I was originally going to call this post “size matters,” but I knew that shooting to the top of Google with all the wrong readers was not my goal.
Handbook journals. I have the green one, center. Available at Daniel Smith.
The last time I chose a new journal, I chose a 5-1/2-inch square one, made by Handbook, and available at art supply stores. I got mine at Daniel Smith. I like the journals; their paper is vanilla colored and smooth, with enough tooth to hold watercolor pencil and heavy enough to take some wet media, as long as you aren’t doing a lot of watercolor.
I deliberately chose the square one, thinking it would fit in my bag more easily. The idea of using a square sheet seemed interesting. I could create short entries. But now, about half way through, I am over it. I hate the constriction of the 5-1/2 inches. I keep fighting the page, dragging the layout across the gutter to create long pages. But then they seem disproportionate and I’m not happy.
One side of three loose pages for the binder.
I like to work at about 5 x 8, sometimes thinner and longer, sometimes a bit wider, but not square. I’m working on a series of double-sided loose sheets, and I am suddenly completely delighted with loose pages. I have a reclaimed 3-ring binder, a new cardboard 3-ring binder, and I want to make sheets of different sizes because I like the rustic, found-treasure look.
I don’t know where this whim came from, but I know enough to follow it until I learn something from it.
I’m experimenting with ways to put writing on the back so the writing is as satisfying as the design on the other side. I began with a postcard look and decided that I liked it, but it was not enough. So I move on.
Update on the Facebook/Twitter self-editing: On January 8, I challenged myself to use Social Media differently. I tried to post only those comments which directly acknowledged the poster’s ideas or questions. No telling my story, hijacking the thread, or giving advice. Harder than I thought. I spent a lot less time on FB, though, which may be a good idea. I failed miserably twice, both times when the poster asked for advice. Instead of saying something complimentary, I stepped in with an opinion, backed up by my marketing background. No more of that. There isn’t enough room to explain the reasoning behind the opinion, and most likely the poster wants reassurance. Lesson learned.
–Quinn McDonald is back to exploring the limits of collage and two-sided art pages.
Interesting! I dislike landscape and want to divide it in two vertically so that it becomes portrait again. I had wondered about a square journal, but could not find one so thank you for the warning – opened it becomes landscape format again! Whereas I do not find the open portrait orientation so alien – too much time spent reading books or with a printer, or simply because the book is always made up of 2 portrait orientation pages and I can see the dividing line?
That’s the orientation I like as well–that open book. The square thing may just be me, but I tried it again tonight, and I’m constantly working across both pages.
In regard to the commenting challenge, Quinn. It seems to me that when the original writers asked for advice it was no failure on your part (even considering the challenge) to give it. Actually, I often see people doing some of the things you originally mentioned (the hijacking and the like) without even acknowledging the request for information or advice. If the point of commenting is to have listened to the original information then giving advice when requested makes sense. Of course, not knowing the specifics of your two accounts I could be wrong.
I was over-eager to share what I knew–and since I have a long history of marketing, but didn’t want to say that, I just gave information that was a little too technical, and a little long–and, as is my style, not specific or directive. Other people said things they liked (no dislikes) and encouraged to make that element bigger. My comment was too long. In the other case, someone asked for music suggestions, and after reading one comment with three suggestions, all of which would have made me run away, I realized how subjective giving advice is. It was a really good exercise.
This made me laugh, because of the juxtaposition of ideas in my head. I just finished reading a lengthy summation of square formats vs landscape (horizontal rectangles) and portrait (vertical rectangles) formats. I have all the research info regarding the whys and the human eyes’ interpretation on how we see a filled space or how we instinctively want to fill it, even the most effective ratios — and I was all ready to share my new-found knowledge. Then I read your note about hijacking comments. Uh-oh…
So now I’m not sure if I should write about square formats and how it makes us want radial symmetry or perhaps the nine-square in one square pattern like the basic quilting square, and so forces our eye to “see” what we’ve done as wrong or at least questionable when we break the unconscious rules. Though, of course, there is room for breaking the rules and coming up with a great piece. We can accept novelty on occasion. After all we are an adaptable race. Think evolution.
Also, that we as humans seem to prefer the 4:3 ratio when in a portrait format because it doesn’t constrict our eyes to see an imposed narrowness, but we are more than happy to accept a long horizon line in a landscape format, therefore almost any long rectangle will do. A point in favor of the panorama format which is popular, or the standard 3:2 ratio which fits the common 4″x 6″ photo print.
It’s all a science, all been researched. But the part I love — it’s all with reservations. The caveat in most of these studies — it’s good to know the “rules” because then you can break them with intent. (Though in the case of subconscious design, it takes a strong case to break the rules, for we humans prefer visuals that follow the rules.)
And I love the idea of a journal with found page sizes. Makes all those rules about ratios unnecessary, for I think , within reason, the human eye and psyche prefer life with a bit of unruliness, a bit messy. A little elbow room.
Darn, was that a hijacking? It was all so relevant…
It’s not hijacking when you add more information. In fact, that’s what I wish people did more of. Hijacking involves changing the content because of free association on the reader’s part. Interesting is the thought that in the earlier days of photography, the photo prints were square–and so were Polaroids. Now we have 4 x 6. It may have nothing to do with the eye-pleasing result. Incidentally, the original images for this blog were pages I’d done with your photographs that I’d altered.
I don’t even recognize which photos they were!
I didn’t show them. I was going to and thought I’d altered them so much, I’d warn you first. Probably will do a follow-up tomorrow with them.
That makes two of us who don’t like square journals. They are more troublesome layout-wise. Their symmetric shape seems to be calling for a very well balanced design though who says we have to fill them like that? Darn subconsciousness and its silly rules… But there does seem to be more freedom in rectangles, even if it’s just slightly off enough so that’s not a perfect square. A square is just so – square.
I usually use wide rectangular journals, especially for landscapes and travel, because then I can easily merge two pages together – great for wide open horizons which I love. I do use square journal for my cloud/weather journals but then I use only the right hand page and draw a smaller square on it in which I paint my patch of sky. This gives the page the feel of a natural historian’s observation journal.
That’s a great observation, Kaisa. I’m not much for symmetry, and I prefer the unruly and untended to the topiary style. I think I’ll use the rest of the journal more as a kind of report journal rather than art. Thanks for giving me good company!