What a waste

21 02 2015

I’ve been thinking … I love drawing, though hardly seem to do any. I once loved making, though rarely made more than ‘real’ pieces (for exhibitions or commissions or the gallery I once stocked).

I’ve come to wonder if that’s because I’m worried about “waste” … wasting materials, paper, metals, consumables, etc.

It’s not a concern about wasting time; lordy no, for if I wasn’t doing lovely fun creative things there’s always the housework lurking and waiting for me. I think it’s more about wasting things that cost money.

The amateur psychologist in me thinks this may be due to quite a frugal childhood, when we weren’t strictly denied but taught to be careful and minimise waste. Genuine waste. However, perhaps over time my mind has somehow warped this helpful responsible attitude into something that means all creative acts that aren’t ‘final’ or ‘masterful’ are effectively a waste.

It’s not a good thought really is it?!
Not helpful to exploring and playing.
At all. Nope.
For I know very well the value of exploring and play.

I’ve read a bit about creativity, and haven’t yet seen anything about how to mitigate or counter this kind of worry (conscious or hidden).

Do you worry about waste?

I’d like to banish this worry about waste … in itself it is a waste of creativity, a waste of play, a waste of joy.

The lust list, v2

5 02 2015

So … it’s been a few years since the original lust list was written.

Since then a two MAJOR items have been ticked off …. I know, it is exciting!

  • a Suzi Zutic ring

    original photograph credit Suzi Zutic; images not to be reproduced without permission

    original photograph credit Suzi Zutic; images not to be reproduced without permission

  • a Helen Britton ring

    with the Gallery Funaki photograph - all mine!

    with the Gallery Funaki photograph – all mine!

I have added a few new ones to the “as-yet-unattained lust list”:



The Mercator projection

3 02 2015

Maps. I love them. Capital LOVE.

You may already know that the way the world is usually portrayed uses the Mercator projection – a particular formula for essentially representing the surface of a sphere in only two dimensions. Well, it’s incredibly misleading.

This is the best way of describing what the projection intends to do (in reality it’s a bit more complex):

from Kids Britannica; click on image for original source

from Kids Britannica; click on image for original source

You can see that it’s inevitable that the land masses are terribly distorted; the closer to the poles the more the distortion (into infinity for the poles themselves). The below image shows the level of distortion (each red circle should be the same actual size):

click on image for original source

click on image for original source (Maps Mania)

So the picture we have of the world, the proportions of the countries to each other, is all wrong (eg. Iceland is nowhere near the same size as Africa).

There are various projection formulas to choose from … it’s all incredibly maths-heavy and it can make your head spin.

Want to see how influential the chosen projection method is? Say, instead of choosing the equator as the arbitrary line of least distortion, a line through the poles was chosen … (according to the comment stream on the original source, it uses an equirectangular not Mercator projection – yeah, I was totally about to say that).

click on image for original source

click on image for source

Or this (according to the source using Hotine Oblique Mercator Projection, uh huh):

click on image for original source

click on image for original source

Isn’t that AMAZING.

For more map fun check out this post, where the author uses the Mercator projection with different central points.

I’m left questioning what the world really looks like!

If we had a better handle on the relative size of our home planet’s geography, would it change how we see ourselves in it, how we see others?

ps. new favourite map blog is Maps Mania


1 02 2015

I need a project. An intellectual project. An absorbing project. And I need the structure of a formal education system, otherwise I get all distracted and uninspired and stuff.

So I’m considering a postgraduate degree … I like the idea of a curatorial PhD but they need more than the Bachelors I have … so perhaps start with an Honours or Masters?

I need to keep working so it has to be available for part-time study…
Not this year (bit late to get organised), maybe next year or the one after that…
And it’s fair to say I love theory and research more than making.

Being in Melbourne the options I’m considering are:

Shhh …. don’t make a sound, or it may scare away … but I may very well have a plan …. oooooh ….