This particularly vexing and possibly existential question arose very innocuously a few weeks ago… Take a studio manager, a project manager and a mom-to-be, throw in a dose of baby preparations and you end up with the above confounding question. Is it possible to apply these two descriptors to a single object?
The object causing this immediately irreconcilable state of parallax paralysis was, no surprise: it was a toy that I had made for the purpose of Calvin’s early childhood development. It is a soft, stuffed ball made of three different monochromatic, cotton prints and is particularly to work with his vision and likely interest in drooling onto everything in the first six months. (You can see it in the photo above.)
But without photo or actual ball, I wound up describing it as a psychedelic, monochromatic toy. But is that actually possible?
When I reflected on it, I realized that my sterotype of psychedlic art is that is is invariably full colour. Worse still, when I browsed the ,a href=”art that is inspired by the psychedelic experience induced by drugs such as LSD, Mescaline, and Psilocybin”>Wikipedia definitions, not only is it definitely “trippy” and “kaleidescopic,” but most definitively “inspired by the psychedelic experience induced by drugs such as LSD, Mescaline, and Psilocybin.” AARGH!!!
So while Calvin’s ball is definitely monochromatic and (hopefully) very stimulating, I think I can definitively settle the question. No, his baby ball is not psychedelic!
Technorati tags: Baby Toy Ball Early childhood development
No responses yet