SEA BATTLES IN THE AGE OF SAIL

Most of these pictures are of the battle of Trafalgar, of the Nile, and of the fight against the Spanish Armada. Click to enlarge.

I assume that most sea battles took place within several tens of miles from land. I dread to think of what happened to survivors (above) who had to navigate back to land from battles in the deep ocean. One of these days I'll have to read "Men Against the Sea," the story of Captain Bligh's thousand mile journey on a dingy after the Bounty mutiny.



A sea battle at night (above). It must have been quite a sight.

Here's a battle (above) in what might be the early morning. How strange to see savage killing at an hour of the day that we all associate with delicacy and quietude.

Was there ever a scene that was really like this (above), with sailors thick as ants clinging to the side of a ship? Cecil B. DeMille filmed scenes like this for "The Ten Commandments."

A scene from one of the Spanish Armada battles (above). This painting loses a lot by being seen small. Be sure to click to enlarge.

A modern painting (above) showing Nelson's ship "Victory" from a low angle.

It appears from paintings (above) that canon smoke often clung to the water. Was that because the guns were aimed low, at the waterline? 

It amazes me that anybody ever tried to take battle to the deep ocean. I mean wooden ships (above) were just corks on the waves.

A forest (above) of masts.

Nelson (above) painted by the lumpy artist who did the picture of the Victory broadside.

Apparently the trick in old naval battles (above) was to maneuver into a position where all your firepower was brought to bear on an enemy who was at a disadvantageous angle, and could only aim a few of his guns at you.

Here's a picture of Nelson's ship painted by Turner. Sometimes I prefer his earlier, more realistic pictures to the vague, soupy mist that he painted later in life.

MORE THEORY CORNER COMICS

Be sure to click to enlarge! No wait a minute, strike that! These pictures make me look 105 years old. Come to think of it, you should read this very small, and in dim light. Maybe upside-down, too.

BTW, I know I spelled "comics" wrong in the title. I'm too tired to fix it!

Also BTW, Kali Fontechio just put up a definitely nifty video she and Nico made. Check it out!

TRYING OUT MY NEW COMICS PROGRAM

Wow! Isn't this great!? I can't believe it...my very own comics page!!! I cheated by using old pictures here, but I'll generate some new ones in the weeks ahead. I'm deleriously happy! Oh...be sure to click to enlarge.

CRUMB FOREST SKETCHES

Here's a few forest drawings by Robert Crumb. The thing that catches your eye about them is the detail. Most artists simplify forest scenes, but not Crumb. He loves the busy, mysterious tangle of it all, and crams as much of it in as he can.

That's a good way to go. Our whole delight in seeing forests is that they're so wonderfully different than how we'd organize the world.  They're the mysterious "other." They're packed with dimly understood life and a hint of some grand message that's just beyond our reach.

Here's (above) what looks like the dried up bed of a stream. You have to wonder where those rocks came from.  How do little creeks manage to pile up heavy rocks like that? Flash floods could do it. Maybe the whole area is as rocky as the stream bed but the other stones were covered up with soil and plants.

Here's (above) a mysterious path through the boulders which leads to a dark, leafy tunnel and a bright, sunlit area beyond. What a delight!

Here (above) a space in the rocks reveals a magic carpet full of fascinating detail way, way down low at the ground level.  It's as if nature had set aside an exhibition of  treasure, but put it on the damp and shadowy ground rather than on a rock or a table.  It's hard to resist the idea that we've stumbled into an area that was meant to be enjoyed by small creatures, and not giants like ourselves.


It's odd how forests just abruptly stop and make way for clearings of grass. The stump looks cut and there's no fallen tree, so the pesky interference of man is evident here.

Isn't it amazing that a guy who's famous for his big city drawings would be so good at sketching nature?

  

I JUST SAW "TWILIGHT"

I've just seen "Twilight" and I can't find the words to describe it. This isn't just a chick flick, it's the ultimate chick flick, the one that all other chick flicks will be compared to down the endless corridors of girly time. This is the film that proves beyond challenge that women really are a different species than men.

The whole film is Robert Pattinson giving Kristen Stewart "THE LOOK." Whenever Pattinson isn't staring at Stewart, he's staring into the camera, giving us THE LOOK too. The film is relentlessly hard selling Pattinson. The most egotistical actor in the world couldn't wish for more close-ups.

Men, you have to see this film. If you don't you'll never understand women. This is the full-strength version of what films like 'The Piano" only hinted at. THIS is what women want: red-lipped, gay-looking, emo-handsome men who are intensely...I mean intensely, I mean intensely to the exclusion of all else...intensely interested in their chosen woman. Women want the right man to give them THE LOOK! If you give them THE LOOK they'll murder their husbands for you and sell their children into slavery. They're junkies...they simply must have THE LOOK, regardless of the consequences!

If you're a guy don't expect to understand what women see in Pattinson. Only women understand it. If you don't look like this (above) then you're simply the flesh and bones your woman was forced to settle for because God didn't make enough Pattinsons.

About the best the rest of us men can do is to see the film, practice THE LOOK, then wait for a stormy night when, silhoutted by lightning, you can kick open your girl's bedroom door, with excrutiating slowness walk toward the bed where the girl is emitting little squeals of frightened passion to the tune of imagined jungle drums...ratchet down and press your forehead to hers...look deep into her eyes...and deliver...and deliver...and...and...well... you know what.

Here's the way Pattinson looks in real life. He's just a guy.

CHEAP, FUEL-EFFICIENT CARS

Is this a good time to buy a new car? I wonder. It looks like a new generation of fuel efficient and cheap cars is only 3 or 4 years around the corner. Maybe they're worth waiting for. 

European "Smart Cars", which get 40 miles to the gallon, are being sold here now. That's an electric model above. Sorry, no specs. 

Consumer Reports tested The Smart Car last year and panned it. They said it was noisy, hard to handle, infuriatingly slow to accelerate,  and expensive. They said it didn't live up to the hype.

The car is made by Mercedes-Benz, and sells for a premium price relative to its size.  Consumer Reports says it appears to be both well-made and shoddy, depending on which element has your attention.

 


The car is so small that you can park it like this (above) and not stick out in traffic too much.

How do you like these vertical European Smart Car dealerships? Just when I had these cars on my mind someone on the radio said that the most fuel efficient line of cars on the American road is made by General Motors. Is that true?

Here's the Tata Nano which will sell in India for $1500 or $2500, depending on which article you read. Tata is thinking about selling the car in South America and Africa for $4,000, and maybe Europe for $5,000. That won't be any time soon. Right now the company can't keep up with demand in India. They have to have a lottery to determine who'll be allowed to buy them.

The Nano (above) has an upper limit of 65 mph.

India's other cheap car (above), still more pricey than the Nano, is the Maruti 800. Newer versions have more and more luxury features, so maybe they intend to leave the lowest price field to the Nano. The Chinese QQ3Y Chery is supposed to be cheap but I couldn't find out anything about it. 

Wait til you see, other cars will come along to compete with the cars I just described. There seems to be no limit to how small a car can be made.

Maybe we'll see single driver 3-wheeled cars. Three wheels qualifies the car as a motorcycle in California, and that means they can be made cheaper and have to meet fewer standards than 4 wheeled cars. 

AT LAST: AN AFFORDABLE 2D ANIMATION PROGRAM!

At Last! A pencil test program that's cheap and easy to use, and has most of the features that animators look for. At least I think it does...I only just found out about it, and haven't actually tried it. 

I've been waiting for something like this for years! The Windows version shown above is the latest one, 6.0. Mac users will have to settle for 5.0 but I understand an upgrade is in the works. Anyway, if you're not already familiar with this program, go to the Digicel Flipbook site and check it out. Be sure to watch the video that's shown above. 

They also sell animation lessons. They're pricey but when you think about what a semester in art school costs, these prices seem like a downright bargain. 

The site links to animator Jason Ryan's site and he put up a free sample of his animation tutorials using this program. It was pretty impressive.

 

Lite is the basic pencil test program. There are no levels, so you can't put bodies on one level and legs on the other, but the price is right and it's enough to learn the basics on your own at home. I'm assuming that the Lite version still has the exposure sheet on the side bar. 





For artists who want to animate on paper and scan everything in, the autoscan plug-in (above) sounds like a Godsend. If you had a scanner of the right size with an automatic paper feed, you wouldn't have to worry about registering the peg holes, the program would do it for you. 

I thought I'd mention another inexpensive animation program (above): it's called the "Paperless Animation Program (PAP)." There's also an anime animation program, but I know even less about that then the ones I've already mentioned.





Animation programs usually require a Wacom tablet, which if bought new costs $70 or $80 for the small size. Someone told me there's no sense in getting a larger more expensive one if you intend to work on punched paper and scan the drawings in. 

The Bamboo Fun model includes a mouse, but is that really necessary? Does their mouse do something the mouse that's already on your computer can't do? The Cintique allows you to draw directly on the tablet and the picture appears under the pen, just like it does with paper, but that'll set you back $1,000. It depends how you're fixed for dough.

Thanks to Mark Kausler and Michelle Klein-Haas for some of the info here!

THE IMMENSELY INFLUENTIAL ALEXEY BRODOVITCH

Surely one of the most influential of all American artists was Russian emigre Alexey Brodovitch, the art director of Harper's Bazaar magazine from 1934 to 1958. It's hard to exagerrate what he did during those years. He transformed an ordinary womens magazine into an avante-garde art magazine that managed to sell clothes at the same time it was transforming the country's way of seeing the world.

Actually Harper's is still out there on the stands, but as you can see (above) it's a pale shadow of what it once was. 

I'm amazed that Brodovitch managed to sell so many middle-class women on something as weird as surrealism. 

I'd be amazed if the art magazines of the day offered the same value for the artsy dollar as Harper's and its imitators (above). 

Some of the best photographers of the day worked for Brodovitsch: Brassai, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Richard Avedon and Irving Penn, just to name a few. 

You could have framed the covers. 

In case you don't recognize the name Richard Avedon, that's his work above. The leaping girl holding the umbrella at the end off this piece was Avedon's too. Harper's was full of pictures like these and only cost 45 cents in 1947.

Can you believe this (above) was on the cover of a mainstream magazine? Women were reading this stuff when their husbands were reading "Field & Stream."

High fashion magazines were criticized for their use of cold, souless models. No doubt that harmed the women who were dumb enough to try to imitate that cold model lifestyle in real life, but what about all the other women? For them these magazines increased their awareness of art, of all things graphic, of style and sophistication.

A number of old covers like the one above and the Vogue cover higher up, contained... I don't know what else to call it...an element of evil.  The women on the covers look like they're staring out at the reader from a room in Hell. It's weird. I can't figure out what that means.

I wonder if Brodovitch and Harper's were unwitting catalysts of the feminist movement. Women who read these magazines over a period of years must have developed a more artsy attitude about life than their husbands, and that was bound to cause a disconnect somewhere down the line. Even today you see more women in art museums than men.  

Mens magazines like Playboy tried to catch up by wedding naked pictures to essays and sophisticated stories, but that effort, admirable and flamboyant as it was, wasn't exactly comparable to what Harper's achieved. Harper's was actually in the forefront of the art world. For about fifteen years Harper's readers actually got to participate in a real, high-quality, cutting-edge art movement. It must have been exciting! It may have changed a generation of women. 

Playboy was actually the true successor to Harper's, and it succeeded in its turn in influencing a whole generation of men. I don't know of any magazine that does that now.