Re: Heath Robinson & Rube Goldberg: was Re: What is it? XLIX

[Michael Mendelsohn]

Roy Dennis schrieb:

Is Rube Goldberg an American Heath Robinson?

Yes.

Cheers Michael

[John Ings]

explain them.

[Andy Dingley]

A very poor Heath Robinson.

Heath Robinson made witty social comment by drawing cartoons. Sometimes (but not always) these cartoons involved fanciful machines. He was equally capable of finding this humour in existing machines, such as the automatic toaster, or even in such contemporary fashions as new tastes in Modernist carpets or flats. The key was the humour and the machine was always secondary to that. Often the machine was fundamentally impossible (rather than merely ludicrously impractical)

- lifting the dome of St Pauls with a platoon and a block and tackle, the dowager's pekingese not merely breaking cocktail ice off an iceberg, but winching it ashore with a treadmill.

Rube Goldberg was an inventor who drew his creations. The design was the core, not the resultant drawing. He has more in common with Alexander Weyger than Robinson, and a similar approach to mechanicaal engineering. It's important to Goldberg that the machines work, or at least make some attempt to, and this often gives rise to clumsy illustrations with voluminous footnotes.

A better British analogue to Rube Goldberg might be Roland Emmett.

[Mark Brader]

Roy Dennis:

Andy Dingley:

Whack! Slash! Bite! Knock it off, eh? They were both very good at what they did, and are excellent analogies for each other.

That's Rowland Emett -- who was a fine Rowland Emett, but no Rube Goldberg.

[Andy Dingley]

Rube Goldberg's cartoons had _explanations_ attached to them. That's about the worst thing you can do to any form of graphic art. Maybe the machines are funny, but he was a lousy cartoonist.

Roland, Rowland, Emmett or Emett - he spelled it with every possible variation (or at least was cited in period with every variation).