Mouse Deux

While visiting Annette’s family in Christchurch last weekend, we spent some time with Annette’s young nieces. During this visit, we helped a couple of the girls colour in some pictures of Mickey Mouse. I helped Maisie colour her picture, while Annette helped Stella colour hers.

Here’s Annette’s mouse:

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Boring Mickey, originally uploaded by jsr.spathi.

Here’s mine:

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Hawesome Mickey, originally uploaded by jsr.spathi.

Clearly, Boring Mickey does not immediately grab the viewer, and repeated viewings and analysis do not reveal any kind of depth hidden beneath the initial textural homegeny. Stylistically and thematically, Boring Mickey is derivative .. almost tiresome.

Hawesome Mickey in the other hand, is immediately visually interesting, and close analysis shows layer upon layer of meaning for the serious student. The subversion of the corporate form in colour while maintaining the integrity of shape belies a sophisticated understanding of technique, while at the same time Mickeys presentation as the Harlequin is clearly a reference to the parallels that can be drawn between Mickeys playful role in in the Disney character troupe, and the Harlquins’ role in the commedia del’arte.

Any serious student will, when viewing Hawesome Mickey, find themselves nodding slowly and saying things like “Yes .. yes I see.” and “Very much truth. Very much beauty. I cannot find words. They should have sent a poet.” whereas viewers of Boring Mickey may find themselves at best sneering and rolling their eyes, and and worst throwing up a little into their own mouths before turning their eyes aside in pity.