Cats and Jammers Studio

Before Miley, there was Evelyn...

Let me first admit to this:

I was one of the old fart parents who was so saddened to see the provocative photo of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair recently. To me, the picture was clearly sensuous in a way that it should not have been for a 15 year old. It's especially bothersome since I think that she is a quite talented and charismatic little performer, who has great comic timing and the chance to mature in into a comedienne of the first order in films and TV shows. As far as I am concerned she does not need to sell herself as sexy. Funny is sexy in a better way.

So, with that in mind, I found it ironic (or was it some sort of cosmos putting me in my place?) that my pre-ordered copy this book by Paula Uruburu arrived:

AMERCIAN EVE
EVELYN NESBIT, STANFORD WHITE
The Birth of the "It" Girl"
and the
CRIME OF THE CENTURY

For those of you unfamiliar with the story of Evelyn Nesbit, she was the first real American superstar and the first "media created" celebrity. The very abbreviated story goes like this:

The mother--Evelyn Florence Mackenzie Nesbit-- found herself impoverished in Pennsylvania when her lawyer husband died very suddenly, leaving his family penniless. During the next several years the mother and her two children shuffled around the state from relative to boarding house and back again until Florence Evelyn, the younger, who was always a strikingly beautiful little girl , is "discovered" by an elderly female artist in Philadelphia. Before very long, she is posing for painters in the area and is the sole support of her family.

They move to New York City, where she continues to pose for well respected artists such as Beckwith and Church and for those studying in such places as The Art Students' League. In addition, she is photographed. And that face becomes "the face" of the turn of the century on everything you can think of: magazines, newspapers, postcards, chocolates, calendars, soaps, and so forth. She is the inspiration behind the "Gibson girl." To say she epitomized a look of the times, is an understatement. She WAS the look and the face of the times.

Enter Stanford White, 48, renowned architect and lover of all things beautiful, including very young girls. He is also a New York celebrity in his own right and the creator of many buildings, including Madison Square Garden with its famous roof top theater and apartment.

Evelyn is seduced by Mr. White, at the age of 16 and they become lovers, while the undercurrent of the righteous right moralists do battle with what they perceive to be the debauchery of the era, which is really the pending end of the Victorian age. One member of this so-called group is millionaire playboy (it is assumed the term was actually coined for him) Harry. K. Thaw of Pittsburgh who is fascinated by Evelyn and sets out to win her affections, as much as he also sets out to destroy the likes of White, whom he perceives as his opponent in more ways than the mere vying for the attentions of Evelyn. After all, they don’t call him "Mad Harry" for nothing.

The rest of the story is that Evelyn does become Mrs. Thaw, and not too long afterward in 1906, Harry murders White in a very public setting because " he ruined my wife and my life." Thaw is eventually acquitted by reason of insanity. This affair preoccupied the public for several years, since the first trial ended in a hung jury. This entire affair was riveting for the public and was even more a part of the collective consciousness than the OJ trial.

The book and the story of Evelyn captivated me. I love that turn of the last century era. It also reminded me that girls are not really turned into sex objects any younger nowadays than they were more than a hundred years ago. Miley was 15 when that photo was shot for Vanity Fair by Annie Leibowitz. Evelyn’s pictures in very provocative poses (even more because of the times?) emerged at 14, 15, and 16. I’ve posted some here.

The book was a great read. I think it would be a very good older YA non-fiction read. The narrative of Uruburu marches the story along in a way that makes it feel so very relevant to present times and issues. I loved the way the author incorporated some of the slang of the era; it effectively put me in the 1900 mindset to hear certain phrases--many of which we still use today. She also successfully tells the tale in a manner that had me, the reader, standing right there, viewing the sad plot up close as it unfolds.

I guess I’ve come to realize that no matter how much in 2008 we think of ourselves as progressive, things are not really so different than they were a century ago. What I can’t decide, however, is if that thought makes me resigned, saddened, or relieved. Or none of those things. But it does fascinate me, that’s for sure.

What's wrong with this picture?

This evening I was enjoying my weekly indulgence: the Sunday New York Times Book Review, the Sunday Magazine, Arts and Leisure, and the Sunday Styles section. I would be lying if I said I read the Sunday Times cover to cover every week. Sometimes I will read a little something in almost every section, but more often than not, I only glance while I manage to read the Book Review, Arts and Leisure, Sunday Styles, and the magazine (in that order).

So tonight I got to the paper late.

It was a good thing. Had I read the Styles section earlier my whole day would have been ruined.

On page 14 was a full page advertisement by the NY Times Store: "Introducing Callaway Classics. Fine Art prints from your favorite children's books." The page had art by Jeffry Fulvimari and Loren Long from the first two children's book of "she who will not be named," (hereto referred to as "The M Word") It also had some art by David Kirk for two of his books, including Miss Spider's Tea Party: Miss Spider's Web of Friends. At the bottom of the page was art by art by Fred Marcellino for two Puss in Boots books by Charles Perrault. Here is a link to the store section to learn more. It seems I cannot link to an actual page in the paper if it is just an ad.

(BTW, the art pictured here is a piece by Loren Long for that book by the M Word. I like to think that the man and boy are looking into the wind which is blowing away all the money Loren Long SHOULD have made on that book.)

First of all: I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ME ONE PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, ASIDE FROM HER OWN KIDS, HER HUSBAND, AND HERSELF, WHOSE FAVORITE CHILDREN'S BOOK IS ONE BY THE "M WORD".

Second: selling high quality prints of original art is certainly not a bad thing. And it is especially nice to sell prints from children's books. I sell prints myself from Tex and Sugar. But why is it that only Fred Marcellino seems to own the copyright to his own art? And why is there a head shot of ONLY of the M Word, and not the artists, and why is "M" written on the prints, as though she had a single, damn thing to do with the talent that went into creating the art!?! And who does the money go to , anyway? Are Loren Long or Jeffrey Fulvimari seeing a good portion of the proceeds from their own artwork made into prints? I want to know the answer to this. Or is this going into the coffers of the M Word again and her so-called charity?

One reason for the artists NOT owning their own art copyrights is clear on the celebrity books side: When it comes to celebrity books, it is often the case that artists get stuck with a "WORK FOR HIRE" contract. WFH means that they will do the illustration for a one time fee, relinquish all rights, and never receive another penny, ever again. Furthermore, their art can be used for anything on the face of the earth, i.e. lunch boxes, pocketbooks, boxer shorts and sippy cups, and they will not profit from that. Period.

Every single illustrator I know has, at some point in his or her career, done work for hire for one client or another. We all frown upon it, and many of us have reached a point where we say "NO MAS" (myself included), but some of us still have to do it because it is one of the evils of being an illustrator and making a living at it. To those who decry the practice altogether, mock the artists who do work this way, and adopt a "holier than thou" attitude, I say, "A POX ON YOU!" Because sometimes rent does have to be paid and food has to be bought.

But to those celebrities who work with illustrators on a work for hire fee basis, and then take that art and their millions in sales and royalties sharing nothing at all with the lowly artists, I say, "A PLAGUE ON YOU!" because, really, it is a crying shame.

Take the M Word, for example. She even had the gall to ONLY PUT HER FREAKIN' NAME ON THE COVERS of her books. That has to be the biggest example of total celebrity arrogance that I have ever seen. And do you think this once working class chick would have the decency to spread the wealth a little? Noooooo.

I would like to hear from John Lithgow, Katie Couric, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, and Joy Behar, just to name a small few. Do any of you share the royalties to your book sales, or are you taking advantage of the illustrators by making them do "work for hire?" Aren't the millions you make enough to put some extra dough into the bank accounts of hard working, underpaid illustrators? And if you happen to think that being associated with you is reward enough, think again. It ain't.

Please feel free, if you are a celebrity author to respond with the shameful or not so shameful truth in my comments section. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me you actually gave a share of the royalties to the illustrator who brought life to your stab at creating a children's book. Prove me wrong.

As for M word, with only your own single, pretentious name on your books' covers.....well, you need not respond.

Fr more about celebrity authors please go over to MotherReader and read all her posts about BACA--Bloggers Against Celebrity Authors.

We interrupt this message....

I have to admit: this whole Eliot Spitzer affair has been riveting.

And there have been some hysterical comedy bits on various programs, like this one, and this one and this one.

In honor of what has become great fodder for humor--even if in bad taste-- may I offer up my own inspiration:

THE ELIOT WINE SPITZER

Recipe:

4 oz of sparkling water
4 oz of the MOST EXPENSIVE WHITE WINE YOU CAN FIND, preferrably at least $1000 an ounce.

Add ice.

Enjoy.

Then apologize for betraying your husband's trust that you wouldn't dip into the kids' college funds.

National Cat Day? Today? Yesterday? Not sure. Just Adopt!

Well, even though the kids and husband are allergic to them, I love cats. LOVE them. Wish I could have one again.

We had one for 16 years. Our little Sara. Short for "Sarasota Bumblebee Pussy Willow Newman." Sara was a sweetie whom we took home in a Kleenex box from a bowling alley in Buffalo. A real Alley Cat!

She shared the spotlight with our dog Otto ("Ottoman Piglet Newman") until Otto passed away a few months before she did. When I think of the two of them curled up together on a pillow I also think of my youth and those hippie years when my husband and I lived like true Bohemians. When he stopped breathing like an allergic, stuffed up Darth Vader after Sara died, I knew my cat days were numbered.

Check out National Cat Day and think about adopting a cat if you would like a nice, no muss pet. OR think about adopting a dog. The site will direct you to a list with some great pets up for adoption in your area. After we adopted our dog Bitty a few years ago, I realized I didn't know how much I missed having a four legged companion in the house.

I have no idea if this site is real or just a great idea that fell flat. The email link bounced back to me. I am not sure if THE day ever really came off as an event--the site is not clear about that.

Legit or not legit, let's go on the assumption that it really is National Cat AND Dog day. Visit the animal shelter in your area. Adopt a pet.

Because I bet you could use a little something that purrs or barks in your life.

UPDATE! Museum: 1 HissyFits: 0

Well, the first round of MOCA v. Büchel is over. The museum can show the work. At least for now.

For a report on the proceedings go here for part one: http://anaba.blogspot.com

and here for part two: http://anaba.blogspot.com/

When artist sadly becomes prima-donna

Last night, my middle son, who is a senior in high school, had to write an essay on a "controversial art installation" . His teacher gave him the Viet Nam War Memorial as a starting point. He could then decide what to write about. So he began to look on the web for another conflict to interest him.

"I can help!" I told him.

Boy, could I. In the more than 37 years since I first set off to college to be an art major (and even before that), there have been countless controversies in the world of art. My mind started recalling several of note, including some I had serious problems with myself.

But I didn't need to go back in time. There is a far more current brouhaha unfolding day by day right near here in North Adams, Massachusetts. In fact, I had just read the latest the development in this NYTimes article: Is It Art Yet? And Who Decides?"

Maybe it is because I have spent the last 35 years working WITHIN BUDGETS and, even tougher, WTIHIN DEADLINES, but this whole turn of events has left me shaking my head. And my head shaking has NO pity for the artist.

When the Times article started off:

"WHEN a museum behaves badly, it’s never pretty. But few examples top the depressing spectacle at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art...."

I knew where this piece was going. And, honestly, I didn't like it.

I don't like it when artists lose their grounding on earth and start to orbit the planet, seemingly oblivious to the rules of common sense that most of us work by. I don't like it when artists become prima-donnas and give bad names to the rest of us who seriously work at what we do and who behave professionally.

As an illustrator ( and this also applied to when I was a fiber artist) I know the money I am given is more or less set, and that I need to get my artwork to press by a certain date. The publisher needs that predictability and profit margins can depend on it, not to mention public expectations. Why should a museum not have similar expectations? In a day when funding can be limited and needing to be open and having paying customers attend is key, what else could they do? Go under financially? For what? In the name of so-called art? I don't think so. Triple their alloted budget? Then what is left for other artworks?

Even though the audience may be different in this case, and we are not talking about periodicals or books, I do not understand why any artist would feel it appropriate to stray as far from those confines as Mr. Büchel seems to have.

Apparently he sent a list of things for the museum to procure for him. This list included:

a two-story Cape Cod cottage
A leaflet-bomb carousel
and old bar from a tavern
a vintage movie theater
and banged up trailer, mobile home, bus and truck

And this was to be within the agreed budget of $160,000.00 And they added more and more again.

Now let's start off with this: if these items are to be important components of what makes this installation "ART", wouldn't it be incumbent upon the artist to get them himself? I mean--really. Surely, just ANY Cape Cod would not do. And were I looking for a vintage theater, I would be pretty damn picky as to which vintage theater I was gonna use. Who wouldn't be?

Mr. Büchel and the Museum will face off in Federal Court tomorrow when each will argue that the other has broken faith. Frankly, I hope there is a serious wrist slapping of Mr. Büchel. Get, real, buddy, and come down off the pedestal.

I know what you are thinking: suppose your work were displayed before it is finished?

Answer: it has been. Every time an "uncorrected proof" goes out to book reviewers, they see it precisely that way--unfinished! Not really top notch yet. So there. Ya don't see me having any hissy fit about it.

And that is precisely what it sounds like here--a hissy fit. Mr. Büchel simply walked off the set.

For a another view on this go to the Museum's Blog and read their side.

BTW, my son sides with the artist.

Go figure.

Vera Wang and Philip Lim: Welcome to MY world

Excuse me while I enjoy a very sinister smirk, even while being somewhat sympathetic....

In today's NY Times, the front page of the Styles section has a rather prominent above-the-fold article by Eric Wilson: "Stealing the Scene Along with the Store."

Can you guess what it might be about?

HINT: The article has something to do with celebrities. It has something to do with celebrities using their celebrity to muscle in on an industry that requires talent and fortitude and tenacity.

"OH!" you say all-knowlingly. "You must mean there is an article about celebrity children's books authors, and how they really don't know anything about books for kids, but they manage to get big giant advances and make illustrators illustrate whole books under work-for-hire contracts and they EVEN GET AWAY WITH NOT PUTTING THE ILLUSTRATORS' NAMES ON THE FREAKIN' COVERS ---" [insert deep breath, here. Barbara, calm down....].

Well, tsk tsk. You would be wrong if that was what you were thinking. I don't think I have had the pleasure of reading THAT article yet in the Times. Or anywhere for that matter. Apparently the world of books for children is not threatened by scads of celebrity picture books taking up important shelf space. No, this article has nothing to do with literature for children and how it is important and how it might shape young minds for years to come. Nope. Not about that.

The article is about something FAR MORE IMPORTANT: the world of fashion and fashion designers.

Apparently the seasoned designers are finding it frustrating to deal with "celebrity fashion designers." Like the Olsen Twins, for example, who have a $1.5 billion industry. Or celebrity designers like Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Lopez or Paris Hilton.

Oh, dear. That must be just terrible. Imagine--someone being able to compete for the buying public's dollars WHO HAS NO EXPERIENCE in the field he is competing in. Someone who has a name that might grace the cover of Star Magazine or People for doing absolutely nothing. And he/she has the nerve to start putting products with his/her name right next to the wares of the real designers. Oh, the humanity!

Vera Wang said: "Celebrities have made it harder for real designers...We're working really hard to keep our heads above water, and does the public differentiate, or care? Those are big questions...."

Gee. Ya think?

But don't ask me. I only live in the world of children's literature. What's a freakin' book compared to a damn designer dress?

TLA report to come. In the meantime, stop by and say hello!

I am back from TLA and I am eager to post some pictures and a report. It was grand, San Antonio was lovely, and I think Texans are the most friendly and pleasant people ever!

But it may take a few days. I have an art deadline this week for the next Bones Mystery by David A.Adler that I am illustrating for Viking.

I also have several area book store signings. If you are in the neighborhood stop in and say hello! Here's a quick listing for this week:

Monday, April 16, 2007 (10am) — Storytime Reading/Signing
Barnes & Noble, 210 Andover Street, Peabody, MA

Thursday, April 19, 2007 (11am) — Storytime and line dancing!
Tatnuck Bookseller and Cafe, 18 Lyman Street, Westborough, MA

Friday, April 20, 2007 (7pm) — Storytime Reading/Signing
Barnes & Noble, 1 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA

Saturday, April 21, 2007 (2pm) — Storytime Reading/Signing
Barnes & Noble Store #2645, 90 Providence Highway, Walpole, MA

Back in the saddle again...

Hard to believe I have been off this blog for over a month.

Must be the back-to-school-schlepp-and -paperwork stress. I always find reentry into the school-year atmosphere very trying. It means sitting on kids about homework, keeping up with an endless onslaught of papers, and moving at a morning pace that goes completely against my nature.

But on the fun side, I can celebrate the arrival of the proofs of my new book: TEX AND SUGAR: A Big City Kitty Ditty. Short of some minor color adjustments and getting rid of dings and hickeys, they look darn good! I love seeing the hundreds of cow, cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, and horses again. I spent 10 months painting them and they are like old friends. And I am thrilled that the cover will have foil type! How cool is that?

The people at Sterling have been very nice to work with--especially my wonderful editor. It makes all those bleary eyed nights of painting well worth it!

STart the day with the breakfast of champions....