NATURE

It was last year (2007) that I got an email out of the blue from Nature. They wanted some caricatures of four science fiction writers, drawn as aliens. I did that, and then they had a radical idea for the cove of that issue - to do it like a 1930s pulp sci-fi mag. I did that, too, and I've been doing stuff for them regularly since. What's interesting about the work is this: they always have a firm idea of what they want, and it's always a challenge to produce it. Technically it's challenging, because of the variety of approaches they demand; and intellectually it's a challenge because, being a science journal, arguments are closely made and have to represented fairly. This means that all the roughs go through many hands for comment, and sometimes it's quite difficult to find a solution that satisfies everyone.

Now, here's a thing: I have often thought that I lose a lot of vitality when I turn a rough into finished work. On one occasion recently, after presenting the rough, I was told that they didn't really need much alteration to it in the final artwork. I did the work anyway, and gave them the option of printing either the 'final art' or the rough. They printed the rough. It makes me wonder if I oughtn't occasionally to think in terms of the rough when I'm doing finished art. There's an edge and an energy there, you see. On the other hand, if I know that I'm doing the rough but it's really finished work, that might be enough to clobber the freedom that creates the vitality. It's a real poser!

Here are those two illustrations, together with a few more of the roughs I've presented in the past. See what you think.

click on a thumbnail to see a bigger picture

Times Supplements     Globe and Mail

The Guardian     The Beano     Other Stuff!