An article by Cabinet Magazine Jonathan Ames from 2003 shows this ideology of how doodling is thought of scribbling or active vandalism It depicts a man Ames, is on the phone and he has re-doodled on a piece of wallpaper beside the phone in his family home. Over the years this piece wallpaper has been doodled on and has been scribbled on for years and his father has just replaced after years of people doodling. Ames`s father has only just replaced the wallpaper and he just doodled on the newly placed wallpaper, His father naturally is upset and snaps at this fact and becomes angry over this and shouts at his son and also grabs the phone and hits Ames on the shoulder with the Receiver.
Jonathan describes the pain as “ was rather excruciating” (Ames 1).Ames responds to his father by shouting at his father “Don’t ever hit me!” I bellowed. My poor father cringed and cowered, and I took a menacing step towards him. It suddenly occurred to both of us that I towered over him”(Ames 2) Ames is older and is now bigger than his father. So his father walks off and the son feels he has intimidated his father. In reality, this piece hasn’t got a lot to do with doodles but it does highlight one of the topics of how doodling isn’t seen in the best light and is vandalism in this context.
Ames later goes on to talk about and discuss the doodles of the past presidents of the United States. When Ames is first shown the doodles the editor according to Ames “ Without realizing it, he was trying to influence my response. He kept saying, “Look how phallic! Look how phallic!” (Ames 3). Ames doesn’t seem to care or mind the nature or what’s in the doodles “if anything, their doodles reassured me that these men are human beings, and having penises hidden in some of their drawings further confirmed this. In fact, their doodles made me sympathize with them, gave me an intimate glimpse into their daily, stressful lives.” (Ames 4) This actually lets Ames relate the past presidents and see them as human beings rather than the past presidents. He then goes on to diagnose and decipher the doodles of past presidents. He describes former presidents such as Nixon and Bush as “Unimaginative and Limited creatively” (Ames 5) There doodles being very basic and not really visually interesting in any way. Whereas the other presidents that are on show our much more exciting with there doodles.Presidents such Kennedy, FDR and Johnson. Their doodles are more creative and visually interesting you can tell a theme or story with them. For example, Kennedy draws a sequence of repetitive shapes interlacing giving off this off retro pattern type aesthetic.But FDR he is simple in his approach he is simply depicting the catching of a fish it simple yet playful and gives a fun and carefree appeal. Probably the most visually interesting of the batch is Johnson, Johnson`s doodles fill the page almost and are such organic shapes depicting what could only be deceived of as monsters attacking each other it is funny how a drawing like this could be mistaken as a child’s drawing and not the doodle of a full grown man running the united states of America.But that it is it gives a unique and interesting perspective into the mind of Johnson’s mind. In general, these doodles really can give a perspective into the minds of their owners and their personalities. It is interesting how an article that shows the stigma the doodles have can also highlight their good aspects in a way. These doodles were perhaps made when the presidents were trying to focus on elegant matters and helped them retain the import information.