Over the weekend I saw the Apple iPhone ad(s) for the first time.  Alot has already been written about the iPhone, both good and bad, but one thing most can agree on, and I certainly believe, is the iPhone is stunning.  It's a beautiful object.

Just like most Apple products, the iPhone is a functional work of art.  How it stacks up as a phone, I don't know, I've not been privileged enough to use one, nor would I select it as my phone if I had the choice.  The reported $600 price tag is a bit steep especially considering I would get no more use out of it than the phone I bought from Sprint for a penny.  The iPhone does too many other things that I would not use or want, but as a total package, I do appreciate the artistic value of the thing, and that's what I want to emphasize.  Is the iPhone worth $600?  Not as a phone, but as a work of art, absolutely. 

The logo for the 2012 Olympic Games is hideous.  Not something I'm normally interested in, but I thought it fascinating that something of such little importance (in general, and to me) could generate such hype, and even an epilepsy warning.  Talk about publicity!

Commercial art is sometimes a contradiction in terms; not really art but a means of material persuasion (yes I'm splitting hairs), and largely disposable.  I understand its aesthetic value is somewhat questionable, but can be, regardless, quite good.  The logo for the London Olympics is not such an example.  It's not even obvious what it is, something I suppose is important when establishing a brand.

Commercial art is also frequently perishable.  Any meaning is gone once the company dies, or the event concludes.  Which makes statements about the logo a bit odd given how meaningless it will be by 2013.  According to the BBC, "'This is the vision at the very heart of our brand,' said London 2012 organising committee chairman Seb Coe."  Really?  Your brand is broken and in pieces, sort of what the logo looks like? 

Coe continues, "It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world."  Wow.  All that from a jagged picture.  Perhaps I misunderstand the power of art, or lack the ability to interpret an abstraction.  The logo certainly looks abstract, so it must be the latter.  But even more, I wonder at the self importance.  I'm a sports fan, but it's bullshit like this that makes light recreation a meaningless chore.  Sometimes people just want to watch a game, without thinking of the children, or inspiring the world.

Art can be meaningful.  But confusing artistic meaning with commercial purpose is disingenuous at best.  And to assign meaning where none exists, or where, like a grenade, it will cease to exist at a certain moment in time is just foolish.  In this case, assigning such important concepts as world inspiration and uplifting youth to the 2012 logo also assigns a time limit.  If the logo means that, then it also means the concepts are useless as soon as the Olympic flame over London is extinguished.

I have no phone.  I mean, I have no land line phone at my house, and that is by design.  I only need my cel phone and I can keep in touch for much less than that land line would cost me.  Along with only one phone, I also have only one  email address.  I realized this week that I have no distinction between my work and personal communication anymore.  And that, I think, is how it should be.

Communication is truly social.  It increasingly exists without a defined audience.  It is most convenient for me to post my information on some type of networking tool, where others can choose to read and respond without me having to know in advance who they are.  I no longer have to identify my audience, such as by dialing the phone or listing email recipients.  And since the audience is becoming the community at large, there is no reason to segregate them based on business hours.  Which only gives me fewer numbers I have to remember.  Nice.

A cool video, and well done.

I have all sorts of paper in my cabinet, but really only use bristol board for my drawings.  Of course I sketch in any available sketch book, but a finished piece is done on bristol.  I'm down to my last few sheets, so I decided to visit Utrecht and stock up.   I use their house brand in either vellum finish or plate finish.   The subject determines if I use the smooth (plate) or textured (vellum) paper.  Dogs, for example, are easier to portray on a textured finish since it helps create the illusion of fur.  Glass is better on smooth.   But whatever the finish, it's good quality paper at a great price.

Well, my story is one of best laid plans gone all wrong.  I have some new work to share, and wanted to post it to the site, but when I went to scan it, my good old scanner would no longer work.  It's been chugging along OK for about 8 years, and for a web scan is good enough, but it finally gave up the ghost.  I ordered a new one from Newegg which should be here next week.

I use my own scanner for web scans because it works just fine and is quick.  For reprints, I sent my work to Kirkman Imaging, a digital print shop in Lake Grove.  In this case, I may have to wait for scans to return from Kirkman before posting.  They'll go out next week, but look for new work soon.