MenuMenu

What, I wonder, is worth actually putting on a page entitled "about -- " ?  Does anyone really read this shit?  Does the visitor read out of genuine curiosity?  Or because the visitor is looking for something that might be a "connection?"  Or because the visitor wants to find something to complain about?  Troll bait, anyone?

 

I do occasionally look over comment sections on web pages, and am frequently amazed at the negativity that comes ranting out of the posts.  Especially when two or more of the commentors start e-yelling at each other.  Really?  Would you do this on the street?  Maybe you would.  I also wonder why, based on the commentary, they have even bothered to be on that particular website (whatever it is) in the first place.  So I wonder, while others have mooted their opinions or research results on their own pages--which you'll have to look for on your own.  

 

ANYway, I guess reading these paragraphs might tell you something about me.  I do utilize the internet - plainly - but for all the time I spend in front of the "new boob tube" there are other things that have my interest.  Photography, obviously, and using those photos to craft things in Photoshop. 

 

ABOUT ME: I have since hit the half-century mark; staff at Purdue University Theatre (the Lafayettes, IN); done scenic art as a primary employment situation for over 20 years, plus a bunch of other stuff that never really paid the bills, but gave me some good - well, sometimes good - experiences, and at least a few good stories to tell over coffee or beer.  Was married, now divorced; had a couple relationships subsequently, one of which was good, though I've come to realize that while I'm a fairly decent  guy,  I may not make such a great "boyfriend."  And yes, I'm O.K. with that knowledge.  


Sometimes I wonder if I'm a bit sociopathic; maybe adjacent.  But, whatever.

 

Some of you may be asking "What's this about a sister?"  Well, for those of you who know me, you have, I'm sure, already noticed that there are two main models in these photoillustrations.  The one with the all the hair and wearing a dress?  That's Rachel - and we think of ourselves as brother and sister.  Yeah, it's weird, I know, and we do extend our apologies for those of you who've personally encountered the weirdness.  It aint e'zackly easy for us either.  There's no gettin' around it, is there: we share the same body and brain, so we have all the same skills and aptitudes to draw on.   She also knows everyone I know, though they don't really know her as, y'know, someone else, hence the weirdness in personal interactions.

 

Having the same experiences and aptitudes to draw on, we both are taking photographs now, beyond the shots for the characters in the illustrations or on book covers.  This is why her name has now appeared on the photo credit for some of the Heartland images. 

 

What more? 

 

EXPERIENCES!  Having moved from one side of the continent to the other and back to the middle a couple of times, I've had the chance to get a decent post-formal education.  I've been exposed to the work of established theatrical designers, and worked with,  and learned from, a couple of really good scenic charges.  I've been to top-flight museums.  I've seen a lot of movies, and a few shows on Broadway.  Graphic novels, T.V. shows, and "art books" have all been studied.  All of this and more has given me some idea about how to create an image or take a photograph.  Whether that shows in the end product I leave to the viewer.

 

I  believe that working as a scenic artist has schooled me in looking for the "little things" that can make the difference between simply layering elements together in an illustration and crafting something that has the appearance of being a truly complete image.  It's in, among other things, how the light falls, what should be darker, where in the shadows should there be some "bounce" light - things that I learned to do in paint on scenery is now applicable with pixels on photographs.

 

 

And Rachel is "right there," too.  She's absorbed it all right alongside me, and can do it all as well, including the scenic art. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Music?  I like quite a variety of music, from Artie Shaw to Warren Zevon.  I have almost all of the Crowded House albums,  some Depeche Mode, several by Neko Case.  k.d. lang, Barenaked Ladies, and Florence + the Machine.  Also Siouxsie and the Banshees, and the Savages' first album.  Sometimes I get stuck on an album, like the second from Lera Lynn and play it ad nauseaum.  I bought the limited edition of The Disintegration Tapes and occasionally pop one of the CDs in to play when I think about it.  Haunting, haunting stuff that.


Mostly I'm tuned in to NPR, and I'm just letting it go on and on and on.

 

 

 

 

Books?  History, science fiction, fantasy, some mystery.  The effect had on me by Graham Hancock and his works can be read about on  this page: On the Origin of Australis.    The book Washed Away by Geoff Williams I've referenced on the page about the Flood of 2013, and it went on the shelf next to another about a Flood: Rising Tide by John M. Barry, concerning the Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it affected the U.S. in terms of population migration and Federal Policy.  Then there's The Arrival, the story of an immigrant and his family that's done entirely in washed drawings - no words at all, and the way that author Shaun Tan has the story play out, there's no need.  I've lately been quite taken with the works of China Mieville, which are just amazing works of imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T.V.?  Doctor Who, Orphan Black, The Expanse, Fringe when it was on, The X Files.  Someday I'll get the sets of disks of The West Wing and binge out watching those just like I did with the one and only season of Firefly.  Well, Doctor Who and some other things before the streaming services got so crazy and I just won't have subscriptions for everything!  My ire at that and other bits and pieces of the capitalist system would take up most of a website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have had an abiding interst in the first half of the 20th Century.  It began as an interest in the Second World War, the war my grandfather fought in (35th Div., 320th Infantry Cannon Co., ETO) and expanded slowly to the interwar period and eventually, now, to the Great War and the end of the Victorian/Edwardian Era in Europe.  I also draw myself up into the Cold War, as part of an growing interest in social history, which also takes me back to the bad ol' days of Jim Crow.


Too, as so many people did in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, I started reading more about the advent of our contemporary U.S. society, with books that compare and contrast the 400 years of English-speaking people in North America with what they're doing today.

 

That interest in the 20th Century has informed my personal style, as well.  I have a raft of clothes that are either actual vintage pieces from those years before 1950, or are styled in that vein.  I can "pull off" full formal to jeans and a T-shirt, depending on the situation.  I prefer old furniture, or newer stuff that fits in with the old, with no qualm for putting this  flat-screen monitor on top of my old desk. 

 

 

That's why that first cover, and the subsequent series, has Hamish Riordan in a hat and tie.  I believe that one should turn-out looking good.  Comfort doesn't have to be sacrificed, and shouldn't be equated with sloppy.  Once upon a time I half-believed that I might spark a resurgence in better dressing, but that never happened, so I just kept on keepin' on, 'cause it makes me happy.  Back around 2007, there was an ever-so-brief fad of men in sharp suits and hats that got a story in The New York Times Style section, but like so many other men's fashion fads it didn't last long.

 

It's also occurred to me in the last couple of years that I dress like I do because it is, to my mind, pretty much unmistakably masculine.  Yes, there are a few women out there who favor 3-piece suits, and I might have even seen two or three, but by and large if you see me walking down the hall or street you'll probably have no trouble determining that I'm a guy.  Which is the image I like to project, in opposition to Rachel.

 

Rachel started out similarly in her dressing, though that was probably a "slop over" from me.  She's since broadened her wardrobe beyond the vintage looks, though it tends to stay somewhat restrained.  A little more classic, perhaps?   But then, she accepts that she's not 23 anymore either, and that some things just shouldn't be worn by a woman of her age.  (You won't catch either of us in running shorts  and flip-flops.)


 

 

 

                                                            

 

 

Well, I think that's the highlights.


The page "On Rachel Bradshaw" is more like a "deep dive," beyond the "I like..." stuff above.


 

 

 

 

  

                 A farewell card I created as I prepared to move from New Jersey to Indiana;

                                    the only way you'll see the both of us at the same time.

Yeah, if we were really following the rules, we should be wearing shoes of some color other than black, but -- so it goes.