Now this production fact was an interesting tidbit to read. I would love, LOVE, to go to China to see dolls being made. But even before the dolls get to the being-made part, it's all the stuff that happens at the drawing board that intrigues me as much. I once got to interview Dolly Cippola, the original seamstress/draper for the Gene dolls and found out what's involved in interpreting the artist's ideas into producible renderings for the factory. So, I can well understand what Suzanne is saying about the template that would've been required for the color layers to his dolls' faces being production nightmares if his colors couldn't be cleanly separated. While the prototypes of dolls look so marvelous in our doll magazines, we're so often disappointed in the doll we get because the prototype is really a one-of-a-kind--to make the copies we purchase, sometimes the translation is totally different for mass production.
But I agree with you, Suzanne, yes, his face painting on his "mannequins" do look much more like women rather than an ideal of a woman. MiKelman's screenings look to use more distinct color bands and less of a feathered or shaded bands. (Does anyone really notice or does it sound like I'm smokin'?) pat ----- Original Message ----- From: SuzW397026@aol.com To: nqsqurtz@staffnet.com Cc: candichat@dolls.de Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Ken Bartram Candis
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@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 >>