Cannibalized some older pieces to make this. Lots of scissoring and X-acto knifing. Dimensions are 24 1/2 X 19 inches; it's ink on paper--all rendered with the "vintage" program MSPaintbrush, printed, cut into pieces (repeatedly), and linen-taped on the back in a network resembling a nest of bricolage spiderwebs.
Have you photographed the backs of any of these? I'd be curious to see this nest of webs.
BTW, how light safe or fade-proof is the ink you're using? I've noticed some rapid and significant fading on several of the prints coming out of my old Epson Stylus. I've pretty much given up on using the color prints as anything more than preliminary images for paintings and drawings. I'm starting to take disks over to the photomat and having them print 4x5's for my photo albums. Call me old fashioned, but I really like a physical picture to hold in my hand over a digital image waiting to be electrified into exsistence on my computer screen.
But about this collage. There's something about the repetition and layering of textures and shapes, about the different kinds of edges that makes this an appealing image. I'm wondering how much more physical information is apparent when you're seeing it in a gallery as opposed to online. It certainly reads well in this format, but I keep thinking I'm missing something.
On pieces of this type, I'm using lightfast inks (pigments as opposed to dyes) and framing the work behind UV-resistant plexi. No fading has occurred.
This is the back of a similar piece I posted a while back: