The apron is back from the image of the man with the mallet, working on a monster’s dental problems from a few months ago.  Of course, in his hand, he holds the Ubiquitous iPad.  For scale, I left my glasses on the left leaf. 

The hands definitely need work, especially the right one – unless I decide that the story demands he have a broken wrist.  I can improve the contours when I start to block in the background.  You can’t really see it in the image, but the surface of the gouache is very glossy – I’ve been using a lot of gum arabic in my mix lately, and the surfaces are very flat and very shiny, almost like delicate oil glazes.  This is in stark contrast to many of the earlier gouache images in the book, which used much thicker paint, show more dimension in the paint buildup, and dry with a matte finish. 
One of the advantages to using gum arabic so profusely is that the colors are stronger with it, so they can be applied in much thinner layers, which also means allowing for much more precise detail, and the marks dry almost instantly, so its easier to overpaint. 

I'm a maker, and so are you.

My New Motto is Make Something New Every Day.  Hear that Mitt? I'm a maker.

A favorite Substance for Making Things.

I haven't created any jobs yet, except, that is, to create my own.  As an artist, I put myself to work every day.  I generally work between eight and twelve hours daily at this.
My day always includes drawing, painting, writing, and sometimes printing. My rule of thumb is that, no matter what, I will finish at least one project every day.
The drawing and painting is sometimes traditional, sometimes digital, sometimes crosses over between the two.
Todays work, which is not pictured here, although I may add it later, depending on whether I make enough progress, is to complete the illustration on two pages of my illuminated manuscript, a project I've been at for about 2.5 years, and which I hope to have completed by early 2013, in the event that the world doesn't end on December 21, 2012.
Its a very strange, very personal project, which I hope to be able to put in front of an audience in a merchandise form.  Once I do that, I may actually have the need to create a studio, an office, a gallery and to hire some people on to work for me.  I'd like that. I've paid people for services before, so I've actually, as has every human being who's ever made a business transaction.
So I was woolgathering about jobs and job creation.
Here are some of those thoughts on Job Creation.
When I buy something at a store, for the short duration of the business transaction, the person selling to me is, in effect, my employee.  When I visit a doctor for care, when I pay someone to change the oil in my car, when I buy books at nearby Hastings, when I order an espresso machine from Amazon, regardless of how small a contribution I make in the process, my action has given somebody else work.  I may pay them indirectly if they are under hire by someone else.  Mitt Romney says that jobs come from the top - from the big investors, who come in and build massive fortunes, and build cubicles full of computer savvy folk trading futures and stocks and money and baseball scores, and that is it.  But what about my father, when he hires a local contractor to build a wall?  He was a job creator then too.  How about my brother when he buys a new bicycle from the shop near his house in Phoenix?  He created a job for that saleswoman.
And what would all of Mr. Romney's friends do if suddenly, we all decided to stop buying their Etch a Sketches?  Would that not have a serious impact on the many, many jobs in the Chinese Etch a Sketch Factory?
Of the many people that Mr. Romney cites as being freeloaders or moochers, how many of them work at companies, perhaps even ones owned by him, earning a few dollars an hour, and so working 12 hours a day, or working more than one job to make ends meet, who struggle to keep up, but still file their tax returns on time every year without fail, who still donate money to their favorite Presidential Candidate, who continue, though cash poor, to give their business to the local greengrocer as well as to the multinational corporate bank, which continues to assess higher and higher charges for less and less service?  I think its very, very funny that Mr. Romney thinks its important that rich folks should pay only a very, very small percentage of their wage in taxes.  These are people who exploit the tax-driven government subsidies that allow their companies and corporations to hire people for ten dollars an hour.  In most towns in the US today, that is not enough, given our taxes and our forty hour workweek, to pay rent, utilities, food costs, etc.
Commerce requires both a buyer and a seller.
Its no good manufacturing cars, if there are no roads to drive them on.
Consider this: the widespread and largely excellent system of roads that our government built with tax dollars is the reason so many millions of people are employed by the automotive industry. I wonder what would happen if the federal and state Governments suddenly voted to cut all funding for roads.
That would be interesting.  The roads would then deteriorate, except in the areas where wealthy communities could pool their resources to hire a private contractor to maintain their roads for them.
In the long run, how would that effect those giant corporations making cars?  If the roads aren't there to let us drive fast, why own a car?  Perhaps it would create a new and better business climate where horses and other draft animals drive the market.  Ranchers then would be the new tycoons.
It would be a bit quieter, for certain.  It would put a quick stop to Global Warming.
Not having the luxury of fast long distance travel, people would start spending more time at home.  The hometown would get back on the map!  People content to go to a neighboring big city for their entertainment, or their provisions, would have no choice but to shop more locally.
That might be a good thing.
I kind of like the idea of returning our currency to a Gold Standard.
Especially if the government then turned around and reimbursed all citizens with precious metals to replace the rather shabbily designed and printed paper we get now for our work.
Better still, how about going back to bartering, plain and simple?
Allow no money into the process, and only use Gold as a backup.
Most purchases then will be made between people - good for good, service for service.
That might be a good thing.
If I don't earn any money, if I don't need any money for my sustenance, think of how much money the government could save.
What if we outlawed Insurance altogether, or made it so that Insurance can be used only in cases where catastrophic expense is accrued for serious illness, or for surgery.
What if we all had to pay for everything out of pocket?  Would that cause the cost of health care to drop?  I don't know. It might, it might not.
But if a doctor or druggist knows that there is not an insurance company guaranteeing the high charges for service, wouldn't they then need to lower their prices, in order to remain in the market?
What's wrong with an economy which doesn't measure the worth of an individual by how much money he or she has earned, but instead by how good they are at the services they perform? And what would it be like if, when we have paid off the costs of our homes, we no longer had to pay property taxes on them?  There would, of course, be more incentive to buy a home then, wouldn't there?  And what if we eliminated the possibility of a company or government agency from exercising eminent domain on any property so that, when you pay for something its really, completely, untouchably yours?  What if we simplified our property laws to the point where we no longer had to pay lawyers and legislators to mitigate for us?
How many elderly people have been forced out of homes they paid off forty years ago, because they could no longer afford the property taxes?
When the cost of property taxes costs a person more than the cost of renting an apartment on a monthly basis would it should tell us that there is something wrong.

RIP Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever; College Transcripts

RIP Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever

Last night, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever passed away after an automobile accident. He will be missed.  For more details, check out this link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/19/arizona-sheriff-larry-dever-60-dies-in-one-car-wreck/

College Records
and Other Thoughts
on the Upcoming
Presidential Debates

Just for the record, here's what I think about college transcripts and their import to a presidential election. 

For both of our Presidential Candidates, college was a long time ago. We are talking 30 years or more. 

The question should never be what their grades were, but did they graduate? 

Now that's an important question.
Yes, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama graduated from their respective college programs.
Both candidates also went on to Harvard University, and, both of them excelled in their respective programs. Mr. Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, and Mr. Romney Summa Cum Laude. That means they were both excellent students, thirty or more years ago. If you are thirty years old, tell me what you can remember from when you were one year old.  When you do this you will get an idea of how remote the college histories of these men are to them. 

Regardless of their undergraduate records, both proved to be excellent students at the graduate level. Both also immediately went on to work in their fields, and both did well. 

Anyone in the HR field knows that as we get older, college experience is eclipsed by real life experience. The latter may be enhanced by the former, but it is not dependent on it. 

In your resume, you lead with the most recent experience. 

I hope neither one will waste any time on this issue, or any of the many other silly tit for tat mudslinging that we are all delighting in (admit it - come on. Its stupid, but its kind of fun.) during the upcoming Presidential Debates. 

Here are other things we've already asked and answered that shouldn't be mentioned in the Presidential Debates: 

Where they get their shirts. 

Whether they smoked pot, and if so, whether they inhaled.

Whether they were missionaries, or just prefer the missionary position.

Whether some of their Mentors were lefties, or fringe right. 

Whether they go to church, and which one?

Whether their college friends remember them. 

Whether their wives are pretty.

Here are some questions that should be explored in the Presidential Debates:

The US budget, the deficit, how to improve our records on both.

Foreign Policy.

Practical job experience. (not disparaging comments about what they might have done - rather real, verifiable examples of their expertise, as it applies to politics.)

Which one will spend more money on the arts? (okay - that one's just for me - better, perhaps, for a private fundraiser)

Points they agree on. I think this last one is the most important one. It would be beneficial for all concerned if both candidates were clear at the outset about what they agree on, without playing partisan politics. If neither one can find any common ground with the other, then neither is a viable candidate, and we should just elect Ron Paul by default.

 I've always thought that the adversarial aspects of Debates are counter productive. If, instead of working so hard to put each other down and "win" the debate, presenting a fixed position, these candidates were actually to put their heads together and talk frankly and clearly about the issues, using the apparent contrasts to clarify positions, not only for the audience, but for themselves, the only rules being simple civility and etiquette, that would do a much better job of teaching us who to vote for, and both candidates would come away richer for the experience.

We can all remember at least one Debate from high school where the winner was declared, not because of his or her command of the topic, but because they made a particularly funny remark about the color of their opponent's tie.

A presidential debate should be devised in a way that allows us to both compare and contrast the candidates platforms. Just contrasting is not enough.

Better still: how about a pre-debate "therapeutic discussion" where each candidate is required to outline the things that they admire the most about their opponents. Not merely flattering stuff - but real, substantive issues of character, policy, background, etc. 

Just because I'd prefer Mr. Obama to remain in office, that doesn't mean there aren't things I like, or agree with in Mr. Romney's platform. Nor does it mean that I like or agree with everything Mr. Obama does or says. 

Fun as it can be to throw stones, both men have traveled a long way to get where they are in this contest, and I have a lot of respect for that. 

So, as we reach the home stretch in this election, I'd like to congratulate both contenders.
Here are some quick thoughts about the debates:
Everyone makes mistakes in public speaking. George W. Bush is a case in point. He was a crappy speaker, also a crappy debater. 
Romney doesn't fare well when he's off script either. 
He does even worse when he doesn't realize that the camera is on, and stays on script for his wealthy contributors. The Mother Jones videos are fine examples of that. Nearly an hour of meandering and pandering, glad handing and showing everyone what elitism is really all about. 
Unfortunately, I suspect that a fair portion of at least the first debate will be Mr. Romney trying to explain himself. Unlike most of Mr. Obama's gaffes, this entire speech was a gaffe - he didn't stutter, and he states his points very clearly. This was not misspeaking. So: is he lying when he talks to us - the unwashed, untaxed, mooching masses, or is he lying when he tells his rich supporters that we, the un washed, untaxed, mooching masses are of no interest to him? 
I'm still wondering who he thinks of as the untaxed 47%. Anyone in the US (with the possible exception of New Hampshire - Perhaps one other state that has no sales tax) is taxed every time we by something, pay for a service, pay a fine, pay a road toll, renew a driver's license, buy a lottery ticket, pay rent, make a payment on a mortgage, and so on, and so forth. Income tax is just a small portion of how taxes are assessed from us. Of course, we can't include Social Security or Medicare in that, those aren't taxes, that is a benefits program that we pay into, one which guarantees us an income, however small, after retirement, and and a medical cost subsidy to take a bit of the sting out of late life medical fees. Bernie Madoff made off with retirement packages that people paid into - Romney and Ryan's plan to privatize is not far from that. 
Oh and "kicking the ball down the field" with respect to the Palestinian issue. That might take some explaining. Or the notion that Iran must be stopped in their pursuit of Nuclear power because they might send out "Fissile Material" to a terrorist group who might then plant it in a dirty bomb somewhere in Chicago and use it to blackmail our government. (It would be far easier for the terrorists to steal the material waste from a hospital. Why go to all the trouble of building a reactor? Not fissile, by the way, fissile material is only necessary for a nuclear explosion. Any kind of radioactive waste will do for a dirty bomb.) 
I'll think of some other fun stuff later. 
But no, I don't expect Obama to do poorly during the debates. In fact, although he has been derided by the Right for making so many unscripted appearances on talk shows, he has actually used that platform to improve his ability as an extemporaneous speaker. Look up clips of Obama from Letterman, Leno and Fallon, and you will see what I mean. He's unscripted there, and he handles himself quite nicely, thank you. 
Romney said he expects Obama to lie during the debate. Well heck, I expect him to lie too - its in the nature of debating.We learned during our high school days that alls fair in love and debate - and football. I remember studying both sides of the issue very closely, just in case I had to play the Devil's advocate. So of course I expect Romney to lie with equal vigor. 
I also know that both of these contenders are even now practicing their positions and variations. By debate time they will be so fluent, in fact, that they will appear glib, possibly even arrogant in their presentation of their positions. 
If Bush suffered from anything in such situations, the worst of it was probably in his lack of preparation. He thought God was telling him what to do, so of course he went by his "gut" in public speaking and debate venues. That hurt him - a lot. Didn't stop him from winning the presidency though, did it? 
And unfortunately, because of the nature of debates, we won't really learn anything new about either of these men, unless one of them just suddenly loses it and starts spouting snatches of Jabberwocky, or urinates on one of the podia, perhaps in an attempt to channel Jim Morrison. 
Both men will make one mistake - in that they will speak primarily to their constituents. I think that neither side fully understands just how powerful a move it would be to open up and start offering positions and options that might actually appeal to everyone, focusing not on what their party wants, but what Americans really want - you know, all the good things we can agree with, like peace on earth, fair prices for everything, an ethical business climate so we don't need to have Government Regulation,
Making sense of whats going on in the rest of the world and getting a real perspective on what it means to us and our country, and what our role there really ought to be.
Here is one thing that I know we will see in the debates:  Mitt Romney will talk about his success in the business world, and Obama will be critical of the kind of business practices were responsible for his successes, including outsourcing (and to use Mr. Romney's own terminology, offshoring jobs, liquidating businesses for quick profit, rather than investing in the long haul.  Obama could, and possibly will, and correctly so, compair Mr. Romney's business ethic to that of Gordon Gecko in "Wall Street".
Then Mr. Obama will talk about his own accomplishments, not in the business world, but in the White House.  And of course, Mr. Romney will vilify him for anything that is in opposition to the GOP's agenda, and try to deflect attention from the things that he knows Obama has gotten right - for both sides of the government.
Here's what bugs me about debate: both will be correct in doing it.  But as far as being decent human beings, they should both be ashamed to have to do it.
I hope to live to see some candidates get together, not to put each other down, but to find the middle ground, and start rebuilding our nation from there.  Thats where we need to be right now, and we are nowhere close to that ideal.
And as long as elections are driven by emotion, religion, partisan politics, alienation, voter discouragement, misinformation and personality cults, we will continue to do nothing more than tread water.