Today’s Pic

May 19, 2008


February 20, 1982

An actor waiting backstage to go on can appear to be a lonely person. At least this one did to me. Was he in fact feeling sad, I wondered, or just focused on trying to remember his lines? When I made this image I was backstage at a Baltimore community theater pretending to be an actor myself, but I was too busy to be lonely or bored. I had only one line in the play, which came late in the last act, so I could concentrate on what I was really there for, to learn all I could about theater and how a play is staged. It was research I was doing for a play I wanted to write about a community theater group staging a production in a summer play writing festival — an interesting creative roundabout — and I was taking pictures as well as notes. The low light backstage required a wide aperture setting, which accounts for the shallow depth of field. Note that the face of the actor is sharp, while his hand and arm are in much softer focus. And the even softer secondary “portrait,” the moody reflection in the mirror, has a “painterly” quality I find very appealing. I was also attracted to the visual contrast of the three capped pipes at the left edge of the frame, and was careful to include them in the composition.

Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


BAD ACTORS

May 19, 2008

Personal Essay

So far I have known two murderers—only two that I’m aware of—but the odd thing is that both men were also amateur actors. One of them I met in the late 1970s, when I was in the process of learning how plays are written and produced. He, the killer, was in the cast of a community theater production I was observing. Some time later I heard that he had been convicted for the murder of a woman he picked up in a bar. I have come to think of him as an “amateur” killer, by which I mean someone who commits a crime of passion rather than, say, someone who executes a premeditated mob-like hit. That dynamic young amateur actor, whom I had watched for weeks as he rehearsed his stage character, is still serving time. The other amateur killer/actor, the one I came to know best, is serving a life term for the murder of his wife.

Of course there is no reason to believe that being actors, amateur or otherwise, had anything to do with either man’s brutal deed. There have been times when I’ve felt the urge to kill myself, but I’ve never had the least desire to be an actor (too shy). Once, though, I did accept a small part in a play written by an amateur playwright, directed by an amateur director, and produced in a local theater festival. I had to recite just one line and was on stage for no more than ten minutes, during which time I sat at a card table with several other amateur actors and barely moved. The action came in a scene-within-a-scene which had the characters of our play staging the poker game from the Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire. My character was not Stanley Kowalski (Brando in the stage and film version), but, rather, a card shark who wore a slick white panama suit and had oily dark hair. For amateur theater in those days that play-within-a-play business was very “postmodern” and the complex staging required to express it only managed to confuse the audience and the actors. After six weeks of rehearsal we actors still spent a lot of time bumping into each other. Our director must have thought that the term “blocking”—rather than mean the purposeful movement of actors on a stage—referred to what is done to cowboy hats at the dry cleaners.

My “discovery” as an actor was a case of serendipity. As a part of my education in theater arts I had volunteered to help behind the scenes and was sprawled on the stage painting the lower part of a background flat. Meanwhile, the director was rushing about at the last minute trying desperately to fill out her cast. She noticed me and the rest is—well, the rest is my amateur acting career. At the time I thought she was attracted because I looked the part, but soon learned the truth—no one else wanted a one-line role in a bad play, and then have to hang out backstage for nearly three hours. (Rule of thumb: All bad plays—amateur or pro—go on too long.) There was no rear exit so I couldn’t escape after my bit and, anyway, our director insisted that her entire cast had to appear in the end of show bow, it being the only stage business she had designed that went off each night without a hitch. On the other hand, the director’s back story for my character, and her instructions about how to play him, were precise. He was a lonely man, she said, no friends except his gambling buddies—no family either, a womanizer with limited education, a man of few words—and he wore white suits because that was the way his mother had dressed him when he was a boy. His mother was the only woman my character had ever loved, the director claimed, and poker was his substitute for the affection he had not experienced since she died under a streetcar when he was fifteen. The director said my guy felt guilty because he was into booze and gambling and loose women and couldn’t (or wouldn’t) free himself to attend his mother’s funeral. She insisted that I think about all that while I sat very still, holding my poker hand in an “irresolute” position, relying on my “sense memory” to convey my character’s motivation to the audience. At the end of the scene-within-a-scene, she said, I should rise from my seat, drop my cards on the table just so, and wait for the imaginary curtain to lower and the play-within-a-play director to tell me that I had done a good job. That was my character’s cue to say the one line, which had become fear-branded on my brain, “Thank you, Ina.”

I’m neither religious or superstitious but I do believe in serendipity, both the positive and negative kinds (which of course are forms of superstition). Once, while considering the role serendipity plays in my life, I was thinking about automobile accidents since I had recently had one. It occurred to me that worldwide each day there are billions of what I call “transactions” at street intersections, those moments wherein—because of the proximity of fast moving vehicles—an accident could happen, but most often doesn’t. Relative to the number of opportunities for trouble, it’s surprising that more of those encounters do not play out if not tragically, at least as fender-benders. This lack of violent happenstance, despite abundant opportunity, I consider to be positive serendipity. The same thing can be said to occur regarding the billions of emotionally-charged human transactions (interactions, intersections) each day where violence—even murder—could happen but seldom does. A personal example. My father was a violent man, often drunk and violent, and I sometimes marvel that my mother or my brothers—or me—were not killed during one of his rages. So why does a random emotional transaction in one case provoke a man to murder, but in another situation cause little more than an angry glare—or a slap, punch, or kick—if that? Why are there not millions more crimes of passion that end with someone injured or dead?

Ask an amateur killer to explain his bloody actions and he may say, “I only meant to slap her, but things got out of hand.”

Ask the guy who thought about harming his wife or girlfriend, but didn’t act on it, and if he’s honest he could say, “I only slapped her, but I really wanted to kill her.”

While I believe that I know what makes community theater actors tick in terms of their unpaid dedication to the craft—the deep love of performing—what drives an amateur killer remains a deep mystery. The one thing I am convinced of is this: The two killer/actors I knew would not have done their terrible deeds in any context other than the one in which they found themselves. It was pure passion, negative serendipity. Theatrically speaking they were working from a bad script, had faulty motivation, and it just so happened that they also had a convenient stage on which to act out a tragedy.

Flashback
As he does most Fridays, our father is drinking up his pay at Lombardi’s tavern on the corner of Cross and Charles Streets and my much older half-sister tells me to run get him because it’s supper time. I’m seven years old, fresh from the mountains of Virginia, new to the big city of Baltimore, and unfamiliar with urban traffic. Dashing across the street near the bar entrance I’m hit by a pickup truck. People who witness the accident later tell my sister that the impact throws me in the air and I land head first on the streetcar tracks. Bleeding, I crawl to the gutter and try to pull myself up onto the sidewalk, but can’t make it. The driver puts me in the cab of his truck and takes me to the neighborhood hospital a few blocks away on Light Street. My sister has come to the bar looking for me and is told what happened. She collects our father from his bar stool and they rush to the hospital to discover that I’ve been given thirty-five stitches to close a large U-shaped laceration to the front of my scalp over the left eye, just above the hair line. Our father says it looks like I was kicked by a horse. I have a concussion, too, and will be in the hospital at least a week, maybe more. It depends, the doctors say. My sister is crying. Our tipsy father is also teary-eyed and when he discovers a smaller wound on the back of my head the doctors have missed, he goes into a rage, loudly cursing the hospital staff for their incompetence.

Part two of Bad Actors will be posted next Monday.

Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


And the Default Winner Is . . .

May 17, 2008

Doodle Challenge Results

Some of us will recall that this current spate of “doddlemania” began way back on May 7, 2008, as a result of a request I made at the end of my first-ever blog post—the one titled “Doodlemeister.com Loves Doodles.” In my closing note that day I asked for submissions of a favorite doodle of your own. That first post drew 12 comments, but only one person entered the contest. (Not that it was really a contest, but, rather, more of a call for entries for a possible exhibition. If I received any doodles I pledged to post some of the best ones once I figured out how to do it.) Rick Parker was the only mother’s son (forgive the cliché but I’m still in my Mother’s Day mode) who came through for me. And a very nice guy he is, judging by our brief email exchange. In one of his missives he was even nice enough to gently point out that I had made the old “i” “e” transposition error in my logo doodle and throughout the post, thus demonstrating my highly refined knack for misspelling anything, even the title of my very own brand new blog. (That’s my own analysis, being a good guy Rick didn’t say that right out.)

As you see, Rick’s doodle shows a Schrek-like figure standing (sitting?) up to his chest in some sort of liquid (water? milk? molasses?). But why is he holding that sign? And what’s the number nine signify? I was intrigued. In his brief note Rick explained that his idea was to imagine what a number would look like if it were a person. Clever concept, I thought, and it instantly occurred to me that you could do the same thing with letters. For example, how would a capital letter “B” person appear? Or, for that matter, a lowercase “b” person? There’s no end to the possibilities, of course, especially with numbers; you could start with zero and work your way up into the primes. You’d have enough material to last thousands of lifetimes! I love it when a doodle gets me going like this, or, as my mother liked to say, “sets me to thinkin’.”

As far as I know, Rick didn’t exploit his concept beyond the Number Nine Person he came up with back in ’93, the one we see above. (Note to Rick: When (if) you read this, let us know what you planned—cartoon feature? comic strip? children’s book? illustrated card deck?—and did you get any farther than your very cool Mr. Schrekadoodle? As my mother would say, “We sure would like to hear from you on that subject.”

I copied this bit of Rick’s bio from his blog: Probably best known as the artist of MTV’s Beavis and Butt-Head Comic Book. I was also on staff at Marvel Comics for many years and did lettering and production work in the 1970′s and 1980′s. Currently drawing the Introductory pages featuring the Old Witch, The Vault Keeper and the Crypt Keeper for Jim Salicrup’s new release of Tales From The Crypt published by PaperCutz. I also teach comic art in the public and private school systems and have conducted classes in comic strip creation and seminars at the Newark Museum.

You can find the link to rick’s cartoon blog in the sidebar under “cartoons” and “blogroll.” Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


Today’s Gag

May 16, 2008

To purchase reprint and/or other rights for this cartoon, buy a framed print, or have it reproduced on T-shirts, mugs, aprons, etc., visit the CartoonStock website by clicking the sidebar link.

Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


Today’s Doodle

May 13, 2008

The Writer At His Cafe

As you can see, this is a doodle dating from February, 1996. I did it on the back of a 9″ x 12″ pad of 2-ply plate finish Bristol, which is “excellent,” the manufacturer claims, for “pencil, ink, & airbrush.” In this case I used ink but ignored the high-quality drawing paper and went for the cheap packaging instead. That, in a nutshell, speaks to the fun of doodling: Anything that pops into your mind, anytime, and executed on any handy surface. (I always prefer the fresh liveliness of my sketches and doodles compared to what seems to me the staid stiffness of the finished work.)

A few minutes ago it occurred to me to add the “thought balloon.” (I used the Photoshop program I keep handy and which I claim is excellent for electronic doodling.) When I finally think of something clever to doodle into that balloon—an image or some words—I’ll add it, and share it later with you. Meanwhile, I’m interested in what you think. Is the writer thinking about something he’s written, or a love note that he’s composing as we watch, or something else altogether? An image of a woman who has just left him, perhaps? An elephant? Whatever. (I’ll show you my doodle if you’ll show me yours.) Submit your idea in the comment section below, which will constitute your permission to publish it, with all due credit of course, and with my heartfelt thanks. Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


Family, Friends, and Neighbors

May 11, 2008

Sisters Four

From roughly 1970 to 1990 I “doodled” around Baltimore, Maryland making photographs. (These two black and white images were part of an exhibit called “Family, Friends and Neighbors” at Fells Point Corner Theater sometime in 1998 or 99.) For the most part I focused on the streets of South Baltimore, near the harbor, where I had lived for five years, age seven to twelve. When I was twelve my parents “broke up housekeeping,” as my mother put it, and I was farmed-out to my three half-sisters, one in another Baltimore neighborhood, and the other two in Virginia and Kentucky. At age seventeen I enlisted in the U. S. Army, but that’s another story. So, back to my main point. With hindsight, I now see that by making images of “free range” street kids in my old South Baltimore neighborhood, I was revisiting the happier time of my youth before my folks split up. The image above is one of my favorite shots, a group of girls I encountered on November 18, 1972, near Cross Street Market in South Baltimore. I call them sisters, but have no idea if they were related. More about them later

Brothers Four

On November 21, 1976, almost four years to the day after I photographed the girls, I caught this group of boys in Hamilton, a Northeast Baltimore neighborhood. You can see what I didn’t notice at the time, which is there are huge similarities between the two images. In this case, though, I knew the kids very well. The two boys on the right are my sons, Shawn and Vince, ages fifteen and thirteen. The taller of the two boys on the left is their stepbrother, Johnny, and the little guy in between, with the scrunched up smile, is their half brother Tony. The house in the background is the one they shared for many years with their mother, stepfather and siblings, including another stepbrother named Joey. I take full credit (or blame) for the composition in this image. I allowed the boys to group themselves, then moved a few steps to the left in order to frame them against the station wagon and the house. I could have stayed where I was, or moved to the right, or in closer, but when I have the time I like to arrange two background shapes in the frame, one large and one small (in this case the car and the wall) to provide a strong design foundation for the image. The idea is that a large shape next to a smaller shape creates a more attractive overall abstract design than would two big or two small shapes side by side. “Visual contrast” is the fancy term artists use for this device to structure images, but during the fifteen years I taught cartooning to kids in schools and libraries I called it, simply, my “rule of big and small.”

The kids in both photographs had arranged themselves without prompting by me. When that happens and it turns out well—as it often does—it’s pure serendipity. Over the years serendipity became a favorite photography “technique” of mine. I found that if I gave my young subjects little or no direction they usually came up with a pose better than any I could have conjured.

When I first spotted the “sisters” they were moving away from me, but as serendipity would have it they noticed my camera and turned. Free range street kids, I knew, love to be photographed. Sisters Four was a grab shot, but I had good luck with their pose and the rushed composition turned out pretty well. (Well enough, actually, to be published in the old Baltimore Sunday Sun Magazine as part of a contest. Which, by the way, I didn’t win.) I like the overall pyramid shape the grouping forms with the apex, the head of the tallest girl, framed between the two windows. (Also note the little girl between the larger girls, similar to the small boy in the Brothers Four image.)

I’m also a fan of dynamic blur in photographs, another result of serendipity. Blur often happens when you have to snap kids on the fly, which is most of the time, and you’ve set a too slow shutter speed. Street kids seem always to be in motion, totally uninhibited, expressing either positive or negative emotion, and these elements combine to make them wonderfully spontaneous collaborators. The little boy in the foreground of Sisters Four with the sucker in his mouth (the brother?) is an example of my serendipitous doodle-like blur technique. (The method is copyright-free, so if you like the result feel free to use it in your own photography.)

My favorite example of a happy-accident-masquerading-as-technique is this totally blurred image of boys playing in shadowed Churchill Street, near Federal Hill Park in South Baltimore. The blur happened because I didn’t have time to set the proper shutter speed; I was lucky just to grab the action. This is a picture I love because of its dynamic flaws, even the composition is the result of pure serendipity. (Churchill Street, by the way, is a grand name for what is really an alley lined with tiny row homes, all of them long since rehabbed and gentrified. But at the time I made the image, in the 1970s, it was still very much the mostly transit neighborhood of my 1950s youth.)

Flashback to December, 1967
I’m living in a rented room in a tiny blue house in a nondescript suburb on the western edge of Baltimore. I’ve left my marriage of seven years and my two sons, ages four and six. I’ve signed the deed of our modest brick semi-detached house over to my wife. Our separation settlement provides for child care, of course, and a she gets all our community property, including the furniture and car. The only things I take are my clothes, my drawing table (a Christmas or birthday gift form my generous in-laws), a few art supplies and the outstanding bills: Montgomery Ward, the car loan, a few other small debts, all of which I agree to pay off.

These days when I look at my old photographs I see stories. The big story, the overarching tale that accounts for my life from about 1967 to 1982—five years of intense emotional struggle after my divorce, then ten more of transitional economic struggle just to return to financial stability—is this: Learning to compose, develop and print photos played a large part in my rehabilitation. It gave me the motivation to take the first step back into the real world. That hobby—if that’s all it was—along with the help of friends and various forms of therapy, were the devices I used to get myself out of the apartment door and out of my self-imposed solitude. Photography reintroduced me—by its nature forced me—back into the wider world of people and relationships. You can’t make photographs while sitting alone in dim light, reading and watching television. The purposeful social actions required for street photography—mixing with people, asking strangers if I might take their picture, etc.—was just what I needed to get back into the rhythm of a normal life. These days I like to think of those days as my time of therapeutic serendipity. Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


Today’s Gag

May 10, 2008

To purchase reprint and/or other rights for this cartoon, buy a framed print, or have it reproduced on T-shirts, mugs, aprons, etc., visit the CartoonStock website by clicking the sidebar link.

Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.

DoodleMeister.com Loves Doodles

May 7, 2008

This is my first-ever blog post, folks, so please be gentle.

O.K., I’ll begin by explaining the blog name. You know that the word “doodle” usually refers to random jottings made while otherwise occupied—on the phone, attending meetings, watching television, or just daydreaming. Doodles are very rough sketches of people, patterns, animals, objects, etc. Examples: The logo sketch in the above header; and to the left, details from a sketchbook page and calendar (those little empty squares make lovely frames). If memory serves, both were done while viewing C-SPAN Book TV one Sunday afternoon. My plan for the blog is to expand the definition of doodling to include—in addition to visual crafts such as photography, cartooning, illustration and graphic design—play writing, prose (fiction and non), and anything else (woodworking? ironing?), that invades my brain pan. A little of this, a little of that—the whole blog becoming one big doodle. Making the content interesting for readers/viewers other than close friends and family is my challenge. We’ll see how it goes. (By the way, the “meister” part of “DoodleMeister” I can explain only as something that I came up with while doodling away in a state of wishful self-delusion.)

Doodle Object Lesson

Doodlers know the practice can become obsessive. In his spare time between assignments and on work breaks or at lunch, an illustrator coworker of mine did his intricate doodles on large sheets of illustration board, watercolor paper, the morning paper, and scraps of any material within reach that would tolerate a pen or brush line. They were brilliant. He was a master of using crosshatch shading to create images of subtle beauty, each of the works consisting of thousands—what looked to me like millions—of tiny lines. I admired him as an illustrator but even more as a doodler. There was no chance I’d ever be that good, but his fantastical works inspired me to try. Above is one of my crude attempts to apply what I learned watching him. For some reason I decided to add extra shading with a red pencil, which of course is redundant.

Optional Doodle Interaction

To help make this introduction to my blog interactive, please send one of your favorite doodles to me as an email attachment. The address is: jimscartoons@aol.com, and write “Doodle Interaction” in the subject line. I’ll post my favorites on the Doodlemeister.com blog, paired with your comments. Your submission will serve as my permission to use your doodle.

Copyright © 2008 Jim Sizemore.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers