In the ball park

Here's 3 styles that would all fit well into the "spumco style" which is more of a flavor than a set style. All different, yet all compatible.

1st Season Rocky and Bullwinkle - Great Design and Style

They had some really good layout artists and designers on the first episodes of Rocky and Bullwinkle.


Here are some images from the first and 2nd episode. I don't who the designer/layout artist is, but he is topnotch.

His drawings have all the classic principles -

PRINCIPLES OF GOOD CARTOON DRAWING

PLUS

Style

Design

Every pose he does of Bullwinkle is different in the details. They all follow the general idea of Bullwinkle-the basic shapes, the basic proportions, yet the artist experiments with the specifics in every single pose.

You can describe Bullwinkle's designs in general terms-with adjectives.
He is tall and thin
He has a long neck
short skinny legs
knobby knees
A furry peanut shaped torso
His head is made of two shapes, a small rounded cranium and a larger droopy nose and muzzle.
Goofy eyes

The exact dimensions of all these adjectives is not set in stone. A great designer can play with the proportions, angles and specific details and still make the characters recognizable.

There is no tracing of model sheets.

The artist messes around with the specific details to keep everything organic, alive....and artistic.

FUNCTIONAL FIRST, STYLE AND DESIGN 2ND

The variations on the general theme of Bullwinkle are not totally arbitrary either. The artist makes sure his poses are functional first-they tell the story, they show us the emotion of the character, they act and they are perfectly staged so we can tell what's going on.

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/functional-drawings1-draw-with-purpose.html

These variations from "model" are done with extreme control, guided by instinct and taste.
Today, this seeming freedom can be misinterpreted as having no rules. An amateur artist who considers himself a designer ends up drawing anarchic shapes that don't fit together, what we sometimes call "wonky". It's a misunderstanding of the 50s style of design.

EPISODE 1








Note that the characters evolve from the first episode to the second. The first episode drawings are fun and creative, but by the 2nd, the artist is comfortable with characters and is in "the zone" He now understands them intimately and is able to be a lot freer with the designs and poses.

EPISODE 2
Totally clear staging and silhouettes.

I love the way they drew Rocky back then too. He's so much more appealing and streamlined than the lumpy disjointed thing he became.The proportions of many famous cartoon characters tend to get evened out with time. They lose fun, spontaneity and life.Yikes!

The mouth animation is really creative and fun in this early stuff.

These 2 close ups of Bullwinkle have completely different proportions, but does the viewer notice?

His nose is turned down above, and up below. Why not?

I love the odd proportions-the tiny hands compared to the giant head. Great designers use strong contrasts in their shapes and sizes.
The shapes in this image are fantastic. So much thought! Look at the way Rocky's eyes are angled apart at the top.
His skull slopes back and the eyes follow that plane.
The interesting angles in his flying cap.
The organic cube.
The keys that splay outward at bottom.

This artist is very observant and creative at the same time.


How cool was Boris?
I also like the thick itchy lines. I wonder what they inked the cells with? It must have been done by an artist too, because it's done with such flair.

Genius!

I really like this UPA closed eye theory. It's abstract yet still drawn to wrap around the face.

Wow!

This stuff is pure cartoon candy.





You know who this artist reminds me of?

George Baker. It's a crunchy angular sort of style that still has underlying great drawing principles. I loved the covers of these comics when I was a kid. Still do!


Super crunchy!
Goddamn I like these drawings.

If you gotta do limited animation, use great drawings I always say. They don't cost that much. Just hire real designers and don't step on them.



I recommend this dvd with a big warning:

It has some great drawings here and there.
The Fractured Fairy Tales are generally good design and well animated.
Some of the bumpers are really clever and beautiful

BUT!

The people who put this out really did a number on the cartoons.

DVNR
Different voices! - In some cartoons the voices have been changed!
Rerecorded music
The wrong title sequence-it's not the first season title sequence which was really cool.

I can't understand the logic of messing with classic film and TV. Especially when they market it as "original" - "The complete First Season" which is a flat out lie.

If they know that collectors want the films untouched by executives, why do they waste the money changing everything?

Design 2- Style - Chuck Jones' Scaredy Cat

Chuck Jones is one of my favorite cartoonists and a huge influence on me.
I sometimes think of him as two people:
1) The entertainer that made really funny regular folk type cartoons from roughly 1945-1950
2) The stylist/designer who made beautiful soft cartoons from 1938-1945, and then again from 1950 to the rest of his life.

As an artist, I like his experimental and artsy cartoons.
As a regular type guy with normal man needs, I like the 1945-1950 period when he made hilarious cartoons like Pest In The House, Long Haired-Hare, Rabbit Punch, My Bunny Lies Over The Sea and one of my all time favorite cartoons, Scaredy Cat.

Jones is in his finest form in this cartoon. You can tell he really thought about it and worked hard. The drawings and poses are all really strong and solid, the acting is great and he uses a lot of imagination in one particular area of the cartoon-Sylvester's takes.

Jones did his best cartoons-at least in my opinion- when he had a good structure figured out and he could spend his time concentrating on one main creative aspect of the cartoon.

Mike Maltese wrote Scaredy Cat. It's a very funny idea and a funny story, so that part is well taken care of. Now Jones can concentrate on what I believe he thought was the most important part of the cartoon-Sylvester's reactions-his "takes".


Here's a take (above) that's only on screen for a very few frames. Jones' direction in this cartoon is so masterful and confident that he can draw and time his takes with such clarity and power that he barely leaves them onscreen for you to register them - but you do and it's perfect! Some of the takes-like the one above are arrows that lead your eye to the following scene of the mice doing some ghostly gag. He uses the device throughout the cartoon. Very clever indeed.

Jones was a master at drawing poses that really tell you how the character is feeling, in ways that are hard to describe in words. Look at the funny attitude Sylvester has above and below. These poses aren't arbitrary, they tell you more than one thing at once.


If you remember from my post "Design 1" I said Jones was mainly a stylist but sometimes used his design ability. (Design and Style are 2 different things)

He didn't often use it to create new types of characters (he did sometimes and I'll post about that later) but he would use it for funny reactions. For most of this cartoon, Porky and Sylvester are pretty much "on-model". Jones always felt he needed a strong reason or excuse to break from model-or create something new.

Sylvester's extreme fear is a really good reason to create some funny new faces. These use Chuck's design ability.


Go see all the great poses from Scaredy Cat that Duck Dodgers made for us at:
http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/04/sylvesters-takes-from-scaredy-cat.html


Chuck had an odd habit. Whenever he made an outstanding and original cartoon, he would make it again. Sometimes a million times, like The Road Runner Series. Usually the other versions of the same story don't turn out as good as the breakthroughs. I'm not sure why. Maybe, once he made something that really worked, he figured he could turn it into a "stock" idea and every time he made it again, it would be easier and faster and cheaper.

That way he could spend more time on his next firsts. I have no way of knowing, but his firsts tend to have more life and more elaborate animation and lots more custom poses drawn by Chuck himself.

Here are some frames from Claws For Alarm-a remake of Scaredy Cat. Note how the characters are drawn by comparison with Scaredy Cat. It seems like the main creative part of the cartoon is now in the backgrounds instead of the characters. It is still well drawn and funny, but Chuck (rightly) doesn't seem as inspired to make a cartoon that he's already done.





http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/04/sylvesters-takes-from-claws-for-alarm.html

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that every other director's Sylvester is generally funnier and drawn better than Friz'? That's very odd, considering that Sylvester is associated mostly with Freleng.

Friz

Clampett- This is the first Sylvester model drawn by Tom McKimson for Bob Clampett. Below is my favorite Sylvester cartoon ever: Kitty Kornered

http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/01/100-greatest-cartoons-of-all-times.html

Robert Mckimson.

Clampett's Drawing Style and Milt Gray on Clampett's Tale Of Two Kitties

Bob Clampett has a really appealing drawing style. I think the characters never looked better than in his cartoons. Many animators came and went in his unit, but the style was always there.



I remember when I first saw Clampett cartoons, I was really taken by this unique and lively drawing style. It was interesting that even though the animators used a wide leeway in drawing their own interpretations of the characters, there was still an overall style that held it all together.I especially noticed the way he drew eyes.


I worked with Bob Clampett and watched him draw. I loved his drawings but he, like Ralph seemed to like other artists to interpret his style their way.

When I knew him, he still drew in his late 30s, early 40s style, but he would get me to redraw his drawings in Friz' 50s style! I think he thought that's what modern cartoon fans were used to.


Jerry Beck also witnessed the master at work:

I eventually convinced him to let me draw in (what I thought was) his style.Then he would color them in with crayons. He would reward me with one of Sody's homemade cheese sandwiches!

Clampett had a style that was unaffected. He didn't try to make up a style. His style came out of his personality and the kinds of stories he wanted to tell. Some cartoonists might put their styles first and try to think up something obvious that makes them stand out. Then they are stuck with the problem of having to limit their stories to tales that fit into the drawing style. I tend to identify more with the styles that just come naturally, like Clampett's.


Anyway, animator and historian Milt Grey sheds some light on Bob's drawing prowess here:

MILT GRAY WEIGHS IN

Hi John,

I just read your post about Clampett's pacing in Tale of Two Kitties,
and I absolutely love it! I hope Eddie has told you how much I also
love your other recent posts that analyze Clampett's work. Right now
I can't think of any observations to add because you have been doing
such a thorough job of analyzing and describing this subject.

Who Did The Layouts For Tale Of Two Kitties?



But I did want to tell you that Clampett told me that on Tale of Two
Kitties he was temporarily without a layout artist, and so he drew
all the layouts on that cartoon himself, with no layout help from
anyone.

He happened to mention that while telling me the chronology
of his creation of Tweety, beginning with the little bird he drew on
the MGM stationary to a traveling musician friend while Bob was
setting up work on the John Carter on Mars cartoons at MGM -- I'm
sure you remember those stories.



I don't know any other details about Bob drawing those layouts, except that he was creating Tweety's personality on the fly while drawing the layouts, since his main focus on that cartoon was to present the characters of the two cats, as Babbitt and Catstello.

I'm really eager to hear your reaction to the article that I just
recently wrote about Clampett. I think that my article and your
recent posts about Clampett are perfect counterpoints on Clampett's
career and virtuosities.

Phil Monroe
Another thing, before I close -- you mentioned in a recent post that
Greg Duffell mentioned that animator Phil Monroe was first with
Tashlin, then Freleng and then with Jones. But Phil Monroe told me
that he also worked for a short time for Clampett, between Freleng
and Jones.

And I just recently noticed that Phil Monroe has a screen credit as animator on Clampett's The Wise Quacking Duck. I believe -- but this is just an educated guess -- that Phil animated a few
scenes early in Hare Ribbin', where Bugs grabs the dog and slams him up and down on the ground and then throws him down into the rabbit hole. I think that is by Phil because in those scenes Bugs looks too much like the Freleng Bugs, not the Clampett Bugs.

Best regards,
Milt


Thanks Milt! I can't wait to read yur article. Where is it?

Here are some great Clampett eyes...

Clampett also had the best looking Bugs Bunny. There are 2 model sheets drawn in 1942'43 by Bob McKimson that are almost the same.

Clampett told me he went over McKimson's poses with a sheet of tracing paper and made suggestions to make Bugs more appealing. Clampett gave him eyes that were on angles for one thing.

McKimson was a great animator but didn't have a naturally cute drawing style, yet his Bugs looks much better in Bob's cartoons than in his own.

Here is a comparison of Bugs in Clampett's day, and then by McKimson without Clampett's influence.
What a difference!


Clampett at a different studio with different animators:This is Clampett's hand lettering too which is very stylish and cartoony, just like his drawings.

Clampett is Clampett even with different artists working for him.






Wouldn't it be great if we could draw cartoons this well today?

Take It From Katie - an essay about style versus skill

Katie sent me this comment and it's brilliant. She said what I was trying to say only she said it much more succinctly. Her experience can be yours if you follow this logical advice!

Katie:
I almost think that anyone who can tell you what their style is, or openly talks about "developing their style" is in danger of never finding a real style whatsoever. I tend to think that your "style" is similar to your personality- something that grows as you get older and learn more, but that you're born and stuck with none the less. A real artist's style is like a thumbprint...unique and impossible to really recreate. You can copy an eye shape that John invented or a particular Chuck Jones mouth curl or whatever, but you can never master their "style" because you can't absorb what really matters- an artist's personal point of view, their emotions, or their personality. I guess this sounds sort of cheesy, but it's difficult to explain!What John said about learning skill before style is extremely important. People today are far too interested in "expressing themselves" and trying to prove how unique their points of view are to take the time to learn. No one wants to waste time learning how to do something right. In most other professions this is ridiculous. Would you get up onto a stage to sing some song you wrote in front of the whole world if you couldn't play your instrument? If your ideas are so important to you that you want to show them to the world, do yourself a favor and take the time to learn the skill. I can say from personal experience that studying and practicing and eventually getting better is EXTREMELY rewarding. Before working on APC my drawings were REALLY crappy. I had no skills whatsoever, although I talked a lot about construction and perspective and all that. I didn't actually learn anything until I was forced to while doing layouts for John. After the season ended I woke up one morning and realized that something new had clicked- where a year before I could only draw someone standing perfectly straight with no expression or life, suddenly I was having fun drawing poses that I had previously thought to be too hard. It seemed like almost over night drawing went from being arduous and kind of entertaining to being thrilling and super fun. It's been two years or more since then and I'm only now coming off of that high. I'm in no way saying that I made the leap from amateur to professional- I've only made one tiny step towards being good enough to tell the kinds of jokes and stories I like through art.The thoughts in this post aren't very organized…sorry! There's one more thing I want to say though- I've observed something about the modern world, and that is that it encourages creativity and uniqueness in people than ever before. This is very bad. I learned in school that it was more important to be "unique and creative" than it was to be smart or knowledgeable. Dumb people on MTV or in artsy fartsy magazines who aren't smart or creative tell you what smart and creative stuff to like. I wasn't around until a somewhat short while ago, but I believe in the past people who were meant to be artists simply became them because there wasn't anything else to be. Today there are millions of "creatives" fighting to be the most popular with our dumb modern culture. Ask yourself if you have no choice but to draw funny pictures for a living (for some reason it seems so glamorous to people). If you are reading art/theory blogs like John's and you love the art but aren't helping yourself out by following the advice, then perhaps you ought to look for work in another area. If that makes you mad and you don't want to be thought of as a faker, then take what John says to heart and better yourself. You'll be happier, and the people looking at your work will be happier too!

go check out her drawings:
http://funnycute.blogspot.com/