Has everyone here seen John Kricfausi's latest (or nearly the latest) blog entry about his artistic influences? If you haven't then you missed the mother of all animation posts. I predict that copies of that article will be passed around for decades, it's that good!Of course John discussed his own influences as a way of opening up a wider subject, namely the need for more diversity in animated comedy styles. It seems like all the good draughtsmen are doing Disney, Cartoon Network, Chuck Jones or Spumco. Some artists are doing independent styles but even those tend to fall into two or three catagories. This is very odd because the history of comics and cartoons is so much more diverse than that. Think about Don Martin, Milt Gross, the Fleischers, Jim Tyre, Rod Scribner, Chester Gould, Al Capp, Bakshi, Barney Google, Seuss, Natwick, Iwerks, Plastic Man, Ding Darling, classic kids books...well it would be a long list. The point is that cartooning is beginning to feel narrow and claustrophobic.
I don't know about you but I can't express myself with (for example) Don Bluth-type characters. I'm not knocking Bluth, I have a lot of respect for the guy, but characters drawn that way reflect his life experience, not mine. I grew up feeling a lot of economic insecurity, a lot of lust for women and a real desire to understand the world. Don Martin 's style speaks to me about economic insecurity, Tex & John speak to me about lust, and Clampett, Scribner, Wood, John, the Fleischers and some of the most innovative aspects of Disney speak to me about about exploring the possibility of things. That's the mix that feels right for someone with my background. Someone who grew up differently would have a different set of influences. Why are we both doing Don Bluth's style?
And how about Cartoon Network's style? It's a fine style for humor about nerds and their hip suburban friends. I wish the studio well and have only good feelings about it but I never considered myself a nerd and I'm not really hip...I'm more of a hip wannabe. A big part of my life and comedy experience could never be made to fit into the nerd/hip nexus. I can't express myself in nerdhip. I don't think in those terms.
A lot of classic comedy doesn't reduce to nerd/hip. Jackie Gleason, Sid Caesar, Kovaks, Jack Benny, Chaplin, Clampett Tex and John all did comedy about other things. Me, I think it's funny when you're sitting next to a beautiful girl and her big, mean bruiser of a boyfriend and she's coming on to you to make him jealous. It's funny when you're the only guy without a sandwich at a business meeting and someone's inadvertantly waving their pickle under your nose. It's funny when Moe thinks Larry and Curly are stupid when he's really just as stupid as they are. It's funny when Daffy imitates Danny Kaye or compulsively talks to Elmer when Elmer's trying to sleep. What does any of this have to do with nerd/hip? Where did this one-size-fits-all compulsion come from?
BTW, the caricature above is actually of Alex Baldwin but it looks like John, doesn't it?
33 comments:
Use Marlo's caricature, Eddie...
Click here for the picture
See ya
Steve
Blame the producers!
They are the ones who ONLY green light shows that are drawn in the currenty trendy styles. Because it increases the odds it will make money. It may not be good but to a producer it is cheaper per foot than real animation.
You cant show good animation on the back of a DVD case, but you can show neat angular characters that look like every other show the kid already likes.
It's the same reason video games spend most of their budget and artistic efforts to make things look realistic even if means sacrificing gameplay to do so. You can't show gameplay on the back of a box. But you can show the flashy things that make what would be a bad game a nicely rendered bad game.
sorry for being off-topic but i wanted to tell you how great your laugh is. i sat there watching the R&S audio commentaries and laughed my ass off just cause you do all the time. And I wasn't laughing AT you, to get that straight, Uncle Eddie - it just sounds hilarious and infects you with joy.
LOVE YOUR BLOG!!!
Maybe John and Alec were separated at birth...?
Hello there
SORRY OFF TOPIC
My name Is Matt Just started A Sketch Blog and was wondering if you could give your brutal honest opinion-I know your a busy fellow-If you get a chance
(that goes for everyone! dont hold anything back!)My two latest Posts dont seem to be showing up so here's some direct Links
http://lartoons.blogspot.com/2006/09/ok-here-are-some-various-styles-of.html
and
http://lartoons.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-girlies-for-ya.html
Thanks in advance for any input
-Matt aka the Lar
Oh paff! Not again!!
As one of the 238 people who care, I must ask you, dear Eddie: WHY DO YOU INSIST on MIS-spelling the name of the late, lamented and non-nerdy ERNIE KOVACS? What if someone(as is quite likely)wanted to google him based on your mention?
K-O-V-A-C-S!
I think you must have some unacknowleged deep-seated passive-aggressive antipathy for poor Ernie to continue this "error"...face it: you've worked hard for your image, man! And you're still breathing(happily)! You'd hate it if you were called "Eddie Fitzpatrick" or Ernie Fitzgerald", wouldn't you? ; )
(Carry on, though, do...you're on a roll.)
XOXO~Jenny
I think the results and the styles that we see in the cartoons du jour reflect today's way of life, which is "what can I do to get the most amount of money in the least amount of time and the least amount of resources?".
Generally, there's nothing wrong with that way of thinking - in some applications (like business), it can actually be a good thing. However, the problem is that there are so many other things that are being sacrificed in order to reach that goal. In animation, it's quality and timelessness.
In a well done cartoon, it's difficult for the layperson (non-animator) to spot mistakes because there are other things going on to hold the viewer's attention. However, in many of the modern cartoons, the mistakes are glaringly obvious (ex: character x did the talking but character y's mouth was moving), and many of them are unintentional because they only have x amount of days to release it. Unfortunately, today's cartoons (except IMHO South Park) don't have any other strong pieces to counterbalance the bad pictures (like sharp writing, good background music or good color schemes). As a result,
instead of the viewer laughing at the joke the cartoon is trying to tell, the viewer is laughing at the cartoon because the mistakes become the joke.
As for timelessness, many of the modern cartoons today won't be appreciated by the future generations because they're going to look so old-fashioned and dated. Much of it has to do with the technology being used to animate. Technology does allow cartoons to be turned around faster, but it's easy to spot how the cartoon was made. I think that the best way that I can explain it is this - Ren and Stimpy is timeless. It's very difficult to tell when it was made, and many of the epis hold up today. Kids who weren't even born when it was originally released find the content of the cartoon very funny. The Filmation and 70s-early 80s Hanna-Barbera cartoons that were popular when I was a kid don't hold up. You can tell that they were made in the 70s or early 80s. When my brother and I were younger, we thought Scooby Doo was one of the greatest cartoons ever. Today, we think the storylines are lame, and the animation is old. I think the only reason Scooby Doo held up because of all the unintentional double-entendres in the show. Kids who weren't even born when it was released don't find the content funny, but they think it's funny that Shaggy and Scooby come across as pot-heads...
>>They are the ones who ONLY green light shows that are drawn in the currenty trendy styles. Because it increases the odds it will make money.<<
I disagree. They don't make money. One in 30 shows makes money.
Kids don't like "trendy styles" Kids are the most human of humans. They are not "cool" or "hip". They are emotions untainted by unnatural conditioning. They like eternal pleasures, like funny characters who seem real doing funny impossible things, and slapstick.
Flat or wiggly trendy styles are child abuse. That stuff is made for those pseudo-nerdy hip cartoonists who can't draw and the idiot executives who fall for it.
Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, Mighty Mouse are for kids-and even for many grown ups.
The Three Stooges are great for kids.
I show all this stuff to my cousins and nieces and nephews and they sit for hours watching and laughing at it. They look at it like it's pure magic-which it is.
Then they make me draw them all the characters and they act out everything they saw. Then they watch the same cartoons again.
If networks made real cartoons about funny characters, not thick-lined circles and triangles with happy faces, then they would make lots of money. It wouldn't be such a crap shoot as it is now.
"...i wanted to tell you how great your laugh is... it just sounds hilarious and infects you with joy."
Dear Ernie Fitzpatrick,
I love your laugh, too. Can I infect you with joy?
Can I wave my pickle under your nose?
Signed,
Lonely
Oh ya, you spelled John's name wrong AGAIN, "John Kricfausi's latest.."
HAHAHA!
Hey! I just realized that if you rearrange all the letters in "Kali Fontecchio", you can spell the names of all five Marx Brothers!
Uh... except for Zeppo.
Uh... Then again, maybe not. Carry on...
CREEPY
...What does any of this have to do with nerd/hip? Where did this one-size-fits-all compulsion come from?
"Nerd/hipness," if u wanna call it that, seems to be about finding a solution to the problem of, "we can't really draw, so what else can we put in a cartoon?" Lots of talking about stuff.
When that succeeds well enough, the problem becomes, "well, now that we can afford artists, how do we keep them from drawing?"
This becomes, "that other show got away with murder, why don't we try?"
Then, people with no eyes go on blogs and say it's the new Waiting for Godot.
That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.
We can blame producers who allow trends and short term demographic reports to guide their decisions. However, we also have to look at ourselves for our shortcomings. It is amazing how narrow our visions (for both influences and application of our creative endeavors) have become during the past few generations.
I will use some famous scientists for example. Alfred Russell Wallace (co-founder of the principle of evolution by means of natural selection...one of the greatest paradigms in biological thought) was also a prolific writer on anthropology, economics, epidemiology, exobiology, geography and spiritualism. Albert Einstein was a great physicist heavily involved in religion and politics.
I don't understand why we have become so narrow in our creativity. Is it because the recent generations have more to learn? Is it because we develop 'comfort zones?' Is it because we don't have ambition anymore? Whatever the reason, it is not because all the great ideas have been taken.
Hey Eddie, do you think the Simpsons has good construction?
When you first said the phrase "cartoon network" style, I wasn't sure what you meant, because I do see several styles at work there I'm not sure if you mean the UPA ish McCracken stuff, the post modern animated badly on purpose (perhaps) takes on Alex Toth designs from when H-B really started to take a dive, or what exactly. There are other influences in there.... Is it an art thing, or a point of view thing? Is it the lack of classicism? The seeming lack of any influence before 1966?
Hip? Nerdy? I suppose that too. But you know, even at that, as limited as it may seem, just think of what it was like, the decade or two immediately preceding this. One of the best things to happen to TV animation, beside SpumCo et al, was that there was a call for entries to animation fans that brought in a lot of that stuff that became a possible CN house style.
Bluth I see as the remaining shred of Frank and Ollie, although not as good as either necessarily.
There are a lot of claims at bringing animation back from the dark ages in the past 25 years; some stronger than others, not to demerit any influence they were able to contribute. Sometimes the influence was only commercial success with a increment of artistic endeavor riding on the coattails a bit more than usual.
Maybe what you are reacting against (ever so mildly, if so), is the fact that these styles are perhaps so obviously second hand, copies of copies, a third go round of stylistic inbreeding whatever, rather than something that may have apparently grown more organically from the process.
If someone is searching for a style, perhap one shouldn't be looking. I know I swiped a lot when younger, consciously and subconsciously, and later, I may have just tried emulating underlying approach rather than the surface gloss. Such as how simply can i design this to match my natural doodling and handwriting habits, how easy can I make it while making it look good. Although that approach may have killed newspaper comics for one, where no one these days much seems to have had ANY influences other than pushing forward a lame joke or point of view, with drawing secondary at best. Yes, some important basics are being totally ignored too frequently.
I used to rag about how dependent something like some currently successful animation might be on topical humor for instance, but have softened a bit lately, realizing how WB cartoons were rife with pop culture of the day. Although they can hold up even when those references are lost.
Sometimes the improvements have to come in small waves, other times via an overiding influence. These days, at least there is a lot more interesting flotsam and jetsam.
"I don't really care"writes in part: "Nerd/hipness," if u wanna call it that, seems to be about finding a solution to the problem of, "we can't really draw, so what else can we put in a cartoon?" Lots of talking about stuff.
You may hate the output of places like Cartoon Network and Nick, but many if not all opf those shows are run, created and yeah, written by artists. Eddie himself has written actual cartoon scripts, too. And I've never yet seen a single person on those shows that--as you put it "can't really draw". Saying that abrogates everything else you say. It becomes a wrong assumption, and a really bad, bad one. Try and wrap your head around the idea that people who can REALLY, REALLY draw the fcking lights out still put stuff in shows you don't care for.
Trey and Matt can't draw. Groening can't draw. Seth can't draw.
Others might be able to draw better, but are still interested in or forced into making shows that don't demonstrate it. I don't know why, unless they are chasing dollars they've seen other shows make, or saving themselves work. What could it be? They can draw but have no taste? They are doing great work and I have no taste?
To me, "style", is just another word for "formula". The words are interchangable!
Err, I mean, "interchangeable".
Seth, Matt and South Park aren't the "CN/Nick" output people Uncle Eddie was referring to, nor are they the superior artists I was referring to at all.
I take a description like "nerdy/hip" to mean the Cartoon Network stuff. And those artists, many of whom if not most write their own shows, can draw. The point of my comment is that it's BS to just scattershot diss and write things when you don't really know what you're talking about. You don't know the people involved, how they work, or, I'll bet, have worked in animation yourself. Where do you get your authority as to how "they" make cartoons?
No, "style" isn't "formula", it's more like "design".
In order to be dedicated to ANYTHING, you need the two S's: "Skill" and "Structure". "Style" shouldn't even be an afterthought.
Where do you get your authority as to how "they" make cartoons?
My statement began with the phrase, "seems to", so clearly it's not authority, it's opinion, and I pulled it right out of my own ass as a joke, just like the nerdy-hip cartoonists do. I see very little risk to my own intellect or the general understanding of us all for having done so.
They may all be great graphic artists at cartoon network, and I definitely would not know because I don't even know who most of them are.
I think the glibness of my point is masking a little more subtlety and maybe more truth than you give me credit for.
I don't know what makes less sense-- people like Matt and Trey who decide to make a cartoon just for the hell of it, like I might've done in 6th grade, which happens to hit the big-time, or trained artists creating a show, who would copy a lack of visual acumen as an artistic value in order to reap a profit.
You have alleged that the creators of shows at CN are all top-notch visual artists. You have not opined as to why top-notch artists choose to create visual dreck. The questions I posed to you before are still waiting. Explain to me the visual choices of ATHF if it is created by people who can actually draw well, who understand design, construction, staging, timing, action, layout, background, etc, from a real animation standpoint (when I said "can't draw," I actually was using shorthand for an entire range of skills necessary for producing a visually sophisticated and entertaining animated cartoon).
Arson,
Producers haven't been able to greenlight anything since Development Executives took over the industry. You are living in the 50's.
The history of perfume goes back to Egypt, although it was prevalent in East Asia as well. Early perfumes were based
on incense, not chemicals, so aromas were passed around through fumes. The Roman and Islamic cultures further
refined the harvesting and manufacturing of perfumery processes to include other aromatic ingredients.
Thus, the ancient Islamic culture marked the history of modern perfumery with the introduction of spices and herbs.
Fragrances and other exotic substances, such as Jasmine and Citruses, were adapted to be harvested in climates
outside of their indigenous Asia.
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!
Nice! Nice site! Good resources here. I will bookmark!
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
I see first time your site guys. I like you :)
Post a Comment