Three Little Maids

It's that time of year when I deliver my contribution to the yearly Teddy Bears of Witney catalogue.

Only one edition this year, and a bit different to my usual style. I thought it would be nice to have a basic kitten design and call them after sweets, depending on what colours they were.

So this is 'Sherbert Lemon', always my favourite sweet. The design seemed faintly familiar and at first I was worried that I'd inadvertently plagarised the ubiquitous 'Hello Kitty'. (Which of course, I would never do, having quite strict morals about that kind of thing).

Then I traced it back to a toy painting I did back in 2006, 'Koko With Checks' thinking at the time what fun it would be to actually make this in real life.

A little later I used the basic shape again for a Christmas card, 'Angel Cat'.

And then I dug deeper, linking all this to some little Japanese dolls which I picked up for pennies when I was about 16-17. I'm so used to them that I'd almost forgotten about them, but they've obviously lurked in my creative subconscious.

I didn't know until a few days ago that they are Kokeshi dolls and are MASSIVE! Not in size, but in popularity and collectiblility. One is quite old and has a single baby doll inside her. She is my favourite. Or maybe he?

The other two also vintage, but more recent and have two nesting dolls inside. None of them are signed and I'm certain that they are simply mass market items, not the really valuable artist kokeshi.

My own 'Kokeshi Kittens' also have heavy, wobbling, heads and are a devil to stand upright. But they do, with a little care. Just.

Koko with checks

I'd forgotten how darned difficult checks are to paint. Think not? Try it. It's not the getting the lines straight, although that's bad enough. It's the points inbetween. I'd drawn one in in a pre-painting rough, so far, so good - but found when I came to do the final artwork, I had to really, really concentrate - hard - to get the exact matching up of the corners of the squares, without overlap.

Because there is an infinitisimal point at which they all meet up, and it doesn't really exist. So you are trying to paint a nonexistent thing. I think. Maybe it does but you need a microscope to see it. It is created instantly and effortlessly if you simply draw one line across another. But I keep coming back to the same thing, trying to pinpoint in my mind's eye the precise, oh I don't know what to call it, the precise 'bit' where four corners touch each other, creating a miniscule area which can't be an area, as we can't see it. I really can't explain what I mean and whenever I dwell on it for too long (more than 30 seconds) my mind does flip-flops. It reminds me of the idea of angels dancing on a pinhead. I wonder if it would make a good meditation focus? Maybe not. In my attempt to get my head round it, I went to a book I bought some years ago, but never really got round to reading fully, 'The sense of Order (a study in the psychology of decorative art)' to see what trusty old Gombrich had to say about it. But although it threw up some fascinating observations on the checkerboard as a pattern, it didn't explore my four-corners-touching conundrum. If you are interested in pattern as artist this is a wonderful book and if you're very clever you will find it a brilliant read. I simply dip into it until my head reels with the academic-ness of it, and prefer looking at the pictures. Oh yes, what was the background for? Another strange creature, Koko. Maybe because she is that kind of Chanel pink.

I think she's gone boss-eyed thinking about the corners in a checker pattern, too.