Here are a few details:
(1)"Eye of the duck times" David Lynch. Filmaker (maker of Twin Peaks – come fire walk with me, Blue Velvet etc.) –not that I’m a fan of those particular films, but I was quite interested in his ideas. One of which was ‘eye of the duck’. The theory being that the eye of a duck is basically in the perfect position artistically. If you look at a duck it has various areas of colour, some very ‘noisy’(lots of things going on) lots of rapidly contrasting textures and tones, lots of ‘quiet’ areas monochrome. If you look at the eye of the duck, it is in the perfect place. If it was anywhere else it wouldn’t ‘work’. So the idea of his eye of the duck times is (as I’m interpreting it) a perfect position/situation in one of his films. I think I understand this. He also said interesting things about the use of digital effects, that he didn’t use them as they weren’t ‘good’ enough yet. I can see this. If you take for instance the BBC’s latest series, Walking with Dinosaurs, its quite obvious. It’s a good effort, obviously, but (presumably) it was done on less expensive machines than for instance Durassic Park, so the digital images are not quite as detailed. The effect is that they have no possibilty of merging into an analogue background with its infinite gradations; and so they don’t! Durassic Park makes a better effort. It maybe relates to the still continuing debate in hi-fi circles: is vinyl superior to cd. In my opinion, cd wins hands down, but mainly because noise, clicks & pops & deteriorating quality drove me mad! Anyway, David Lynch is (imho) an interesting person, and, if you've had a few personal 'eye of the duck times', then you're lucky!
(2)'There are too many bright light going out' Dave Powers. He was the keeper of the John Kennedy Memorial Museum, who fairly recently gave it up saying this. Maybe I'm just getting old but too many bright lights have continued to go out!
(3)'For my part now, I consider supper as a turnpike through which one must pass, in order to get to bed' (Jonathan Edwards). Seems a singularly appropriate signature for the Turnpike newsgroup. Has the advantage of not exactly being clear as to what it could mean in that context: it could be derogatory? Anyway Turnpike's a horrible name for a piece of software! (IMHO) of course!
This update to the CH-W Site is really our/my swansong, as it’s become obvious to me over the years that we are not 'going to make it' now. This is despite having produced at the time (even now, even) some of the most original textiles and dresses in the country. Maybe in the world. I was at the time particularly pleased with the rolls of dye printed silk that we used to produce. It's particularly hard to produce proper dye printed cloth on a small scale, but in continuous uncut lengths of up to 35metres of pure silk crepe-back satin. These were five or six screen prints with multiple overprints & quite often fully printed large blotch backgrounds or very large repeats like 65"! Some of the dresses we first produced were rather/very unusual and it is difficult for me to understand why it didn't really happen for us. Of course there is the peculiar British thing of it being bad form to actually say that you think what you do is good. You have to just wait for it to happen. How long can you afford to wait?. Anyway, looking back on it now, it all seems like rather a lot of wasted effort! Really I think the press has a lot to answer for, although we did get a certain amount of support from Brides Magazine most of the Press are just interested in the established names. No support at all at any time from Vogue (of course)
My father-in-law joined the RAF as an apprentice engineer & when all the new recruits were lined up in front of him he said [barking voice] 'I've just got two things to say to you lot: always pay your taxes & don't get married'.....
Current projects: building an observatory, yes, honest! I got this dome from Freeads. Its about 8' high totally enclosed. Apparently was the protective covering from the radar installation on a ship. Anyway its now mounted in the garden on a frame. I've now got to make the top revolve and open.
Always had an interest in hi-fi. Though I'm not so interested now as things seem to have got *so* ridiculously expensive and don't generally seem to be scientifically based. I’ve always been a firm believer in the ‘double blind’ test, as I know how easy it is to fool oneself. I've always built my own loudspeakers since the days of the the Goodmans Kits. Remember Audiom 51, Midax & Trebax? Anyway my current loudspeakers are a transmission line job (own design). Originally these used twin Ionofanes as the 'perfect' tweeters, four midranges and four basses (B59, B110, all Kef units) with homemade, homewound, crossovers. The speakers are about 6' 6" high, and the folded pipe length gives them a good bass! The Ionofanes were eventually replaced with dome tweeters (four of course) Actually the two ionofanes in each unit were not really a success as the 'driver' is very much a point source, so phase shifts were very apparent. Although they always were my favourite sounding tweeter. Anyway the crossovers need work. Music: varied, classical: Wagner, Mahler, Richard Straus then Delius, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, and a few others. Pop, got to be Bob Dylan, ELO, I used to like a lot of the top twenty, but maybe I'm getting old but it really has seemed to be absolute crap in the last ten years or so! The only light on the horizon (as I've only recently discovered) is Enigma (who are, rather!)
Enough of this!, JC 1999