This piece was sort of a continuation of the idea of using process colors (excluding black) in a way that the inks would mix on the
paper and create multiple tertiary colors. There's no real contrast due to differences in tone, since it's basically an all-around pattern of cross hatchings - although the cross hatches should follow the contours of the figure fairly well. This does break down, it seems, once more and more layers of colors are applied. Most likely, because your brain is going, "I don't know what's going on". I kind of like that.
Front: crowquill pen and ink on sketchbook
Back: The text is actualy cut out - the stencil was just taped on, there. This would carry over to the final piece
Cartoon: various pencils on newsprint around 30" x 24"
This is as old-school as it gets - it's a full-sized under drawing for the final drawing. It could have been drawn by any Italian living in the 16th Century.
All these are just the same drawing, in various stages. This is on very, very thick hot press watercolor paper. The ink is as transparent as I can get it, watercolor/ink... ink. I dunno, I grabbed whatever they had that I liked.
(Blue Layer)
(Red Layer)
And, the final, yellow layer, plus the cut-out type. This drawing took weeks and cutting out the letters with a stupid little knife seemed like a stupid thing to do, if I screwed it up. I didn't screw it up.
Qualianxiety.?! - is a Portmanteau word, a word made up of two different words, to produce a third. In this case, Qualia - the term used to describe sensory experiences that we must all share and experience as the same and Anxiety. The drawing attempts to describe my own sensations and experiences while wrapped within Anxiety - which is sadly, a very common state of being. My own anxious experiences are wholly unique to me - as someone else being asked to draw, "Anxiety" isn't just going to land upon the above and thus, cannot be a Qualia. The drawing denounces the title - and the title then reflects that, having a period (ending a statement), a question mark (querying the statement) and lastly, an exclamation mark (to show astonishment of the peculiarity of the original statement).
The standard linguistic term for this type of word is a blend. It was Lewis Carroll in Through The Looking Glass who coined the word portmanteau to describe them. In the book Humpty Dumpty explains that: "Well, 'slithy' means 'lithe and slimy'. 'Lithe' is the same word as 'active'. You see, it's like a portmanteau - there are two meanings packed into one word." Among several other words Carroll created chortle (a combination of 'chuckle' and 'snort') and galumph ( a combination of 'gallop' and 'triumph').
So, a portmanteau or blend word is one derived by combining portions of two or more separate words. Interestingly, portmanteau itself is a blend word, originating from the French portemanteau, a compound formed from porter (to carry) and manteau (cloak).
There are many definitions of qualia, which have changed over time. One of the simpler, broader definitions is "The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc.'"[1].
Clarence I. Lewis, in his book [Mind and the World Order] (1929), was the first to use the term "qualia" in its generally agreed modern sense.
There are recognizable qualitative characters of the given, which may be repeated in different experiences, and are thus a sort of universals; I call these "qualia." But although such qualia are universals, in the sense of being recognized from one to another experience, they must be distinguished from the properties of objects. Confusion of these two is characteristic of many historical conceptions, as well as of current essence-theories. The quale is directly intuited, given, and is not the subject of any possible error because it is purely subjective.
Frank Jackson (1982) later defined qualia as "...certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes" (p. 273).
Under definitions like these, which are quite broad, there can be little doubt that qualia exist [2]. However, definitions this broad make it difficult to discuss the precise nature of qualia, and their interaction with the mind and the environment. Some philosophers have made attempts at more precise, possibly narrower, definitions of qualia, describing things whose existence are more controversial...
