Saturday, May 19, 2007

Art Trade

Some time ago my friend Jeff and I worked out an art trade, piece for piece.
He being a painter of considerable skill offered up this, which I proudly display in my home right now:




I - part-time cartoon hack that I am - took a little longer to fulfill my end of the bargain. But my feeble effort is now finished, and I will share it with you as follows:




It was actually my second submission for trade as he respectfully rejected the first for being too creepy. I was trying out some text rendering techniques here (i.e. practicing hand lettering). Note the near lack of punctuation and attempt to more fully integrate the text with the illustration. If I were a smarter cartoonist I probably wouldn't have tried to cram so much into a 5" x 14" space. Oh well, live and learn...

All in all' I'm pretty happy with it. Seems a good way to kick off the ol' shift in blogging here.


---edit:---
I think Blogger is out to get me. It wouldn't let me preview this post before publishing. Assuming everything was hunky dory, I went with it - posting one of my older comics instead of Jeff's painting. All fixed now.

4 comments:

grant said...

I like how the gulls become flies and then back into gulls as you read down the page. But. . . yeah. . . creepy dude.

Tymmi said...

And here I thought it was just a bittersweet little lost-love story. Maybe there's something wrong with me?

Nice catch on that bird-fly-bird thing. I definitely designed the page so it could be viewed as a metpanel but even I didn't make that particular connection. Cool.

grant said...

You could make the argument that you're setting up a duality of sacred vs. profane to prove that the profane is actually sacred too, or at least not as bad as it first appeared. I still think its a stretch here, because it almost makes it seem like he's conditioned to like sex in foul environments.

BTW I'm a big fan of using the argument posed above in fiction. Flannery O'Connor used it to great effect as have many others.

Tymmi said...

I'll admit to a bit of playing around with that dichotomy - in a sense, at least. Not exactly what I was getting at there, but not too much of a stretch.

Not trying to color you're interpretation with my own, but I disagree on the, um... dirty sex conditioning. What is it that suggests to you that that is what he would prefer (vs any other enviroment, I mean)?