data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6823a/6823a58d13a195a9cf57a4f7d233918fd4e38df3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6c9a5/6c9a55abc16103b1b553a5acbc65bccaf872945b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0684d/0684d6629b0336a168ea62d5df6265516d97efc5" alt=""
This style is actually dependent upon MORE RIGID rules than the more organic 3 dimensional typical 40s cartoon characters. It is the extreme conservatism that controls the style and makes it so wooden and soulless. It's like an artistic math problem, existing solely for the challenge of its own problems.
When most people today draw flat, they are starting from no foundation of knowledge or experience at all. They see cartoons like Toot Whistle Clunk and Boom and say "I wanna be cool and rebellious too. Only I wanna skip the hard work and study and just go right to the top and be a designer." Then they draw from the details out with no master plan of organizing the designs. They start by drawing an eye, then a nose, then draw a head around it and eventually get to a finished chaotic picture of geometric shapes all in cluttered opposition and contradiction to each other.
Oreb is instead designing from the big shapes down to the small shapes and fitting all the smaller shapes within the plan of the larger shapes. Starting with the overall composition.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8fc3/f8fc3a1ac46105e87143e7e081657d383651e3f8" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6957/a6957ea41ae77d35a8523ba5f6521f1c40a22fdb" alt=""
On the organicness. Here's the main key to the style. These aren't mathematical shapes. They aren't perfect circles, ovals, there are no straight or parallel lines as in today's flat cartoons. These are very organic but on a flattened 3dimensional plane - somewhere in between a 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional space.
The negative shapes exist both in spaces between the characters or in their arm poses, but they also exist within the characters. The negative areas are contrasted against the filled busy areas to provide readabilty and to make you focus on certain areas. If everything was filled up with detail equally, it would be a cluttered mess.
There are lots of contrasts of different types of shapes. Just compare each of their noses to start.
There are contrasts in texture - large flat colored areas against hairy busy areas.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a957d/a957d3984dbdd803495e4ccfb1cd9be7648a99a6" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c85ee/c85ee34c72ffab2aade4466485fc55787c21c3b7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/21d39/21d39635dbfd667eb8d28561c4990537c3e22917" alt=""
When I first saw this cartoon (and the other handful of chapters of the Cal Arts Bible - Pigs is Pigs, Mars and Beyond and Paul Bunyan) I too wanted to be instantly cool. When I tried to draw in this style and make the characters look like they fit together and were doing something I quickly realized how hard it was to do. Now I know why.
I also realized the effort isn't worth it in terms of the ultimate entertainment value. I'll explain that later too.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5f011/5f01191723c30b2986e2c391802374d95539e654" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/715c0/715c0be932e5c4bf22c7fd66566b024999dd58a0" alt=""
This cartoon uses the same principles and more, but is far less restrictive creatively than the stylized Disney stuff.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ab12/2ab12d9632ea01bb188609a24348fd49ef6b5914" alt=""
Was this worth anything to you or did you already understand the style?