BARSTOOL!

I recieved my first double ring, 30in, chrome bar stool today!

This is the basic frame that I wanted, and it needs some modification.

First off, I need to re-enforce some of the bolts/joints: I want this thing to be solid.

Second, create a circular metal plate that will be attached to the swivel top.

I need a larger surface to which I can attach more metal.

Third, the height may be an issue. As you can see in the original drawing:


I had to add on to the stool to create my desired height, which I may need to do in real life. How this addition will effect the aesthetics or functionality is something I need to explore further.

Speaking of aesthetics: this chrome is SHINY! It needs some wear and tear. I think some flat metallic spray paint may be in order. I may even sand off some of the finish by the joints and corrode the metal with urine. "Make it look mean."

So, yeah. It's a start...

SCENE CHANGE

So, I was drawing this diagram to try to figure out how to construct the base...

When I realized that it was too minimal. I thought about the entire tableau and decided that it needed another element: a red bar stool.

This empty bar stool represents a lack of companionship, and by giving it a red cushion, it becomes female. There go: lack of a female companion. So, I ordered a red one in the same style as the black.

That's all.

COLOR!!!

I added some color to my latest portrait:

First off, these webcam pictures suck. The colors are much more vivid, darker hues, etc. That said, I have had some conflicting thoughts concerning color...

ACCURACY VERSUS MEMORY

The sketches that these figures are based on were created by memory; I thought about what I look like, and drew a representation of myself. So, when deciding how to color these, I am conflicted because I want to get the skin tone correct, however, I still want to be true to my process. So I can do two things: create skin tones based on memory or use a mirror and try to render the colors accurately. I decided to use a 7 times magnification mirror. Ultimately, the sculpture itself is so abstracted that the areas on the face do not align with the structure or proportions of my face. So, the mirror acts as color reference, however, does not add enough natural elements to detract from the caricaturization. I wanted this figure to be the most hyper-realistic: focusing on skin tone, veins, blemishes, pot marks, moles, zits, skin flakes, stubble, wrinkles, and skin folds. For it to be effective, I think that it has to have a reference point, other than imagination.

NATURALISM VERSUS CARICATURE

I am trying to find the middle ground -possibly breaking point- in an exaggerated color scheme. For example, the purple tint under the eyelid: how much can I exaggerate the purple before it becomes a distraction? I want the face to be seen in total, as a single entity; so if I exaggerate every aspect, it becomes too compartmentalized. Your eye focuses on the eyes, then the stubble, then the veins, then the hair, then the nose, then the mole, etc. -which normally occurs when viewing colored objects, but if each element is too skewed, it may be impossible to see the whole.

...But, is this a bad thing? I am going for ugly here, right? Perhaps the viewer sees the face, recognizes it as a face, and then says, "look at those veiny eyes, look at that sporadic facial hair, those pulsating veins, that mangled hair, that bulbous red nose, that hairy mole, that popping zit, etc." Maybe it should be incredibly compartmentalized? The elements of the face are not so exaggerated they they are not understood, so, the entire head is easily read. Perhaps the positions of the singular parts is the unifying factor: the juxtaposition alone makes it cohesive? I believe this to be true, so I have to decide on my own personal canon and define my own limitations.

SIDE NOTE:

I ordered 2 double ring, chrome bar stools: one in black (masculine) and one in red (feminine).

BEST RESEARCH EVER!!!

Over the week-end, I traveled to sunny (WARM) Los Angeles to see The Pee Wee Herman Show!!! It was a limited engagement over the course of 4 weeks at Club Nokia. My source presentations have always included a picture of the of Pee-Wee's Playhouse set, and it was interesting to see how they re-envisioned it in 1/8 scale on a budget. Parts were re-created exactly, some were condensed, and many elements were completely new; however, it was still cohesive. The style of the Playhouse is basically a hodgepodge of contrasting patterns... yet still in a particular style.

BUT, this was not the first time the Playhouse has been redone. It originally debuted in a stage show called The Pee-Wee Herman Show in 1981, then in the movie Pee-Wee's Big Adventure in 1985, then on television on Pee-Wee's Playhouse from 1986-1991, then in miniature as an action figure playset in 1988, then -again- in 2010's stage show: The Pee-Wee Herman Show. Each incarnation has been skewed from the last, yet instantly recognizable.

A VISUAL HISTORY OF PEE-WEE'S PLAYHOUSE:


Today's secret word is: COLLABORATION. The Playhouse has always been a symbol of artistic diversity; it is a monument to art for arts sake, a true playhouse. I would like to create an artist collective called PLAYHAUS (in lieu of BAUHAUS): we would take a house (in Detroit, per se) and build on to it and paint it all crazy just for kicks. I'll mark this as artistic delusion # 5,990,877,866,23678,458,113,790,531,3872,613. However, I do need to engage Detroit in some way for my seminar...

SELF-PORTRAIT PROJECT UPDATE:

I finished priming my latest figure and will begin oil painting it in full color, shortly. I am the most confident about coloring this figure- as opposed to the other 3- because it so obviously needs the blending and muted color pallet that oils provide. The other 3 might be hybrids of spray paint, acrylic, gouache, and/or oils; and generally, use more bright, primary colors.

I think there might be some correlation between my interest in the various incarnations of Pee-Wee's Playhouse and this project -which deals with various expressionistic incarnations of myself. Hmm...

Maybe I'll present these at PLAYHAUS under the title: "...But What Am I?"

BAKE, RATTLE & ROLL

Today, I baked my Super Sculpey portrait:

And further designed the armature of my next sculpture:

I decided that the figure would have to be attached to a seat that can swivel. There go, the upper half would have to be static, while the lower half would have to be somewhat jointed to allow flexibility. Basically, everything above the hips is connected to the seat, the feet are connected to the base of the chair, and the legs are jointed at the hips and ankles.

The stool is a very important aspect of this piece. I will have to get it before I begin construction, so I have to order soon. I want a classic bar stool, so I was thinking this design would work well:

It swivels, is sturdy (can support a couple hundred pounds), and looks classic. I can get a new one for $85. Although, I'm searching Craigslist and Ebay for used ones (for aesthetic more than cost).

SELF-PORTRAIT PROJECT: BUST #4

So, along with the dark ride, I've been working on this self-portrait project for the last few semesters. Basically, I've been sculpting busts based on little neurotic doodles I've made of my self over the years. The sculptures are basically high relief and intended to be photographed twice and put into a stereoscopic ViewMaster: to be seen in the miracle of 3-D! I wish to incorporate these representations into my dark ride; maybe the whole thing will be in 3-D, who knows? One red light on the left side, one blue light on the right... it could work.

Here's my latest one...


It's based on this drawing:

Basically, the focus is on acne, pot marks, moles, sporadic facial hair, and a terrible, unwashed haircut. The little details. Here's some close-ups:

I think the hair is successful, but I am still unsure about the facial hair. It looks like Super-Sculpey facial hair: not uniform, more like rice than follicles. Perhaps cut wire would be a better option? However, the Sculpey looks amature, like outsider, underground, freak-out art -which I am already referencing in style- so, it might be more cohesive. The point is: technically I could do better, but is better really better in this case? Right now, I'm leaning towards the Sculpey hair because of it's painterly look: individual brushstrokes would be less distracting than uniform marks. If I used wire, it would be recognized as wire- not seen as cohesive hair. I think I'll stick with the Sculpey; any thoughts?

HOMEWOOD CEMETERY EXPERIMENT

Over the week-end I edited a roll of super 8mm film I took in 2007 at Homewood Cemetery. I had never used computer editing software, so it was an experiment.



I think it turned out rather well; however, some of the shots that were a second long were cropped: the program crops by fractions of a second, so anything included in the jump gets lost. I used iMovie HD, and I'm wondering if Final Cut Pro would have yielded better results? Oh well, it was fun to learn a new process.

I still have 18 rolls of super 8 to develop and edit from India --some color and some b&w-- so, this was good practice. It took about 2 hours to edit the 3 minutes of film before you, so I realize how much work I have ahead of me!