tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post3179787359455923556..comments2024-03-28T09:33:38.032-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: WHEN DRAFTSMANSHIP IS IMPORTANTDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-11378206666836273682015-04-08T08:38:01.586-04:002015-04-08T08:38:01.586-04:00Children book illustrators are determined. They do...<a href="http://blueberryillustrations.com/local-children-book-illustrator" rel="nofollow">Children book illustrators</a> are determined. They do their work until their work is not recognized. They keep on drawing and creating new ideas, contracting new peoples and lastly they paid off. To become best children book illustrator one should keep on trying and should never be give up the hope.<br />Michel Abrahmhttp://blueberryillustrations.com/local-children-book-illustrator/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-4123837066001829482015-04-07T17:30:54.511-04:002015-04-07T17:30:54.511-04:00Kurt Cyrus wrote: "These guys knew the limita...Kurt Cyrus wrote: "These guys knew the limitations of Perspective 101, and knew when to ditch it."<br /><br /> Thanks, Kurt, for an interesting and thoughtful perspective. As reinforcement for your view, the great draftsman Robert Fawcett claims that he never studied formal perspective and could not explain its rules, but relied on his powers of observation instead. His work was selected for use in two books on perspective, written by people who did study formal perspective.<br /><br /> I agree with your assessment of Zelinsky and Drucker here, although as I think the NYer cover demonstrates, that "freestyle" approach doesn't always work.<br /><br /> Sean Farrell wrote: "Pretending to do primitive drawings is often less honest, because the clumsiness of being self conscious can get in the way."<br /><br /> I agree. We work so hard to learn the skill, then we have to work just as hard to shed it again.<br /><br /> Dale Stephanos-- Thanks for writing, I have enjoyed your work for some time. I did not mean to suggest that Barry Blitt is not "one of the sharpest wits in the business" or that this picture is representative of his best work. It's possible as you suggest that he ran out of time (perhaps due to changes or unreasonable demands from the client) and if that's the case, it would hardly be fair of me to single this cover out for scrutiny.<br /><br /> My concern is a broader one: that artists who work in this "casual" style (whether on NYer covers or in graphic novels or spot illustrations) become so comfortable with the visual illiteracy of today's audience and the lack of artistic accountability that they no longer care about the strengths and weaknesses of that particular style. I think we have become sloppy about when it is truly effective to "draw sloppy." We often seem to apply that approach indiscriminately, as a default style. One could think of many social, cultural and even technological reasons for this, but I would've expected a more thoughtful approach from a premier venue like the cover of the NYer.<br /><br /> For example, I think Blitt's style is absolutely wonderful when he draws Iranian President Ahmadinejad in the confines of a men's room stall, but when he uses that style to capture complex scenes with perspective and architectural details and large groups, I'm not sure any amount of additional time could've saved the drawing from coming apart like wet tissue paper.<br /><br /> One additional thought about your "lack of time" point, which I agree is an extremely important, relevant issue: I deeply admire what cartoonists and illustrators are able to achieve working on a deadline. I am awed by what the Time Magazine portraitists such as Boris Chaliapin were able to accomplish every week, working with the same timetable as the NYer. (By contrast, when the "fine" artist Jamie Wyeth attempted to paint a Time Magazine cover of Jimmy Carter within Time's deadline, the result was disastrous). I knew a comic strip artist who compared drawing a daily strip to "running in front of a train." He told me, "You'd be surprised how good your drawing starts to look around 3:00 am. But ultimately, everyone's reputation must be built on the art they are willing to let go out the door." If people wonder what motivates me to be a pain in the ass about standards in art, it's largely to honor the illustrators who, faced with deadlines, made hard decisions about what to let go out the door.<br /><br /> 4David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-52857566664342105692015-04-06T20:46:03.066-04:002015-04-06T20:46:03.066-04:00I agree with Mr. Cuneo that Barry Blitt is one of ...I agree with Mr. Cuneo that Barry Blitt is one of the sharpest wits in the business. In this case I just think he bit off more picture than he could (or would) draw in the given time. And that is a huge part of illustration. We're given a certain amount of time to execute to the best of our ability and there are moments when we realize that we simply don't have enough hours and minutes to pull off the epic picture we had in mind. It's happened to me often and each time I come away feeling like my fingers were scorched and I'll never work again. Until the next time.Dale Stephanosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-68136521787564515552015-03-05T00:26:19.785-05:002015-03-05T00:26:19.785-05:00"And his reply is that it is not really to pa..."And his reply is that it is not really to paint the tree, but to bring him closer to the tree." <br /><br /><br />That's a great quote Chris. Almost like the making of the painting is a way to bring one into presence, or the effort of making the painting aligns or harmonizes you with what is.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-91237652613359661472015-03-02T17:46:56.850-05:002015-03-02T17:46:56.850-05:00David, thanks for your thoughts and I do see how t...David, thanks for your thoughts and I do see how the image wants for more. <br /><br />I think the difference between a child's drawing and a bad drawing is that the child draws only what they want to say and because they only think of what they want to say and have no concerns for pretending, they often make very some very honest observations and statements.<br /><br />Pretending to do primitive drawings is often less honest, because the clumsiness of being self conscious can get in the way.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-50453840404581842562015-03-02T06:05:47.449-05:002015-03-02T06:05:47.449-05:00“the how though is where the real "love'&...<b>“the how though is where the real "love'" comes from”</b><br /><br />I think I get your meaning here Tom. It goes back to what I was saying about Dewing and Turner imagining their forms as if coalescing out of smoke or Constable interpreting the world in his pictures as a granular matrix assembling into all that takes place within them. Renoir, perhaps, saw everything as a sort of dappled blossom, Alma Tadema seem to like building his works as if he were compressing pollen. Cezanne saw things increasingly as a series of fluctuating armatures. And so on.<br /><br />There is a very good feature film/documentary of Antonio Garcia Lopez spending a summer painting a Quince Tree in his garden ‘The Quince Tree Sun’. In it an onlooker asks him why he is tirelessly painting it day after day after day. And his reply is that it is not really to paint the tree, but to bring him closer to the tree. I’ve always understood this to mean that the language we use to materialise our pictures is the way in which a plastic artist communes with the world and speaks his love to it and in the process, to those who look over his shoulder at what he is doing.<br />chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-48480421946373406652015-03-01T14:02:33.140-05:002015-03-01T14:02:33.140-05:00"The reason, I believe, is that how you paint..."The reason, I believe, is that how you paint is a reflection of how you love. And ‘the subject’ of our love possesses us, and in so doing, possesses how we paint it." <br /><br />I agree with that Chris, the how though is where the real "love'" comes from. Imitators or people who adopt another's style don't want to pay the price that the originator did to bring their work into being. Comprehension is what gives work strength and can only be faked or copied so far.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-8663295520142210302015-02-26T16:26:39.657-05:002015-02-26T16:26:39.657-05:00David, regarding your initial point about the tech...David, regarding your initial point about the technical challenge of capturing both the stage act and the audience in a single image: this is a great example of the limitations of linear perspective. The further you move from the vanishing point, the more apparent its distortions become. Zelinksy's cool picture doesn't "bend the time space continuum" so much as it forgoes the device of linear perspective in favor of something closer to the way we observe the real world. We turn our heads, looking down at the stage, then up at the ceiling, then across at the balconies opposite. Attempting to employ linear perspective would have destroyed that image, so Zelinsky went freestyle instead. Drucker's piece just below it also forgoes traditional perspective to give a very effective representation of what we would see as we turn our heads from the screen to the audience behind us. These guys knew the limitations of Perspective 101, and knew when to ditch it.Kurt Cyrusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-79453716690537762372015-02-26T15:44:50.750-05:002015-02-26T15:44:50.750-05:00Tom said: “I don't see how one can separated o...Tom said: <b>“I don't see how one can separated one's way of "speaking" from the content and meaning from a work of art. One's way of speaking is the content, isn't? What an artist values, how they create order, to my mind reflects a much more essential content then what the given subject is. Because if the way the artist speaks is just a container for content why is the container needed?”</b><br /><br />There’s an old truism I’m sure you’re familiar with Tom, “paint what you love and love what you paint”. And in thinking about what you’re saying; the pictures of Renoir spring to mind – the handwriting of his brush tenderly caresses and strokes everything it touches, the trees, the path, the girl’s wrist, the shadows under her chin, her boyfriend’s moustache, the glint on the shoes… everything. Euan Uglow said he wanted to “write his pictures across their surface in the even way of a typewriter”; and his nudes, pinned down with their little ticks of measurement, do indeed hold steady with an even, detached ‘all-over-ness’ that is redolent of a cool page of neat ink.<br /><br />So yes, I agree, there is a deep relationship between the content of the picture and the way it is performed.<br /><br />But think on this. You have no doubt seen students of Uglow or Renoir (or for that matter Kanevsky, or Diebenkorn, or Morandi, or Degas or Sargent etc) who adopt the manner of their idols. Now, even the best of these fall short of their masters; with something not feeling quite right, incomplete, or not properly authored* about their work. They impersonate the voice, but when undertaking a new song (think of the Frank Sinatra knock-offs who try something different from the usual repertoire) we realise their heart isn’t in it.<br /><br />The reason, I believe, is that how you paint is a reflection of how you love. And ‘the subject’ of our love possesses us, and in so doing, possesses how we paint it. <br /><br /><br />*Thanks to Kev Ferrara for the word ‘authored’ in relation to work that exhibits integrity.<br />chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30452594462344226482015-02-26T14:57:09.690-05:002015-02-26T14:57:09.690-05:00“first, if two drawings are physically identical, ...<b>“first, if two drawings are physically identical, but one of them serves as a language for an artistic concept while the other is a random scribble by a child, we are left in the very uncomfortable position of distinguishing the quality of the images based upon the underlying intent of the artist, rather than the physical appearance of the image.”</b><br /><br />It is precisely the ability of an artist to successfully write his intent in plastic form that distinguishes a good artist from the bad one; the masterful work from random scribble of a child. There is no such condition where two drawings can be physically identical and one convey meaning while the other cannot. <br /><br /><b>“I think that the visual quality of the image-- the design, composition, the quality of line, the color-- remains an important consideration. If an artist is going to use images rather than the sounds or words, they have an obligation to pay attention to and respect that medium. The choice of "slang" images need not free the artist from coming to grips with their medium.”</b><br /><br />I agree that the intention of the artist, his meaning, is <i>entirely</i> conveyed in the drawing by the visual language you have just stated. That is to say he writes his meaning using the plastic means; shapes, tones, colours etc all in consort to form what is termed ‘composition’. The ‘manner’ in which the artist composes, whether it is with a slangy, jittery, whippy, sketchy handwriting or whether it be a careful, steady, controlled handwriting is merely the surface means. Our ‘style’, our accent, our ‘way of speaking’ is only the vessel holding the content and meaning, not the content and meaning itself. To put it another way; sometimes a plastic bag is better for carrying our things than a leather briefcase, sometimes it’s the other way around.<br />chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-64723151009971651862015-02-26T13:47:57.815-05:002015-02-26T13:47:57.815-05:00Hi Chris
I don't see how one can separated on...Hi Chris<br /><br />I don't see how one can separated one's way of "speaking" from the content and meaning from a work of art. One's way of speaking is the content, isn't? What an artist values, how they create order, to my mind reflects a much more essential content then what the given subject is. Because if the way the artist speaks is just a container for content why is the container needed?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73384143515029215232015-02-26T13:34:09.531-05:002015-02-26T13:34:09.531-05:00David said, "Once we've agreed in princi...David said, "Once we've agreed in principle that an "unschooled" style can contribute many worthy things to a picture (such as power and spontaneity) we probably have to resign ourselves to losing the refinements of a picture,..."<br /><br />I can't say I agree with that. Understanding is what makes spontaneity and power possible. Otherwise one is just mimicking or slopping over what they don't understand, i.e. pretending. Refinement is development. The initial idea can be set down with great force and direction. Spontaneity without order is just a flourish, a weak thing. Drucker's work looks completely spontaneous, and effortless and he has not given up refinements for that spontaneity.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-38188821852971851032015-02-26T12:26:01.388-05:002015-02-26T12:26:01.388-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-14091564084702573652015-02-26T07:45:39.806-05:002015-02-26T07:45:39.806-05:00Chris Bennett-- I agree with you that "their ...Chris Bennett-- I agree with you that "their effectiveness as language" is the heart of the answer to my question. I also agree that there are many different languages that might be suitable for any given concept, and that we should be open to "slang, loose, impatient and evocative tongue, or... a polite, measured, careful and fully rounded tongue, or anything in between." We should all strive to be polyglots.<br /><br /> However, this does leave us with unresolved issues: first, if two drawings are physically identical, but one of them serves as a language for an artistic concept while the other is a random scribble by a child, we are left in the very uncomfortable position of distinguishing the quality of the images based upon the underlying intent of the artist, rather than the physical appearance of the image.<br /><br /> If you are willing to go there (and I'm not sure I am) then many unskilled pictures could not stand alone; each would have to be be accompanied by a dossier about the artist's thoughts. (Note that this would be not be a problem with pictures manifesting deliberate skill, where the language-- effective or not-- is more apparent on the surface).<br /><br /> Also, separate from the language used or the concept expressed, I think that the visual quality of the image-- the design, composition, the quality of line, the color-- remains an important consideration. If an artist is going to use images rather than the sounds or words, they have an obligation to pay attention to and respect that medium. The choice of "slang" images need not free the artist from coming to grips with their medium.<br /><br /><br /> Tom-- Once we've agreed in principle that an "unschooled" style can contribute many worthy things to a picture (such as power and spontaneity) we probably have to resign ourselves to losing the refinements of a picture, such as eyes that align with what they're supposed to be watching on stage.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think you make an important about "managing" the various elements of a picture so it is most effective. In the pictures you mention, the artist is like the conductor of a symphony orchestra; they make sure the various elements work together in harmony, that they take turns and prioritize. These artists lead our eye around the drawing in a sequence they have deliberately chosen. They have decided what merits clear definition and what can be implied. Because these artists manage their pictures, they are, as you say, "fun just to look."<br /><br /> Kev Ferrara-- I think the case of Thurber puts our musings to the test. If I'm going to like his drawings (and I do), it shouldn't be merely because I admire the content of his message so much. To be consistent, I should like him because his drawings stand alone, visually.<br /><br />I agree Thurber's figures have no bones or muscle, but neither do the characters he is drawing. His drawings seem right for the themes he is illustrating, just as Fred Astaire's singing is right for his dancing.<br /><br />But most importantly, I think Thurber has demonstrated some first class visual thinking, such as the famous drawing of the man coming home to his wife / house ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CLuXIboa3DU/UcydjrkxGdI/AAAAAAAAAJY/S1javULyGAk/s393/Thurber+Cartoon.png ) The unpretentious, droopy little drawings that he does to accompany his writings strike me as "loose" drawings in the good sense of the word.<br /><br /><br />David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-75433417609946001322015-02-25T12:19:06.950-05:002015-02-25T12:19:06.950-05:00Sean Farrell-- Thanks for your specific points abo...<br />Sean Farrell-- Thanks for your specific points about the visual strength of this image (which is really all I'm hoping to address-- I'm not trying to pass judgment on the humor or the politics or whether a New Yorker cover somehow gets a special license to be measured differently from other art.)<br /><br /> In response to some of your specifics:<br /><br /> You say "the black suit against the glassy arrangement is successful." For me, that black suit punches a hole in the composition. It is the single highest contrast, most dense, most jagged, most realistic, most detailed spot on the page and therefore sucks attention away from everything else. It seems to be a fish out of water; the artist had to temporarily abandon the style of the rest of the picture to achieve the content he needed. For me, this is an implicit admission of the unsuitability of this kind of style for this kind of concept. (PS-- I think this tiny figure also gets additional attention because Doogie Howser's broken neck makes us wince; the right angle of his head is a far cry from the soft, pillowy look of the rest of the picture).<br /><br /> You say, "The play between the oscar on the right and the televised image on the left is a successful secondary movement relating to the central image." Well, I agree they're a pair because they both go off the edge on opposite sides of the page but I don't think the oscar on the right is a successful secondary movement. (Believe it or not, I once did a whole post on naive looking drawings that violate convention by cutting a figure in half at the border of the image: http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2014/01/stepping-into-2014.html . I think it can be a great device. But this NYer cover chickens out, bending the oscar back into the picture to preserve the face-- the style is not so heedless and free as we are led to believe). I think that oscar has a heavy job to serve as backstop to keep the whole off- center stage from sliding off the page, and it is not up to the task. (Note how little gravitational pull your "televised image" offers on the opposite side of the page.) Finally, if we return to my exchange with Chris Sheban about how to distinguish a well drawn child like scrawl from a poorly drawn child like scrawl, I'll be damned if I can come up with a logical rule but I would offer this particular oscar as an example of a poorly drawn child like scrawl.<br /><br /> You say, "The figures across the bottom recess into shadow and that's also successful." For me, the figures in the orchestra pit are the best part of the picture-- I think those light and lacy suggestions of an occasional head or musical instrument, aided by that restrained, simplified watercolor presentation are terrific. I wish the whole audience had been handled with that approach, rather than the deformed heads that are larger in the background than in the foreground, that are inconsistent in their level of detail, and which do not recede toward the orchestra pit in the distance, but rather fall off a cliff. David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30836711252799193142015-02-24T20:28:06.409-05:002015-02-24T20:28:06.409-05:00Firstly, I believe that there are some bad choices...Firstly, I believe that there are some bad choices in this pieces that are preventing it from reading well. Firstly, I think the reflection down on the stage gives the effect of water and confuses things. And the screen on which Kim's visage appears seems to be some kind of curtain, which doesn't quite makes sense. It should be a bordered, stand alone screen, I think, with no reflection. That way we know we are seeing a projected image.<br /><br />Beyond those errors, I'm not sure if the concepting of the idea itself is all that strong. I think the idea of Kim appearing at the oscars is great. But all he seems to be doing is raising a finger. Nobody seems to be reacting to his presence, so the whole thing just seems narratively dead.<br /><br />I think the idea could have been concepted a lot better... just to spitball for just a second, what if the giant oscar statues were in some way cowering, or maybe saluting kim... what if everybody in the audience was genuflecting in obedience. What if the n. korean flag was being waved by audience members. Otherwise, why is the audience there? How do they play into the joke?<br /><br />Essentially, I don't think the idea was cooked before it was served. The style is fine to me, a nice light comic tone to it... certainly better than Thurber's lazy woe-is-me doodles.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-66943310864710200832015-02-24T20:15:53.874-05:002015-02-24T20:15:53.874-05:00Sorry the sentence should read to the right of Kim...Sorry the sentence should read to the right of Kim-jong-um, instead of "right Kim-jong-um."Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-58942701681078756832015-02-24T20:09:56.303-05:002015-02-24T20:09:56.303-05:00One thing I notice about the New Yorker cover you ...One thing I notice about the New Yorker cover you posted David, is the figures in the lower left corner (the last zoomed in image of your post) all the figures wearing glasses, their looking off to the right Kim-jong-um (that who is on the screen right?) which gives me a feeling unfocused attention, almost a zombie like feeling. <br /><br />The stairs come off the stage but do not seem to land anywhere as a ground plane is not established. And how far is band from the audience? When I find myself asking such questions my experience of the picture beomes irritating or frustrating, it's almost like the actions of the artists are rejecting the viewer.<br /><br />In contrast the Clark, Drucker and Williams seem to welcome the viewer. The big picture is clear and the smaller parts are clear. The eye is encourage to travel through the spaces of their pictures and if the eye wants to stop and examine a part it finds itself satisfied by clear structure. Figures action are related to other figures actions. Figures attitudes and emotions from smugness, boredom, annoyance, envy, and attention are all express with such clarity that one is encourage to hang around for a while. <br /><br /> The hands of the pianist in The Williams drawing are wonderful. As they move to the left in contrast to his head movement to the right and to the direction of the snapping bag. You can almost feel how delicately he is going to strike the keyboard with his right hand. <br /><br />The value arrangements in the in the Clark and Williams are wonderful. I guess what I am saying once you get the initial "idea" of these pictures the internal relationships of the picture take you over, and the "idea," in my mind is forgotten. It's fun just to look. For example the light playing across the back of the female audience in the Clark picture, the shape of the shadows on the clowns suit, the silhoutted shape of the piano becoming fascinating in their own right.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73609220132286390532015-02-24T19:19:25.340-05:002015-02-24T19:19:25.340-05:00David Apatoff said: “if we agree that it is agoniz...David Apatoff said: <b>“if we agree that it is agonizingly difficult to simplify an image and shed muscle memory to achieve that look, how do you distinguish excellence from the random, unskilled doodles of children, the ungainly drawings of untalented hacks, or even stray graffiti?”</b><br /><br />It is to do with their effectiveness as language. In this case the language of plastic form written in a series of changing visual conditions. Whether that language is spoken with a slang, loose, impatient and evocative tongue, or with a polite, measured, careful and fully rounded tongue, or anything in between, is only to do with its appropriateness to what the speaker is expressing. The doodles of children, ungainly drawings of untalented hacks and stray graffiti are distinguishable by their weakness as visual communication in whatever context they are viewed or delivered.<br />chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-70468599919785335762015-02-24T13:49:40.172-05:002015-02-24T13:49:40.172-05:00Good question, David, and one I wish I knew the an...Good question, David, and one I wish I knew the answer to. I also agree that understanding and articulating what distinguishes excellence from random children's doodles or hacks can be tricky <br />(more like impossible, for me) but I'd bet that most children and hacks can't draw like these guys!<br /><br />Always enjoy your insight and interesting posts.<br /><br /><br />chris shebannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-22876135717447561872015-02-24T11:37:14.059-05:002015-02-24T11:37:14.059-05:00Abraham Evsen Tena wrote: "Perhaps I am givin...Abraham Evsen Tena wrote: "Perhaps I am giving more to the illustration than the illustration is giving me back..."<br /><br />That wouldn't bother me at all. In fact, one of the reasons I prefer drawing to more comprehensive, invasive art forms (such as film) is that drawing doesn't fill in all the blanks, it implies a larger reality, giving the viewer room to merge with the drawing, bring his or her own experience and personalize the art. So if the drawing persuades you to contribute more than 50% of the result, I say "bravo." I also agree with you that "perfectly polished" art is rarely as satisfying as "scrappy, opinionated" art. I guess my failing is that I just don't see this picture as "scrappy." It seems more lolling and lethargic. Is the artist fighting for his opinion here? Is that stage so lopsided because the artist wanted that effect, or because he couldn't be bothered? (or even worse, because he didn't know to pull off a complicated feat of perspective?) I don't know the answer, but most of the artists I admire who work in a slapdash style (such as Austin Briggs or Charles Schulz or Hank Ketcham) only got to that result through hard work and self-awareness.<br /><br />By the way, nice web site.<br /><br />Chris Sheban wrote: "Working in a tighter style, I am forever envious/jealous/mad-dammit, at those that make this type of drawing look effortless and easy -it's not."<br /><br />I agree with you 100%. I love that "effortless" style and have rhapsodized about a number of those artists in this blog. It is largely out of respect for the difficulty of that type of work that I write blog posts distinguishing the child-like scrawl produced by hard work and talent from the child-like scrawl produced by free riders operating out of ignorance and laziness. I believe there is a significant difference worth defending. I believe that we can see the difference if we are willing to pay attention, although understanding and articulating it is as difficult as the devil. <br /><br />As long as we share a bias in favor of that easy, "effortless" style, let me turn the question around on you: if we agree that it is agonizingly difficult to simplify an image and shed muscle memory to achieve that look, how do you distinguish excellence from the random, unskilled doodles of children, the ungainly drawings of untalented hacks, or even stray graffiti? I would be grateful to hear from you or anyone who has made more progress on this than I have. <br /> David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-60721981822736803932015-02-24T09:49:14.839-05:002015-02-24T09:49:14.839-05:00For my two cents, I think Barry Blitt's New Yo...For my two cents, I think Barry Blitt's New Yorker covers are some of the best (Chris Christie "Playing in Traffic" comes to mind).<br />Working in a tighter style, I am forever envious/jealous/mad-dammit, at those that make this type of drawing look effortless and easy - <br />it's not. Blitt, John Cuneo, Joe Ciardello, Richard Thompson, to name a few.chris shebannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-18189228416356711632015-02-24T09:16:23.378-05:002015-02-24T09:16:23.378-05:00Specifically to your request:
The huge head and g...Specifically to your request:<br /><br />The huge head and glassy reflection are successful, the black suit against the glassy arrangement is successful. The stage and arching red curtains naturally frame the central image and such is successful. The play between the oscar on the right and the televised image on the left is a successful secondary movement relating to the central image. The figures across the bottom recess into shadow and that's also successful. A projected image on a backdrop of a large stage is a design that should take care of itself, but to the artist's credit, he did some things to it that gave the image additional movement and interest.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9971964891035301322015-02-24T09:03:40.942-05:002015-02-24T09:03:40.942-05:00David, everything you say is true and I have simil...David, everything you say is true and I have similar desires to see good draughtsmanship, but the image does work as a New Yorker cover and as a design. That's part of drawing too. It is a quirky, stumbling style, but that seems to be part of the act.<br /><br />Many of the criticisms of the circle heads regarding the feeble mindset probably apply here as well, but the design is not as unskilled as it appears. <br /><br />I'm sure there are others copying the scratchy amateur type line work without any sense of organization and it may have driven home your point if we saw some of those too.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-88126244382107936832015-02-23T17:09:41.539-05:002015-02-23T17:09:41.539-05:00etc, etc wrote: "You're looking for art i...etc, etc wrote: "You're looking for art in all the wrong places, David."<br /><br />If I can't look for art in a drawing, I'm not sure where else there is left to look. <br /><br />I'm all for art that flaunts "rules and conventions (sound draughtsmanship included)" so long as the artist has the power to make it stick. Practically the whole 20th century of western art has been an exhausting effort to flaunt rules and conventions, from les demoiselles d'avignon to dada and surrealism to howling expressionists such as George Grosz. Many of them worked in far more subversive venues than the New Yorker, such as Simplicissimus. <br /><br />By now, trying to flaunt the rules is a time honored tradition, but you have to do far more than abandon the laws of perspective to register on the Richter scale anymore. Looking back at the art of that century, it seems to me that only a small percentage of those would be rebels were artistically effective. I don't think that practitioners of bourgeois realism such as Dali left much of a mark, for all their blabber about their "concepts," but artists who could draw well (NOT necessarily realistically) were the ones who remain persuasive to me. David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.com