AuthorTopic: Cartoony? give me a break  (Read 9975 times)

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #10 on: May 04, 2006, 10:49:56 pm
there are 2 meaning of symbolism here, first using something to actually symbolize another, like a dead rose represents lost love etc etc., where the other symbolism is when students learn representational concepts that help them to visualize (though in my mind ultimately lead to failure if proper techniques are not learned because an eye is not a football and birds' wings are not V marks, though it is usefull to help beginners)
when a person begins to use symbols (icons) in their work, it can as i said be useful to beginners, but i think it should be discouraged EVEN AS A STYLE POINT.  When a person uses icons, widely recognized abstrations, they cease to draw actual things and being to focus on the chosen icon.  The a terrible but common happening related to iconic usage is that people draw 'their own' DBZ characters /sailor moon/ gundam and what have you for years without learning.  Again, i really do believe that one cannot attain success without first beginning with observation from life and then proceding to represent life through their own experiences.  icons are for people who do not wish to truely delve into representational expression by personally simplifying what they see or dream in a way that is true to them or the person their movement.

as far as this chart is concerned, i think it would be more accurately represented by realism on the left (with hyper/photorealism in the corner) and with representation on right (with extremely simplified and cartoony work in the corner).  The top part of the rectangle would be that which is tangeble and the lower regions that which is purely imagined or sense by some other meathod than worldly preception.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #11 on: May 04, 2006, 10:56:06 pm
You're using some of the terminology wrongly, I guess. Symbols are other things. Icons are other things. They share some characteristics but they're not the same. The 'other use' of symbolism you speak of is your own invention really, and I don't mind to go along with it, just as long as we don't get confused. When pelople learn to draw and they first use abstractions like 'a face is eye, eye, nose, mouth, in a circle. Face!' this isn't symbolism. Symbolism is a very concrete literary and artistic methodology.

Offline goat

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • bl33t
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #12 on: May 04, 2006, 10:57:15 pm
Quote from: The sexiest man alive
About cartoony being just a variation of your realistic proccess, goat: I have to disagree. I know how to draw a human face semi-coherently and signify a lot more than just the basic symbolic information about it (eyes, nose, mouth, ears, even 'happy face' or 'sad face') and still sometimes in design I make conscious decisions to alter my usually-realistic approach, tint it with a different rule set that one would say is 'cartoony' or whatnot. It's not just 'lazy lineart that managed to live up to rendering'. At least not always. These things are always blurred.

Much like the slight disagreements in the perceived usefulness of this article, I think our disagreement stems mostly from differences in personal process (which is cool, it's nice to gain insight into another artist's process) and partially from the fact that I always use the wrong terms for everything (which is cool, because it causes me a lot of unnecessary grief.. doh).  I don't consider cartoony as part of its own independent process.  I do, however, consider the summation of shapes and colors to imply significant details to be a part of abstraction, and I incorporate it to varying degrees in both "cartoony" and "realistic" art.  The nature of my process is so additive that a piece that ends up looking more "realistic" (quotes because I don't typically have the patience for photorealism, plus it bores me) looks like a cartoon five hours before it's done.  

Perhaps if the way you do things is to push a finalized look sooner, and then revise it (a lot of pixel artists work this way) then cartoony-realistic requires an immediate conscious choice of action before you even start drawing.  Conversely, there are several pieces that I do in which I slip into "comfort mode" and due to experience with the subject matter I can skip several steps of said process. 

EDIT: 2 replies got posted before I hit submit :X sneaky effers

For the sake of this discussion I'm assuming the artist already has a solid foundations background and is capable of producing a level of fidelity in art that would be considered "realistic", therefore not using style or abstraction as a crutch.  For a developing artist looking to improve their skills, the rules get turned upside down.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2006, 11:04:40 pm by goat »
typing ewith fdace

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #13 on: May 04, 2006, 11:07:34 pm
Yes. Probably different methodologies because I start out to make something realistic, or I start out to make it MORE than realistic (naturalism) or I start out to make something else than realistic. Whether I manage or not is besides the point. For me at least it's not just 'when I stop rendering it tells me what it is'.

And now a picture of a majestic goat.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #14 on: May 04, 2006, 11:39:29 pm
i think the problem is not improper use, but overlapping definitions.  i wont guarantee that ive used everything corretly, we all make mistakes, but doesnt it seem a bit concieted to assume that you know all the uses for a term, and that anything else must be wrong? 

I certainly have not 'invented' the idea of teaching symbols (icons), its a practice taught as a part of rudementary art education and the term is common, though it is not the one you are used to using (you call it an icon, or use the broader term abstraction, which in this case is the same thing as a symbol, but in other cases as you said, not).  My whole point is that there are multiple uses for the same term.  The term symbol can be used to describe an icon, OR it can be used to describe anything concrete that symbolizes the abstract (same definition as used in leterature), and there may be more working uses that im not thinking of at the moment.  A smiley-face  symbol does not necessarily symbolize anything (though it certainly can), yet it is what is refered to as a symbol (icon).

i will call them icons from now on, to avoid further confusion, but i would like to say there is no quicker way to end a discussion than to tell somebody they are wrong.  simply because something has a concrete definition does not mean it is the only one used.  is not a stone both an object and a measurement? is not a stilus both a spear and a pen?  when people have learned a great deal, ive noticed they can fall victim to believeing they have learned everything, and that inhibits further learning.  if you dont believe me, talk to a professor of any subject and try to tell them about something new :P

As far as methodologies are concerned, i believe the abstract and fantastic comes only from that which is can be percieved, and the strongest foundation for perception comes from life. 

@ Helm, im not sure what you mean by more than realistic; naturalism is realism in the extreme, but you cannot be more 'realistic' than what is real, or else you are imposing your mental perceptions onto the subject to actually make something that becomes an very detailed abstraction.  perhaps your realistic is really representative, and your more than realistic simply realism?
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #15 on: May 04, 2006, 11:56:59 pm
Adarias, sorry if I came off conceited or in I MUST SHUT THIS DOWN mode. I did not want this, as this conversation is interesting to me. I guess I should preface everything I say with a hefty dose of 'my opinion is just an opinion, I don't believe I'm right' (in fact I have a strong case of.. epistemological dispondency which doesn't allow me to toy with the concept of being 'right' at all anyway. We are all equally wrong!). When I said you used the term wrongly (which was in retrospect... wrong :P) I ment that it does not follow with the most popular use of 'symbolism' within the context of history of art and art theory. Not a case of stone versus stone. And anyway I am prepared to use any language you like as long as we both understand more or less what the words stand for.

More than reality: I mean when you look at something, your eyes have finite focus and finite viewpoint range and finite spatial coverage etc. When you look at a tree you see the foliage as you do, but naturalistic art as in sitting down and drawing every individual vein on the leaves and every bit of cracked bark and so on, bending light and construction 'rules' of reality to give a picture that is seems much fuller than what you gather in a single gaze from reality.

Offline goat

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • bl33t
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #16 on: May 05, 2006, 04:08:29 pm
Yarr, I usually think of naturalism in terms of rendering details that are normally obscured by distance, atmosphere, and lighting.  I also hear it referred to as "hyper-realism" by some.  More or less what Helm said.
typing ewith fdace

Offline Rox

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 591
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #17 on: May 05, 2006, 06:26:49 pm
That article told me absolutely nothing... and this thread makes my head hurt.


Just thought I'd say that.

Offline Turbo

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • less than meets the eye
    • View Profile
    • Pixeljoint TurboAccount

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #18 on: May 05, 2006, 06:51:40 pm
I'd never read or even heard of anything that tried to catalog each "art style" in terms of realism, iconic, abstract, etc, and this article did a great job in summing it up. Food for thought in the future, i rather enjoyed it. (And badly written? why?)
I had a few intuitive notions of these concepts, but i think it's relevant and important to have a categorization of  them. Maybe it will help artists who are trying to reach a certain style but are stuck on another, or maybe it will help to mix the styles (reach the middle of the triangle :)). Maybe it will do none of these things, but it's nice to have it nonetheless.

And it was easier to read than this thread! (because it had pictures perhaps?)

Offline snake

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 314
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Cartoony? give me a break

Reply #19 on: May 05, 2006, 11:10:21 pm
A teacher once told *my* teacher: You have to know realism before you can make abstractions.

All manners of art are abstractions and are all based on realistic principles. Think about a walksycle. Caricatures. Art needs to make sense in order to be interpreted.

Personally, I don't like to lock art-style into a set of rules as I feel it limits my way of thinking creatively. The way art looks depends on the message you want to show your observer.

Now, discussing why people go blindly for realistic graphics and think that anyting with a more abstract or stylized look is childish is an entirely different discussion alltogether.