Originally I was going to post this in your comments section. However, I'm wondering whether you might be interested in posting it as a topic and responding with your own ideas on this subject. Let me know if if that would work, otherwise I'll just post it in the comments section as I'd originally planned, wordy though it may be! :)
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here and say that, although I understand your reasons for liking these "Rocky and Bullwinkle" screen shots, I'm wondering how you'd feel about them if they were the work of animation students in a Character Design school assignment. For the record, this is the type of situation that comes up constantly in my own college course on Character Design and I'm often at odds as to how to deal with it. As you know, I share your high regard for the solid construction principles of Preston Blair, and place a strong emphasis on students learning and applying those principles. Because of that, I have to hold up good structure as one of the main criteria by which I grade their assignments. In the second semester I do allow one assignment where they may explore a less dimensional, more graphic approach if they choose to, but I do so with some reservation and expect them to still convince me of how the character will animate from pose to pose and from front view to profile.
You've used the term "wonky" to aptly describe amateurish, awkward character drawing and design, but I'm not sure how one would distinguish "wonky" from good drawing that takes great liberties with proportion and structure, in any manner other than intuitive. As a longtime professional cartoonist, you certainly know in your gut when something is good rather than awkward, but how would you back up that artistic judgment call with solid reasoning in the form of a written assessment of a student's work? I believe that these drawings of Bullwinkle work within the context of the entire scene of animation, yet I am not sure how I might respond to them if taken out of context as individual and inconsistent poses on a student's model sheet assignment. Even if my gut instinct tells me that they really have something, how can I give that student a better grade despite the inconsistencies, while trying to explain to another student why he received a lesser grade for work that may have similar flaws but lacks something that is, quite frankly, intangible, being subject only to my intuition and personal taste?
I hope you'll understand and appreciate this dilemma, as I suspect it is one that all art and animation instructors have fretted over many times in their career. Alas, art is not cut and dried like math or science, where there are clear right or wrong answers. Though one tries to be as open-minded and objective as possible, when it comes right down to it, it is a subjective judgment call on the part of every instructor. As such, unless we set certain parameters and criteria by which to measure a student's work, it makes it tougher when we're later held accountable for our decisions and resulting grades.
These Rocky and Bullwinkle drawings are only slightly off kilter.
They still have basic sensible construction. The details wrap around the larger forms and are very slightly skewed - unlike modern design where none of the shapes that make up a character are related to each other. Each element just floats independently from the others.
That's what I call "wonky" - like that new "George Of The Jungle" which is anarchic drawing. Every shape just goes in arbitrary directions with no overall form or position, and no composition within the frame at all
They (the Rocky and Bullwinkle frames) all have great clarity of staging
great use of negative shapes
Line of Action
Opposing poses (characters balanced against each other naturally)
design balance - curves against straights, empty space VS filled space
Variety of shapes and forms and textures
They have a lot of what we like about Hirschfeld
As far as consistency of model, I am completely opposed to that anyway. I find on model to be bland and boring (at least in the modern definition of "on-model")
Chuck Jones sure played with the models from pose to pose in his cartoons, and I think you like those
Now as far as students go, I would not allow them to draw style and would never encourage them to design their own characters
That's where the problems happen
they get too tied-up in trying to be individuals when they don't know anything yet
You can't design something while you are trying to learn how to move something. Move something that is already built for movement by a professional-animate Mickey Mouse or Elmer Fudd, something simple that actually is built to move in 3-dimensional space
They should learn to draw, learn to animate all the basic principles
that is way more important than style, and you can't have a style if you have no knowledge or skill
all the stylish cartoons that are worshipped by animation students were animated and designed by classic animators. Toot Whistle Plunk and Boom, Mars and Beyond, Gerald McBoingBoing etc. They all use most of the classic principles and just shake up one or 2 aspects to make a graphic statement
I would take these types of drawings (Bullwinkle, UPA, Hirschfeld) and show how all the principles are there.
Maybe if I get time, I will do a post like that
I hesitate anymore to post too many modern drawings next to classic drawings. When you see the 2 juxtaposed, the differences between anarchy and control and thought become obvious
but then the flame wars and hate starts
I somtimes think I should have 2 blogs-one for basic concepts and principles that are viewable to everyone
and then another for more sophisticated concepts that only accomplished artists can view.
When I get past basic stuff and into more complex theories and principles, everyone goes crazy
"How dare you not like Family Guy! It's supposed to be ugly!"
so I am going to tone down my comparisons from now on and just show what I like. Unfortunately some understanding suffers from the lack of comparison between good and bad