Tough question to answer, Pat. Personal opinion plays a major factor in
comparing the screenings, LOL. In my opinion, MiKelman's screenings were
more dramatic. He has always gone in for a fairly heavy "made up"(like in
make up, not fantasy) look in the eyes of his creations. Ken, on the other
hand, paints dolls more like they are real women.
Ken's approach actually was a slight problem for mass production. To create
a mask for the dolls the lines have to be clean and strong from what I have
been told and blending of colors for eyes can't be done. Consequently, the
Christmas dolls that were produced were not identical to his prototypes.
Suzanne
In a message dated 2/7/2002 2:36:58 PM Central Standard Time,
nqsqurtz(a)staffnet.com writes:
<< Okay, I am behind in my CAndi history. Then how would most of you compare
the style of screening used by MiKelman vs. Bartram? As I've never seen the
1998 Christmas Candis (didn't even remember there were any, that's how
behind I am), I can't definitely comment on the distinction in their styles,
but would it be safe to say that Ken's style of screening is a bit more
conservative in colorization? I'm recollecting that MiKelman's style was to
use a larger area of eye shadow on the brow bone. What do the rest of you
think? Pat >>