surochek said:

Yeah, I had realized that you're-writing-yourself-into-a-corner thing with the so-called writer's block. The next problem is freeing the mind to allow the story-flow to recede and return to its proper channel.

Here's another image for having creative trouble: churning waters. Too much silt and currents going every which way. Sometimes, all you can do is wait it out.

But seriously, 4 years is way too much.

Nanobot said:

  My subconscious (and yours) doesn't have "no" in its vocabulary. So vanishing is its "no!"

Nanobot said:

surochek said:

Salmon is about as expensive as steak, but getting everybody on board to have it for dinner (read: husband) is what it's about. Husband isn't into fish, but he found a recipe and decided it sounded good. We all jumped on it.

My solution is to grill it alongside the steaks (but not touching). My Carnivorous Other doesn't mind that. I on the other hand, LOVE salmon. *slobber*

Signing and dating

June 19, 2012

Dear Nan,

Yesterday, Marjorie Moeser of Toronto, ON, Canada, wrote, "I sometimes place my signature to the left at the bottom because it suits the composition better than having it on the right. I try to make the signature inconspicuous. Mostly I sign in black, but sometimes white or a neutral tone. But I've done paintings that seem to say "no" to a signature up front. So, I omit it, opting for signing on the back. What is your advice? Also, what about dating?"

Thanks, Marjorie. I'm a member of a party who thinks signatures should be clear, consistent and pretty well always in the same place--lower right. There are times when lower left is okay too. Further, if the style of signature is consistent, the colour of the signature can often be harmonized or integrated into the painting, as you suggest. My advice to most artists is "unobtrusive but clear."

While the unique style and painterly quality of your painting is more important than your signature, a good reason for putting a signature on the front is in the interest of the observer. People love to be right. If someone sees a "Joe Bloggs" from across the room and says, "That looks like a Joe Bloggs," and moving closer, sees the signature "Joe Bloggs," then this observer confirms his brilliant connoisseurship by merely recognizing the Bloggsian style.

Leaving the signature off the front of a painting may be okay for internationally-famous iconic artists whose style is so recognizable that anyone who didn't know who was responsible for the work might be considered a knuckle-dragging Philistine.

Dating is another matter. For artists who regularly exhibit in commercial galleries and switch their work around from time to time, the date needs to be left off both the front and the back. That way the art remains "new." I've had ten-year-old paintings with more exposure than Mitt Romney's dog arrive at a new gallery and quickly find a discriminating collector. If the work had borne a stale date people might think it substandard for being so long an orphan.

The exceptions to the no-dating advice are commissioned portraits and work executed at events needing to be memorialized. Similarly, do not sign "dogs." Put them on the roof of the car and take them to the dump.

Best regards,

Robert

PS: "In those days he was wiser than he is now--he used frequently to take my advice." (Winston Churchill)

Esoterica: Signing and dating is not often covered by the "how to" art books. Perhaps that's why these questions come up so frequently. It's valuable to make a note of the date, however. I have this and other info put on a file card and filed alphabetically by title. That way it's always available when people inquire. Since the advent of the Internet, collectors seem to want more provenance. As well, you need to think of the future. What, when, where, why and how may be of interest to latter-day students and researchers. Speaking of books, we're constantly refreshing our oft-visited "Books on Artist's Shelves." Please feel free to add your own current favourites.

Nanobot said:

Wacky! Virtual sandbox that is actually a hydrology simulation.

Xaa said:

Nanobot said:

Wacky! Virtual sandbox that is actually a hydrology simulation.

Holy crap that is so farkin' cool.

Here's the webpage for it, it explains how it works. 

http://idav.ucdavis.edu/~okreylos/ResDev/SARndbox/

Amazing.

surochek said:

Nan, speaking of writing yourself into a corner (or having your subconscious tell you not to go there) -- I always thought of the problem as one of plot. That is, a plot problem, that the whole direction the story was taking was wrong.

Just now I'm faced with a very small issue that may or may not be threatening the whole story, and that issue would be a point-of-view switch. It may have happened at the wrong time, created an unnecessary scene, and driven the story-bus off the road so to speak.

I think I'm back to what you were saying: it's not necessarily *what* you're telling but also *how* you're telling it. Not just what's happening in the story but also how you're showing it to your audience (readers, readers/viewers, or viewers, depending on the media).