MAKING CARTOONY ROOMS

People ask me what I'll be selling in the Theory Corner Store. Well, my own theory booklets, tutorials and comics, for one thing, but I'll also include a lot of stuff that other people are selling. Sometimes I'll get a commission and sometimes not. Sometimes I'll even give away things for free.

Usually what I'm selling will be featured here first, on this blog. The store is a kind of archive for the stuff I'm selling and write about here, only in the store I'll include prices and contact info.

That's what this article is: some of the items here will turn up in the store when it opens. I don't have my seller's permit yet, and in this case I won't make a cent...but it's fun to write about, so I'm happy.


Anyway, the subject is "Making Cartoony Rooms." Here's a nod (above) to the king of cartoony environments, Cliff Sterret."

Well, to start with, you need a big old comfortable chair, maybe one a little darker than the one above. I don't know how practical these chairs are because they're hell to get through a modern doorway, and they completely dominate a small room. If you could find one that's scaled down a bit, that would be perfect.

This (above) is definitely a chair fit for a cartoonist, but it doesn't look very comfortable.

Wow! A terrific Cliff Sterret rug (above), just made for cartoon people! I wish I could have gotten a bigger picture of it; it's a thing of beauty! It's round, and about five and a half feet across.

It probably needs a black and white cat to set it off.

For draperies...never, ever use pull-down shades on a window without draperies...I suggest a zebra skin pattern, or maybe something cartoony and cheery like this Lucy Cousins design. Or maybe a pattern that dupes the Sterret rug. The internet is full of cool fabric designs.

Sterret was fond of mushroom-shaped lamps (above) on high end tables covered with Charlie brown-type cloth. This example is too small and throws all it's light out of the stem, but the better kind are undoubtedly out there somewhere.

On second thought, I think I'd prefer to get my light from a floor lamp in back of the chair. As a side table I prefer a small pillar (even shorter than the one above) with a statue of Napoleon on it.

Or maybe Dega's dancer.


Or maybe the classic discus-thrower. It reminds me of the statue at the base of the stairs in one of the Betty Boop cartoons.


Here's a Napoleon from The Louvre gift shop. It's pricey. There's gotta be a cheaper version.

For artwork, I prefer one of the big, funny Picasso posters (above) (NOT "Guernica"). Don't frame them, but it's okay to mount them on foam board that's the same size as the picture.

I would also put up a framed picture of Whistler's Mother, the Mona Lisa, or the Venus DeMilo. No substitutes. It has to be one or all of these three.

A small, framed picture of Julie Newmar (above) never hurts.

Maybe a framed picture of Dali (above).

Or Mortimer Snerd (above).

A framed Percy Dovetonsils (above) would help.

Or a Square-framed picture of George Pal's "Jasper."

Or Tex Avery's lady (above), the one who bought Screwy Squirrel. This looks great in a red frame.

Or maybe one of the marker pictures John K. is selling. Check out his blog!

A tasteful vase or two gives the room a good vibe.

Here's some vases that the Memphis design group used to sell. Very Sterret-like, don't you think?

I deliberately refrained from discussing wallpaper and accessories. Funny wallpaper (like thick, vertical awning stripes) scores high on cartooniness, but it makes the room seem small, and geez, what if you changed your mind later?

About accessories: they can be expensive! That doorknob (above) costs a fortune!

WATERCOLORIST HARDIE GRAMATKY

Hardie Gramatky (that's his painting, above) was of course, the famous author and illustrator of the "Little Toot" children's books. He also animated for Disney for seven years beginning in 1929, and was a major figure in the California Watercolor Movement.  Michael Sporn just put up a post about his animation, and I thought I'd supplement it with a few words about his painting.

Strangely Gramatky never worked as a background painter at Disney's. He was an animator,  and was reputed to be a pretty good one. Check out his animation (and David Nethery's interesting comments) on Michael Sporn's blog, the Sept. 6, 2011 entry:  http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/

BTW how do you like the juicy, vivid colors here: purple, black and green? How do you like the loose, painterly line?

A lot of artists are more familiar with Gramatky's later work (above), which was full of contrasts and used the white of the paper whenever possible. I don't know who pioneered this style, but over time a large number of California painters adopted it.

You don't suppose Gramatky invented this style, do you? 

My painting teacher would never let any of us use black. What would he have said if he'd seen Gramatky's pictures, which are full of it? The picture above looks like something Milton Canniff would have done. Click to enlarge. 

Gramatky excelled at all the styles he tried, but my favorites were done in the gritty, cartoony, quick sketch method he applied to Depression-era subjects like the one above. 

If I didn't know Gramatky did the painting above, I'd have guessed it was an early painting by Lee or Mary Blair. 

Like I said, Gramatky did the Little Toot books (above). I have early printings of two of them, and I treasure them. I wonder if these were published by Western Publishing, who did the Golden Books line. Western benefited from a lucky accident that delivered first class lithographic equipment into their hands. The company attracted top illustrators partly because artists knew their work would be printed beautifully.

Gramatky was a close friend of urban painter Millard Sheets, and the influence (above) shows. 

I was only able to locate one oil painting (actually acrylic according to Linda Gramatky) of Gramatky's. That's it above.  It's terrific, but  I think watercolor conveyed Gramatky's cheerful, light-hearted personality better. 

VINTAGE MENS MAGAZINES (EXPANDED)

While searching for the pictures I used in the Philosophy Girls post (the previous post), I stumbled on some interesting men's sleaze magazines from the 50s. These weren't high class mags like Playboy and Esquire, these were the raunchy low class ones that dads all over America hid in their sock drawers.

What struck me about these magazines was how expertly they were put together. They usually combined high and low class elements. You'd find genuinely beautiful and insightful photographs side by side with the lowest sleaze. It seems incongruous at first, but when you think about it that's the way real life is...the sublime and the ridiculous served up in equal portions.

How do you like the picture above, shot in glorious, dramatic, philosophical black and white?

The photos were often shot in small apartments with modern, minimalist furniture. I imagine that a lot of readers lived like that, or wanted to. It was really smart of the magazines to avoid classy locations.

A lot of sleaze magazines avoided the porn laws by selling themselves as art reference. Every issue had to feature some models in classical art poses. I love the example above, which is funny and kitschy, but also artistic in its own way. Click to enlarge.

You would think that the sleazies would favor girls who look kind of dumb and slutty (above). After all, in real life girls like that are more likely to be sexually available.Well, these women are represented in these magazines to be sure...

..but the pearls of greatest price (above) were not exactly slutty girls...they were fallen girls...world-weary, downright evil...fallen girls, like the one above.

These women (above) came off as completely dissipated. They'd not only seen the dark side of life, they dwelled there. It was the only side of life they knew, or cared to know. 

Editors liked to give these girls "Evil eye" poses. 

Were the girls in these pictures really that bad in real life? Who knows? For the sake of magazine sales they certainly had to look like they were. 50s man wanted to feel like he had an adventure when he read magazines like this. He wanted to feel worldly, like he'd come in contact with the seedy underbelly of life and only just barely escaped unscathed. The magazine was selling reader self-image as well as sex.

Interesting, huh?

Wait a minute! Is there room for a Post Script?  Auralynn When, who gave me the link for these photos, says diversity is what made the sleazies so interesting. These magazines contained good girls, bad girls, beautiful girls and plain girls. Some were completely confident in the nude, some were embarrassed to be seen only half naked. Auralynn says that's what made these early magazines so vibrant. A good analysis!

PHILOSOPHY FOR CRIMINALS (STARRING, "THE PHILOSOPHY GIRLS")

BUTTERCUP: "Wow! Girls, look at this article! It says in the animal kingdom you find creatures that kill for sport, even when they're not hungry. They just want stay in practice, and they find any activity other than hunting to be boring. The author says that maybe some humans are like that."

PETUNIA: "That sounds a little more complicated than it needs to be, Buttercup. Murderers just want something, and they rub people out who get in their way."

GLADYS: "Hmmm. You're assuming that most murderers think about what they do, but I think it's more...impulsive...than that. They don't think about it...they just do it, and regret it later!"

VIOLET: "Well, I don't know if that really explains it, Gladys. I mean, most people are able to restrain themselves."

MILDRED: "Maybe murderers aren't like everybody else. Maybe they were just born without self control."

GLADIOLA: "Wait a minute. I think I get what Violet was driving at. Murderers must have self control...if they didn't they wouldn't be able to get through the day."

RODNEYETTA: "Yeah! The act of murder might have been impulsive, but there was a precondition. The murderer had to have laid the groundwork by doing a lot of thinking about the subject over months and years."

GERTRUDE: "Right! Over time the murderer psychs himself into thinking that he's an adventurer, or an instrument of higher justice. He gradually refines the image of himself as he who favors the decisive act, he who is superior to the average man who overthinks everything."

GLADYS: Wow! Heavy!!!!"

GRETTA: "It's heavy, alright! The murderer primes himself with so much bad philosophy, that the violent, impulsive act becomes inevitable."

LILY: "So what do we do? It's hard to flush out bad philosophy!"

DARLENE: "Maybe we should write a book that argues right to the points that convince borderline people to commit crime."

DAISY: "I don't know, Darlene...do you really think they'd read it? I mean...do murderers read?"

MAGNOLIA: "Of course they do! Human beings are thinking creatures! They'll read it if it really argues directly to the points they care about! We're The Philosophy Girls! We can do it!!!!"

ALL (ALMOST ALL): "Hooray!!! Well said, Magnolia! Now let's take a quick skinny dip to clear our minds!"

THE END

Many thanks to Auralynn When for the terrific pictures!

SOME TERRIFIC EARLY CARS

What's your all-time favorite auto design? The Duesenberg? The 1938 Alfa Romeo (above) ? They're great, but my favorites are all older than that. I like the romance of the really early cars when steam, gasoline and battery power all competed for the buyer's dollar. I just got a book about the subject, and it includes some interesting history, which I'll pass along here.

According to the book, the first functional steam car was invented by a Frenchman in 1769. He pulled canons with it it. But that's only the first steam car. There were spring driven and compressed air vehicles before that.

The first American steam car we know about was made in 1805, and cars managed to get into the newspapers with increasing frequency after that. The first picture of an American auto we have was of the Dudgeon Steam Wagon (above) in 1853.  It looks like a miniature locomotive. 

Early cars were mostly tractors, but inventors tinkered together smaller, lighter recreational vehicles as novelties, or to promote other products they were trying to sell, like carriages or batteries. 

Eventually bicycles became a big deal and for a while it looked like the steam powered bike (above) would be the horseless carriage of the future. The bikes were lighter, faster, and cheaper to make than cars. I guess they just weren't comfortable over long distances.

Here's (above) a Stanley Steamer from 1906. What a design! It looks like it's moving when it's standing still! I rode a few yards in one of these with Jay Leno. It was the best ride in a car that I ever had. The car started instantly, and drove very smooth and quiet. 

The English in particular went nuts over steam and continued to make beautiful steam cars right up to the 1950s. 

They came in all sizes and shapes.

But, I digress.

So what happened to steam cars in the U.S.? I'm not sure. They ran quieter, were easier to repair, and were pretty safe relative to internal combustion engines. Some of them were also fast. A racing version of the Stanley Roadster 1908 model was clocked at 127 mph.!

Maybe they got a bad rep because so many railroad locomotives were blowing up. Or... maybe patents were the problem. 

The patents that made steam power so attractive were spread out among small time inventors all over America. The gasoline engine people came later and had to rethink the whole way a car was put together. Maybe fewer people owned the gas patents, and that made manufacture easier. 'Just guessing. 

This (above) isn't the electric car that Granny drove in the Tweety cartoons, but it looks a lot like it. It's the Oldsmobile Curved Dash Runabout from 1903. The canopy distracts from the basic idea, which is that of a sofa mounted on a high buggy. No sides and very little front to enclose the driver. If you closed your eyes while on the road you might imagine that you were flying. 

Oldsmobiles (above) are often thought of as old people's cars, but Olds sold an adaption of  their racing car, called "The Pirate." 

Here's one of my favorite car designs: the 1913 Mercer Raceabout! Check out that extra seat on the running board! No doubt that seat played its part in accidents, but I'd risk it. Wouldn't you?

This (above) isn't a beautiful car, but it gets points for being a funny one. It's the cartoony Cabriolet Locomobile (above). I love how the chauffeur's seat is exposed to the elements, but the owner's seat is entirely enclosed. The carriage tradition demanded that the chauffeur be out there in the ether, buffeted by bees and rain and hail. 

I like to think of an eccentric, Type "A" owner using the speaking tube to regail the harried driver with threats or with bad poetry.