Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

Prince of Garlic


Painter, Photoshop, generalized misery

I did about eight hundred things wrong in the course of this painting. I started out with a very clear idea of how to paint it, which is pretty much always death. So I wound up doing and redoing things and wasting a lot of effort on steps that proved totally unnecessary. But this sort of thing is important, because you learn what not to waste time on next time. Or something like that. Various bits did not work out like I wanted, but I’m just going with it now, because I am close to moving into the I HATE IT FOREVER stage, and if I simply call it done, in a few months I may stumble across it and go “Hey, that’s actually not bad!” (Or not. That’s fine. Failure is important. I WILL FIX EVERYTHING IN THE NEXT ONE. ART IS HARD.)

The notion of a set of cards using spices as a suit got scrawled down in a sketchbook ages ago, and while I never got much past the idea of the King and Queen of spices, when I wanted to do a piece that had some Old-Time Feel to it, it sprang to mind.

Prints availableish.

Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.


  • 1
A dice deck might be easier than a tarot.

Either a single die deck, where the total number of cards is some multiple of 6, with a even distribution of each value. Or a dice deck where someone clever with math tells you how many of the 2 to 12 values to have to simulate a dice roll.

It takes up more space than dice, but you don't have to worry about rolling across the table (and knocking stuff over).
And you have the added game mechanic of not replacing cards as they are drawn.. loading the dice as the game progresses.

Hmmm.. I feel like I should apologize for this idea now.

"Or a dice deck where someone clever with math..."

It's not clever. It's a chart with one to six on the top, and one to six on the side. Add the numbers up in the grid, and that tells how many each of two to twelve you need.

That's clever. It's just spatial-math clever rather than equation-math clever.

(And, from the persepective of being someone who is much more clever in the equation-math direction, it's impressively clever -- because the result is indeed quite simple.)

  • 1