This is pretty much the same picture as yesterday’s blog entry. I know it looks different but it conveys the same information. Each species from the series has gone on to produce others of the same species, or has been unlucky and not reproduced. The reproduction in all cases has been asexual resulting in clones, with the only exception being between 1.1 and 1.2 who created 1.3. Sex has not been an issue or a matter for discussion; the species reproduces simply and creates a daughter clone in its own image. There are one or two anomalies arising from the use of the DNA that have given slight differences in appearance, but there have been no possible interspecies breeding and no deliberate mutations.
I’ve been thinking about dogs lately. Dogs are one species and their incredible variety is down to breeding. Male A and female B get together and create something visually different; offspring AB. Some have more spots, others have squashed noses. A pedigree of dog is down to selective breeding rather than being a different species. The idea of a pedigree is that eventually you weed out the mongrels until you have something visually approximating a new species.
The idea of pedigree collages does not interest me. If I were to examine pedigrees then I’d end up with pretty much the same work as I’ve just produced. The model would be the same. No, it’s the ideas of intraspecies reproduction to produce mongrel collages that seems the most interesting avenue of exploration. These would not be mutants in the Frankenstein sense of the word, but a variety of children; the product of male A and female B who look different to produce something new to look at.
So here’s a picture of the work I’m about to produce. The permutations when breeding have almost limitless potential so I’m limiting my breeding programme to the following model.
The first step will be to create collages A and B from new source images.