Whither My Wilderness?

I had to take a rotten picture of the drawing I've chosen for this entry, even though I have a fairly good scan of the picture, because Apple sucks! The syncing didn't go well, or I messed up the syncing, and since I'm a customer that means they messed it up, or maybe Microsoft messed it up. Those guys. Never trust a company with publicly traded stocks, for complicated reasons that I won't go into because I wouldnt have any idea of how to draw a picture illustrating the situation. But now that I say that I've already got something in mind. 

Anyway, I wanted to use this picture, because I wanted a picture of a cabin and for some reason in my memory it was a cabin, but as the Reader can see, it is not really a cabin:

I was kind of envisioning the scene as taking place in a ski resort type of village, an alpine village, but my general inability to draw, which is a grievous failing for someone who wants to be an artist, hindered the vibe of that alpine village from emerging. 

I wanted a cabin because I have just finished reading One Man's Wilderness, a book taken from the journal of Dick Proenecke (spelling?), a guy who built a cabin in Alaska and lived in it mostly alone for a large portion of his life. Kind of like a non-fiction version of Walden. In his journal Proenecke goes on about the difference between building something completely on your own with your own hands, and the difference in the feeling you have about your work when it's all yours, and I felt a deep sympathy with what he was doing, and I felt like I understood his desire to go live by himself in the wilderness, I felt it would appeal to me to do the same, except of course that if I tried to do the same thing I would quickly die, and I recognized that whereas Proenecke could build a cabin and outhouse out of trees he cut down himself, and use a gun to kill a ram for food, and fix everything himself, I would be able to draw some awkward pictures of the wilderness  before I froze or starved. And I came to the realization that my cabin in the wilderness, where I go to escape the world, will have to be in my mind, inadequately rendered on paper. 

So I came up with the idea of emulating Proenecke with my own Cabin in the Wilderness Project, PWC, which will take inspiration from Proenecke and source materials from photos of actual wilderness cabins, and also these drawings of houses which I drew under the direction of my offspring

Playmobil uber Lego part III; Peaceful Coexistence within our grasp

I didn't intend to make the Lego Playmobil post a trilogy, and I did have an extremely serious post in mind to do instead of this post which I am actually writing, but I could not resist the opportunity to illustrate a point which I made earlier and might have undermined with my own irresistible instinct to absolute honesty; that is my posting of photos of some kid art done by my child with Legos in a post which trumpeted the creative nature of Playmobil toys as superior to Legos. I believe I sufficiently explained why those photos did not undermine my point, but just to emphatically underline the explanation of the non- undermining photos I have taken some photos of a piece done with Playmobil:

I won't pretend to understand what's going on here in terms of the larger themes explored in the piece, but I am convinced that any intellect powered by even an average amount of neurocomputing circuits could quickly and easily grasp that the creative medium employed here compares favorably to the medium utilized in the pieces depicted in the previous post, in terms of expressive possibilities and lack of predetermined content. 

I originally discovered the work in late evening under dim lighting, but refrained from capturing the piece at that time due to its association and unpleasantly reactive nature with some sinister and anxiety-producing connotations in my own mind, and I was forced to flee the room. There has been some political ferment in the house of late due to some recent unpopular parental decisions, and I am well aware of the artistic themes presaging the Jacquerie in medieval France. I think the reader will agree that the daylight softens the impact of the piece, and the gentle spirit of reasonableness and cooperation, inherent in the English Parliamentary system for instance, seems to sing happily from the scalped but firmly attached heads on the smiling people to the carefully curated accessories arranged with the respectful care of a smithsonian exhibit, clearly denoting a peaceful surrendering of some symbolic powers in return for a long and dignified armistice. 

I will not trouble the reader with the uncanny transformation of the overall message effected by the dimming of direct light

More on Modding; Prevercursive Canonization

Just to continue some thoughts from the previous blog, something I rarely am able to do, I discovered a whole other level of "modding" the other day; the concept of "canon" as it relates to fan fiction. I knew about canonical text as it relates to religious discussion about scripture; different scholars representing different sects arguing over which ancient texts "belong" in the bible or as scripture , i.e., are divinely inspired.  But in the world of fan fiction, as far as I've been able to tell, "canon" means that a story from a particular story's universe has been published with the approval of the story's author or holder of the legal rights to the story, as indicating a continuation of the story. 

So a piece of fan fiction might be published on the web, but could not be sold to anyone or be charged for viewing without the approval of the copyright owner. I think. That's my vague kind of understanding of it. But the copyright holder could suddenly choose a piece of fan fiction and approve it as part of the official storyline, and publish works with characters and plots that refer to the events in the "canonized" story as having happened in their universe. But it seems that in the eyes of the fans, the legal copyright holder is not considered as authoritative, with regard to canon, as the original author.  The word "author" comes from "authority" after all. Or the reverse, but my point holds true either way. With The Lord of the Rings, for instance, a work I myself was once quite excited about, people were attentively judging the eponymous movies for their adherence to the original books. I would count myself among these people, who regarded the original books, by Tolkien, as "Canon," although I did not use that exact word. And I watched the movies with a highly critical eye as to their agreement with the books. I would never have considered the movies to be "canon", unless Tolkien himself had written and directed them. I always viewed the movies as a lesser work, to be judged as they agreed with the books, which I now realize is a quasi-religious attitude. I've actually seen movies based on other books, movies that have been given enthusiastic approval by the author of the book them self, that I myself have intensely disliked as much as I loved the book. I would say that this seems to indicate that print holds greater authority over the human subconscious, except that I've experienced the opposite effect, with The Shining for instance, where the movie felt like the canon, and the book, which was the original and parent work, read to me like an inferior novelization.   This might be a tribute to Stanly Kubrick's artistry, or it might merely be more simply and disappointingly attributed to my having seen the movie first. 

Which makes me wonder what someone's attitude would be if they happened to read the omnipresent fan fiction for a certain universe before they read the canon. You can do this easily on the Internet. I've read and seen many comic panels and illustrations that I didn't even realize were fan fictions because I knew nothing about the original comics. Deadpool for instance. I've never read the canon at all, and the same for all the satirical or fan fiction works based on the manga comics.  I'd expect to find the canon markedly superior, of course, except for incredibly rare instances where a gifted person may have the economic freedom and the inclination to devote huge amounts of time to a fan fiction work. But why would they, except as a form of perverse exaggerated humility?  Such a person would be a creative, but the opposite of an "author."  A sub-author. An under-author. The written version of an inker. A "wrinker": One who insists on composing fan fiction only, for no money even though they have the talent to create excellent original work of their own. 

But there's a lower level; someone who mods only the work of unpublished authors. Perverse in reverse, you could say, or "preverse", to use a wording from "Doctor Strangelove" that I've finally found a use for. Preverse, as in Prevert: One who insists on modding only unpublished work. But I'm thinking that maybe Prevert applies more to someone like myself, someone who mods only their own, unpublished work, which is more the reverse of humility, in a kind of endless recursive loop. Preverse, as in; "I find your work preversely solipsistic, especially when you took everything wrong with the original and made it worse."

I guess the whole concept of canon fascinates me because it reveals the hierarchical and religious instinct in the human brain. I understand copyright as a way to protect work and motivate creativity, but only the hierarchical mind could conceive canon and take it seriously. Why did I judge the LOTR movies on the books, really?  So what if the original author wrote them?  Why couldn't someone make the original better? 

What if someone took everything I've posted to the Internet and re-worked it to make high art?  Well, that would be insulting and I'd have to sue them, even while acknowledging their genius. But I'll probably lighten up about it after I've died. 

This seems to be a ridiculously solipsistic and empty post itself, but I had to work hard to overcome autocorrect while coining the new words. Perhaps Autocorrect is the true preversion. 

My Ideas for Playmobil in their time of need

While reading  my previous post on this blog (somebody has to), I realized that I had illustrated my pro playmobil post with pictures of Legos, and no playmobil pieces. This may seem, to many people who don't understand the volatility of child toy usage patterns, and it's complex inter-relation to parent child political struggles, that I have somehow disproved my own point, whether through ignorance or through the sinister workings of a subversive subconscious. The truth of any situation will always surpass the explicative power of a few hundred words on a blog post to even the most discerning reader, but I will try to summarize; at time of the post, the Playmobils had recently been put away by parental decree, the Lego creations depicted in the post were out on a temporary permit, issued by house rules. 

I was simply trying to illustrate that we are absolutely not an "anti-Lego" house, and that I am very familiar with the creative possibilities of the toy. But it also illustrates an unmistakeable advantage of Legos, that playmobil will have to combat, if they care to. Maybe they don't want to be a bloated corporation like Lego. They might be perfectly happy to leave the mass market share points to Lego. 

But if they do want to make it a fight without whoring their sets to Hollywood, I have come up with a plan; Mods. Mods, or "user modifications" as we older folks used to call them, are the new subversive creativity, the youngsters call it hacking from the computer hijinks we've all grown to adore from the unbelievably annoying online security measures they've forced everyone to adopt. 

You can hack everything now, people call them "life-hacks", but really most of these hacks are Mods, a more positive less hostile sort of idea. There are mods for games and hardware and re-mixes for songs, and mash-ups, and parodies and re-edits for books and movies. And they all signify a spirit of creative play, taking something and reworking it. They also signify the work of someone with a lot of time on their hands, or a "kid", as I would call them. 

My idea for the playmobil Mods would require the marketing of 3D printers, purchase of which would be no problem for the playmobil demographic, who tend to be educated and rich. The company could partner with some hip 3D printer company in the promotions, collaborating to produce the software and electronic designs and specs which would enable the kids to print whatever mod they wanted for their playmobil toys, from hats and clothes to different heads and faces and bodies, different hair, little food items, animals, swords for the soldiers, little versions of objects and people in their own life, anything.   Here's an idea of mine; rock band hair, with guitars. 

Fun!  People can choose their own colors of course. 

I wouldn't be surprised if they already do something like this on their web page with the stickers and labels they include in their sets. Mods.  Here's another couple ideas; a big cowboy hat on the guy, and I turned the lady into an elephant lady:

And the great thing about my Mod strategy is if Lego copycats it like they did the stickers, it would have a Trojan horse effect on their marketing, because the Mods would undermine the whole Lego shtick; if you can print whatever shape you want, why do you need the brick shape?  People who buy Legos for the movie sets, who just want the brand, could buy the brand in 3D template form and skip the bricks. 

Of course the Modding could subvert the Playmobil product as well, but this would depend on what kind of materials the 3D printers could feasibly produce in the immediate future. Eventually any toy could be 3D printed by any consumer. The toy industry will need visionary leaders (ahem, clears throat significantly and strikes marble statue type pose)  to guide them through the terrifying changes ahead. 

The Legos and the Playmobils should be Friends

I've read some interesting online discussion about the Lego versus Playmobil controversy. Usually I  respond to any escalating dispute as a peacemaker, seeking to placate both sides, to soothe the savage feelings that tend to erupt over exchange of emotional injuries. 

But this time I'm afraid the Lego people have gone too far. 

An unfortunate by product of technological advance in this country has been an over empowerment of young people, specifically tweens and teens. These overindulged simpletons (Am I overusing "over"?  Not in this case!) have mistaken their superiority, over older people, with iPhones and game boys and social  media, with superior knowledge on anything else. While young minds are quick and alert and adaptable, they labor under a crippling mental handicap; a hyper-sensitive internal coolness barometer. This HSCB hampers any attempt at careful thought in those afflicted with it, and has led to outrageously ignorant Internet commentary on all aspects of society, even including toys. 

Deep breath, enjoying the brief chance to waggle my finger admonishingly at young people. I wonder if there's some kind of Freudian symbolism going on there. 

Back to the Lego people's comments. First, the claim to superior creativity because with Legos you can build whatever you want. This is indeed a neat-o thing about Legos. Once. It was once a neat-o thing about Legos. The actual greedy disgusting corporation that runs Lego (remember them?) has steadily subverted that one and only great thing about about Legos by replacing all the free form block sets with crap Disney movie and Star Wars and super hero themed sets with blocks that are shaped to be a particular piece of the set and do not lend themselves to free form building. Don't get me wrong, I buy Lego sets for my kids, and they still re-work them into their own design, but only after they've lost a portion of the tiny blocks and have to get creative. Kids do that with ANY toy, or any thing at all, actually. Even Playmobil. They mix it all up, they have cheap junk happy meal toys playing with Lego people and fuse beads shapes on the deck of a playmobil boat sailing to a couch island with a junk cardboard box mansion.  Kids make up their own stories, if you let them. 

But I see disturbing things going on with a particular brand of toys. The Lego Woody has a name. The kid doesn't get to name them. The Lego Jessie, the Buzz, the Merida, the Elsa, they have their own names and stories, odiously foisted on them through, gack, "branding" agreements between corporations, chosen by a cynical marketing team in a bloated toy corporation.

 The playmobil people have no names, the kids make up their own stories, their own personalities, for them. That is creativity.  Not movie theme sets. And I won't even touch the grotesquely dishonest theme of the Lego Movie. I will only say that the show was an entertaining grown up movie marketed to children, with an awkward and creepy surreal ending tacked on for what I can only assume was a lame attempt at seriousness. 

The funniest criticism of Playmobil by the Lego people, to me as an actual parent with real kids who play with toys, is that sadly uninformed trope that the Playmobil sets have boring details that only appeal to the adults buying them. Nobody with kids could believe that. My kids love those boring details. People don't seem to really get that to a kid, everything in the world is either food or a toy. Kids want to drive cars, that's why there are toy cars. Kids want to change baby diapers. That's why there are baby dolls who have fake diapers. They want to do yard work. That's why there are toy rakes and shovels. Kids want to do everything grown ups do.  Everything is a toy to them. That's why parents have to say "Stop, that's not a toy," all the time. Toys are what kids are allowed to play with, not necessarily what they want to play with. Kids want their toys to look like the things grown ups play with. That's why they do. That's why kids, at the creative, pre-school stage in their life, like Playmobil. When they start school, and get peers, and begin the long dreary trudge through the harness of Cool, and suffer through the intense need for peer approval that dominates the teens, and have their sense of fun and creativity hammered out by the clothing and music and entertainment corporations (Pure Evil) that market to Cool, they have to give up liking Playmobil. Lego is acceptable for a long time though. Totally cool. 

Honest Evaluation of Drawing Skills

Reviewing another old drawing that I don't believe I ever put in a sklog. 

I drew it while standing under the ominous statue in DC of Ulysses S Grant on horseback facing somewhere that I don't exactly remember because I for some reason thought it faced the Capitol, but looking closely at the picture or even looking rather lazily at the picture one can quickly ascry the Capitol behind the statue, so the statue faces out from the Capitol as if guarding the Capitol from some threat emerging from the Lincoln Memorial, maybe protesters. 

That joke rings so familiar in my mind that I believe that I may actually have done something about the statue drawing  before and included that joke.  How very sad. 

This picture represents, I believe, the acme of my career as a journalistic cartoonist, not because I ever got paid for it but in that I flatter myself that it looks like something that might have gone into a newspaper as part of a think piece about Washington or big government or statues in general. I drew it the last time I went to DC which was about 2002, it was raining and they weren't allowing anyone in the White House and there were cops everywhere guarding everything. 

I had recently turned 35 and had therefore passed the first qualifying hurdle on the path to the Presidency, and I was experiencing continual improvement in my drawing skills, and I had already begun planning my own biographical museum, to be built on the mall on the site of the current American History museum. It was a heady time, and one can see the hopeful euphoria in the intense effort I put into drawing a statue I didn't like while standing in the rain in a city I had never much cared for (except for the museums and its contribution to the TV series "Veep").  Now the original sits on display in the museum I have set up in our basement, a far cry from the magnificent many-storied edifice I once envisioned, which would have had fountains and delis and gift shops and naked statues and my actual body laminated like the body worlds exhibit and an animatronic of myself delivering a withering criticism of American Culture.  Yet I visit it often, sadly, silently weeping into my whiskey, enduring the picture's rebuke for allowing my popularity levels to plummet and my drawing skills to wither and regress. Now I often wonder if I will ever be President, and these days this is the best I can do for Grant and his damn horse:

Amateurish, I know, horrible computerized cartoon, completely lacking the gravity of the original. But hey, look what the horse can do now!

Milestone for the TransHagenart Movement

I've undertaken a new project in my ongoing (and selfishly motivated) quest to automate my personal creative output to the level of James Michener or HR Giger or Woody Allen or any professional photographer, hoping someday to be able to simply say a one-word theme into my phone to compose, with the aid of complex algorithms, a realistically awkward doodle with all the subtle signature quirks of my personal drawing style, along with text notes which would meander in an unmistakably personal way and completely fail to come to the point of whatever vague theme I'd  originally tried to generate a series of personalized reflections upon. At a certain point in the future I will set this blog to randomly generate such themes from the news of the day, ensuring that my unique voice and personality will be ignored in the midst of centuries of online chatter. Immortality will be mine!

In my ongoing efforts toward this admirable goal, I have been studying computer aided illustrative techniques to convert photos of myself and family into illustrated graphic novel type characters. Exhibit A, a photo of myself:

Using a vector based illustration app, I converted the photo into the following illustration by simply tracing over the photo, something a computer could do very easily:

Of course there are several apps out there which can turn a photo into a remarkably convincing replica of a painting or drawing, but a vector based illustration can be moved by simply changing the coordinates of the vectors. For instance, I change some coordinates to illustrate the complex emotion of dismay:

Or, more fittingly for this milestone, triumphant joy:

I like to to contemplate this picture of my immortal electronic self, contemplating the eternal cosmos.