Friday, June 29, 2007

Bill Tytla - Terrytoons - mouse slaps lion's face


Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Bill Tytla - Terrytoons - cute animation, is it such a bad thing to have appeal?

I think this is Tytla but whoever it is animated a super cute Mighty Mouse.


Big eyes and big pupils is a quick formula for appeal.

A little round tummy for a cute drunkard.

Cute is hard to define, but you can see the contrast between Tytla's drawings and the animator who did the next scene in the same cartoon.





How do you define cute and appealing in the first place? It's especially hard to now, because the whole concept has fallen out of style. Most artistic efforts are purposely unpleasant now, whether visual or audio.

The most general and obvious traits that make us think "cute" are big heads and big eyes.

Babies, kids, kittens, puppies are all cute to us because we are wired to want to protect the helpless.

These babies are generic cute. They say only the obvious.

This Chuck Jones kitten has the obvious traits too, but also is a very specific design which makes it even more cute because it appears more real.

Bugs Bunny can be bland, cute, funny or ugly, or some combination of everything, depending on who is drawing him and when he drew him.
Friz tends to draw him non-descript.

Jones draws him many ways. Here he is not exactly cute, but handsome. Taller proportions, but well designed shapes and good balance.He's a bit cuter and more stylish here.

McKimson is not known for cute. He has a tendency to draw his characters with tiny craniums and big jowls. His cartoons are hilarious, but I think he sometimes gets a bad rep for drawing the characters too "adult".

McKimson drew Porky with a huge head here, but still it doesn't add up to cute. See how hard it is to define what actually makes something appealing?

This is REALLY supposed to be cute. I love McKimson even though he has a tough time with cuteness. He is the Man's cartoonist.

This McKimson title card is more appealing than many of his drawings. I think it's a Scribner pose and Scribner has a natural appeal and cuteness in all his drawings-even when he tries to draw ugly.
Jones has an appeal in his characters when he doesn't get too cutesy.
This character is supposed to be ugly but is drawn with much appeal.

Cute and Weird is good too
FUNNY WEIRD AND CUTEClampett strikes an amazing balance of all at the same time.
Big pupils adds to the big eye effect. Clampett drew the biggest eyes of any animator in the 40s.

McKimson drew a lot cuter when he drew for Clampett.

Scribner too. The combination of him and Clampett makes for the ultimate cute weirdness.

Some pure cuteness is too much for me (like Disney babies), but when you add in other spices, like weirdness and twists it makes for a cute but sick combination and that's what I like best.

Rex Hackelberg is a perfect combination of cute, weird and great imagination.

Rex is one of the last few men who still have an eye for visual appeal. The last efforts to keep cute alive seem to be coming mostly from a handful of girls. You know who they are.

Young guys love ugly today-in all things, cartoons, music, pants, unshaven faces, you name it. They think it's not "cool" to have taste and pleasure. Thank God that girls have more sensitivity to pleasure and the finer things in life. Maybe they can save us from ugly coolness.

You can even draw ugly with cuteness and appeal, as Basil Wolverton proved.

Appeal and cuteness comes partly from the baby traits, but there's more to it. A real designer has a way with shapes and balance and those attributes are much harder to explain. I'll work on it.

It's especially hard to explain today, since the last 40 years have largely abandoned the concept of visual appeal so no one even knows what it is. I wonder when ugly girls will come into style?

Will CG animation EVER achieve appeal?

I'm curious, which of these do you think of as cute or appealing?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Art Lozzi and A Lush Limited Palette

If you are really good, you can do a lot with just a handful of colors. (I should learn this lesson myself!)This ist episode of The Flintstones is a really handsome cartoon. It didn't cost a lot of money, but it was done very thoughtfully and tastefully.
The main colors are natural. No rainbows of pink purple and lime green.
The palette of "The Swimming Pool" is 2 main colors:
Subdued greens and

The greys are used to separate 2 different tones of greens.

The rocks and house in the BG below are greys and blacks. They separate the two colors of the sky and grass, which themselves are related colors.

1) SKY: The greens in the sky are light olive greens
2)GRASS: The greens in the grass and plants are a mixture of greyed greens, middle greens and blue greens

The rest of the colors are subtley tinted and shaded variations of the main colors.

In small areas, brighter colors are used to accent and enrich the basic color schemes-flowers, trees, etc.

Art and Monte use great technique with brushes and sponges to make the simple color schemes look really deep, rich and natural.

Every area of sponge and brush storke is carefully designed. It's not a messy mish mash of unorganized detail.On this cave wall you can see where Art cut friskets in bold shapes that help emphasize the rounded shape of the house.

The shapes are cartoony and stylized but not random or wonky. They establish the forms of the larger areas they help describe.

The blue accents of the leaves are done with watered down color, so that the sky color blends with the blue to make it not jump out at you.

This harmonizes the colors and keeps them in a family.

This Mermaid image has no color thought at all. None of the colors are organic or related and nothing in the picture holds together. The girl looks like a bunch of disconnected pieces of flat shapes instead of a living creature.

The artist just poured the colors straight out of the tubes. That's not a process of choosing. Anybody can do that. That's what crayons are for.

This below is a lot more interesting and fun to look at. At least to me.

The depth of color in the walls comes from slight variations in value and hue in the shadows, textures and lines on the walls.

Note that there are less textured areas inbetween the more textured areas. This is all part of thoughtful composition and design. It's done artistically with good taste.

If the rendering was carelessly done it would look messy and make it hard for you to see anything in the picture.Note that there are less textured areas inbetween the more textured areas. This is all part of composition and design. It's done artistically with good taste. If it was carelessly done it would look messy.This scarecrow image has every possible amateuristic mistake all in one.

Here are the same thoughtful color theories that Art Lozzi uses applied to a more detailed image.You could have tons of details but bad choices of color and rendering and it wouldn't look so warm and natural and colorful as this.

Details and long hours by themselves do nothing for art. Intelligent, creative choices make art.

By the way, Art Lozzi is personally teaching Kali some tricks of the trade: