More Character Types

Here are a bunch more sketches drawn from video, like the ones I showcased on my Oct. 4th entry. The ones pictured above are all of guests who have appeared on the Charlie Rose interview show seen on PBS. The show's website features numerous archived clips that are just great to sketch from, since the interviews allow you to study the subject in medium close-up, moving just enough that you can get a good feel for the design of the face and body, as well as their personality. I deliberately have drawn guests who I am not familiar with, as the point of the exercise is to take an honest approach to seeing the "design" of a face, in the size, shape and relative placement of the facial features on various head shapes, without getting hung up on whether or not a good likeness has been achieved. These sketches can then later be used as a starting point in developing "Character Types" for your cartoons and animation designs.

Here are direct links to all of the clips I used, so you can see how I interpreted the video reference:
Alison Gopnik
Klaus Schwab
Yang Lan
Jack Ma
Annie Cohen-Solal
Tung Chee-Hwa



The montage above is just of various people I have sketched recently from TV, so unfortunately I can't link to any clips for you. But I post them in the hope that it will encourage some of my readers to try this method of sketching people from video reference while taking a more caricatured approach. Specifically, I offer these up as examples to my Sheridan students as being representative of what I will be looking for in your ongoing assignment that I'll be assessing at the end of the fall semester.

Sketching Character Reference

I put this post together to tie in with what I'll be starting to cover in my Character Design classes at Sheridan College this week. The topic is "Character Types", and these are a few samples I just sketched yesterday to illustrate what I'll be stressing in this subject. I'm a firm believer that an animated or illustrated character should aspire to be distinct as an individual - the visual design suggesting a certain personality through the physical face and body type. The character designer on an animated film should serve the same role as a casting director on a live-action production. Just as a casting director tries to cast an actor or actress who has a believable "look" for a particular role, so should the character designer be trying to create a character that visually suggests the personality to be portrayed in the film.

There is a tendency for the novice to simply design a character off the top of his head, without considering what physical aspects and personality traits seem to work well in combination together to communicate a clear visual statement to the audience. My view is that, before an artist can have any knowledgeable output, one must first have some informed input. Therefore, I strongly recommend sketching people in the world around you, either from life or, as is my preference, from studying various character types on video in order to build up a library from which to draw upon when designing a specific character. I prefer the latter way of working, as video provides a way of studying the subject in a completely controlled manner, allowing one to study the subject at one's leisure. It helps to see the subject in motion, which makes it easier to see the physical "design" of the face and body type in order to then exaggerate and abstract it. Additionally, seeing the subject in motion and displaying physical nuances through body language, expressions, vocal mannerisms, etc. makes the resulting sketches far more successful in capturing personality and inner life than one would likely achieve by working from a still photo image.

Anyway, here are some samples sketched from YouTube that hopefully will illustrate what I'm saying more clearly. It should be noted, however, that the goal of the sketches is not to come up with a perfect likeness of the subject, but rather to make an honest attempt at seeing a unique design in the face and body type and using that as a springboard for abstraction and caricature:


Here are the links to the YouTube videos I sketched these from:
Character #1 Character #2
Character #3 Character #4


Here are the links to these videos:
Character #1 Character #2
Character #3 Character #4

Ironically, the "tough guy" character I've sketched from the YouTube clip is an imagined personality suggested by the physical type, as the fellow in the video really comes across as a very friendly and gentle sort. But in animation and cartooning, perception can carry more weight than being literal to the subject. Remember, you're trying to put forward a visual impression that your audience will understand at a quick glance. When required, more subtlety can be developed though story and animated characterization as your film progresses.

Some Cute (And Not So Cute) Doodles!

I make no bones about the fact that I love to draw cute characters. Cartoons that are cute and appealing are what I grew up with, and I still far prefer that over the ugly schlock of today, therefore that is what I gravitate towards in my own cartooning. Here are some more examples of recent doodles that explore that theme.


In the one above, I decided to scribble out several animated poses of the same little guy bouncing his basketball. Though I have never animated per se, I have always enjoyed bringing a character to life through continuity poses and expressions. Of course, this is the essence of what I have done for many years in illustrating children's books for Disney. Ideally I would love to start illustrating books with my own characters, but I'm not sure that children's book publishers even like cartoons anymore. Regrettably, they seem to have forgotten that the most famous kids' illustrator of all time, Dr. Seuss, was in fact a cartoonist.


These were a couple of quick impressions I scribbled of other diners at the restaurant I was at several weeks ago. The old guy reminded me a bit of Ed McMahon and the young girl had similar features to Drew Barrymore. The cat was not actually in the restaurant, but snuck into my doodling just the same.


Okay, I guess these ugly rascals can't be called "cute", but they were fun to draw. After finishing up a Suduko, I started aimlessly doodling a couple of ugly mugs, which then led to a whole series of unsavory mobster types appearing around the edge of the puzzle. I particularly like the psychotic looking fellow in the lower right corner and the wall-eyed rascal in the top middle. The whole exercise was really meant to explore facial features of varying shape, size and relative placement on various head shapes, which is something I stress constantly in my Sheridan College Character Design class.

Drawing Cartoon Eyes

I came across this film still from Disney's The Princess and the Frog by way of John Kricfalusi's blog. John has been pointing out (quite correctly in my opinion) how badly designed and drawn the TV shows from the 80's were. Furthermore, he contends that those bland and soulless 80's character designs live on to this day, not only on TV but also in feature film animation. Though I might be rather more charitable towards Disney's features of the last 20 years, I can't say that John is off target in this criticism either, especially when I see an example like the following that he includes:


John's correct in his assertion that some of Disney's male and female leads are bland and generic in design. I too feel like Prince Naveen in The Princess and the Frog is highly derivative of Prince Eric and Aladdin who came before him. Ideally, I'd like to have seen Naveen designed more ethnically exotic in his actual features, rather than just his flesh colour, perhaps more like the young Omar Sharif, for example. However, despite this criticism, I will defend the actual drawing and animation of Naveen as being highly competent. He is solidly drawn, if uninspired in design.

I'm afraid, however, that I cannot say the same for the three young ladies looking so adoringly at Naveen in this particular scene (undoubtedly drawn by a different animator than the one handling Naveen). I'm sorry to say that I find the drawing of these three very amateurish - more the kind of drawing I'd equate with the aforementioned 80's TV animation. I recall thinking the same thing when I saw the village sequence that opened Beauty and the Beast. There were a lot of village folk very poorly drawn and animated in that film, though all of the principal characters were handled so well. I think things got better in subsequent films, however, and I was glad to see it. But, by virtue of The Princess and the Frog being Disney's first traditionally animated feature in six years, it looks like they're saddled with some newbie animators, likely by way of TV animation, who just aren't up to speed yet with their drawing.



As it happens, I've just lectured about the design and function in drawing eyes as part of my Character Design class at Sheridan this past week, so I'd like to offer my thoughts on that subject in regard to this particular still from the Disney film, as well as this suggested revision in some of the drawing. First of all, I find the construction lacking in the drawings of these three girls, especially when compared to the better drawn Naveen. I think the head construction on all three could be tightened up a bit, and the 2nd girl could do with a more substantial nose structure too. Mostly, though, it's the construction and direction of the eyes on all three that bothers me the most. Girl #1 has eyes that are spreading out too large and show no feeling of being spherical eyeballs behind the surrounding flesh, due to the pupils being drawn without regard to the rounded surface they exist on. Girl #2 at least has elliptical pupils, suggesting a turning of form, yet they are not even close to being directed towards Naveen's eyes in order to meet his gaze. I haven't drawn Girl #3, but her pupils, drawn as perfect circles, also show no indication of turning on a rounded surface and she appears to be looking at something offscreen beyond Naveen's left ear.

I must admit, poorly drawn and unfocused eyes are a big pet peeve of mine, as it it takes so little extra effort to draw them well. Here are a couple of notes from the lecture I give on cartoon eyes:

How To Draw Cartoons!

Well, only touching briefly on the subject, to be honest.

I've been associated with Visual Arts Brampton for about 7 years or more now, and I can most often be found there on Tuesday evenings for the open workshops in life drawing. Visual Arts Brampton, or VAB for short, is located on the east side of Hurontario immediately north of Steeles in Brampton Ontario, just a short drive away from where I live in adjacent Mississauga. Keith Moreau runs this art studio that offers art lessons and open drawing sessions to the general public, and I'd like to encourage those in the Brampton area to come out and join us for some life sketching on Tuesday evenings, 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm. It's only $10 per session with no obligation to sign up for anything - just drop by when you're of a mind to. I've posted some of my more caricatured approaches to life drawing previously, which may be found here. I think I may soon be posting more samples, as I've got a ton of them stockpiled. Also, here are a couple of caricatures pictured below I drew of aspiring young artists who have joined us in past sessions.




Something else Keith and I have been starting to venture into is doing some test runs at cartooning tips on video. To be honest, they're pretty rough attempts so far, as nothing has been scripted at all and I have a tendency to ramble a bit in my somewhat awkward stammering way of speaking! But we're just trying out things in the hopes of developing it more down the road. Anyway, here is our first attempt at something pretty much on the fly that Keith's son Nick has videotaped and uploaded to YouTube for now. Funnily enough, although I'm quite comfortable standing up in front of a classroom full of students at Sheridan College, I'm pretty damn self-conscious in front of a rolling camera! No Oscars for acting in my future, I'm afraid...

Digital Cheesecake!

For a long time now I've been trying to figure out this digital painting stuff with Photoshop and finally I seem to making some headway. I went through pretty much all of the Photoshop brushes, trying them out in various ways to see what I could do with them, but I find most of them rather unsatisfying. However I did stumble upon this one that, after lots of messing with, I found I could get some nice painterly results. I also had been studying the work of fellow caricaturists, Court Jones and Paul Moyse, both of whose abilities I admire greatly, in order to analyze how they're using the medium so well.

So then I decided to experiment and see what I could accomplish with this initial amount of Digital knowledge, as little as it was. I started out sketching this girl right on the screen using a brush I'd created from a tutorial that gives a nice soft pencil look. Then on a separate layer, I jumped in with both feet and started to paint it. I must confess that I got very frustrated along the way, nearly giving up a few times, but I persevered just to see what I could learn from the experience if nothing else. For this first attempt, I do wish I hadn't painted the background so close to the colour of her hair, though I do kind of like the way her hair melds into it at the back.

The more I worked with it, the more it started looking like a cartoonier version of the type of pin-up paintings I've always loved by Gil Elvgren, with a rich, creamy, oil paint feel to it. Since I didn't really know what I was doing most of the time, it took me hours longer to do than it really should have, but this was just a learning experience and hopefully I'll be able to accomplish things more quickly as I get more proficient with it.

For this second attempt I used several vintage 50's pin-up photos as reference, combining elements from each and making stuff up as well. This time, however, I drew her in pencil on paper the way I normally do, then scanned in the sketch. After making it into a transparent layer in Photoshop, I painted in the main areas on a separate layer underneath, first in flat colours, then adding a bit of modeling based on the lighting in the reference photos. Above is the rough sketch with quick colour added. It's actually a fun and satisfying technique in itself, and warrants more exploration sometime.

Once I had a rough colour sketch I was happy with, I merged the two layers together and started into the "oil painting" technique on top. Though I was having an easier time of it since my first attempt, the difficulty with digital painting is knowing when to stop and leave an area alone. I tried to keep the whole thing progressing at the same rate, but it's always so tempting to start embellishing it with details too early in the process.

Seeing the finished artwork, I'm still not sure about some things. In my opinion, there could still be more tonal definition, as I feel that some areas look too soft, especially when compared back to the colour sketch. Doing narrow, smooth lines is not easy in Photoshop, and I therefore have a hard time with detail in the hair, as well as the eyelashes, and any areas where I've used a bit of soft darker outline to help accentuate some of the form. Here's where a good sable watercolour brush still beats the heck out of computer technology, in my opinion. (Yes, I remain a traditionalist at heart!)

Anyway, these are just a couple of initial attempts to learn the digital painting process. I keep on studying the work of artists I like in order to pick up additional skills, but I know it's a long road ahead of me.

Anthropomorphism

John Kricfalusi has just posted an interesting piece on the use of dog-nosed faces on otherwise very human cartoon characters. This is a phenomenon mostly found in Disney's "Uncle Scrooge" and Donald Duck" comics illustrated by Carl Barks, although it's been seen in animation as well, like Nelvana's "Rock and Rule", for example. I agree with John that this type of character is rather off-putting, as it is neither distinctly human nor typical of the "Funny Animal" type of cartoons so prevalent in animation and comics. Though the Carl Barks dog-nosed characters are rather benign, this trend also begat the "Furry" movement, which usually also seems to have a sexual bent to it in the art of its many practitioners.



At this very point in time, I am coincidentally covering the topic of "Anthropomorphism" in my Character Design course at Sheridan College, so I'd like to take this opportunity to address the distinction between "Funny Animals" and "Furries". Some time ago, I'd posted this piece on "Four Degrees of Anthropomorphism" that covers most of the main approaches to creating animals with human traits and personalities in various animated shorts and features. By breaking it down into these four common approaches, I hope to teach my students how to create a set of rules to apply to the way they handle animal characters in their film stories, so that there's a certain logic and plausibility that is maintained in what they're trying to communicate to their audience. And from a purely visual standpoint, I'm also trying to impress upon them where to draw the line between an anthropomorphic animal that possesses human traits, before crossing that line and instead ending up with a "Furry", being essentially an animal's head stuck on top of a fur covered human body.



Ideally, an anthropomorphic animal should maintain something of the actual animal's physique, even when walking around on two legs and wearing clothes. If you look at this still from Disney's "Robin Hood", you will note that Robin himself is still very much a fox on two legs, and that if placed back down on all fours without his costume, he would be very much at home in a film like "Lady and the Tramp" as a caricature of a real fox but with a human personality. Same thing with Little John the bear. When done really well, an anthropomorphic animal character should be initially visualized as a "Human Type", then translating those human physical traits and reinterpreting them in the animal design. I discussed this topic here.



For those of you familiar with "The Country Bear Jamboree" at Walt Disney World, the Disney artists were very successful in creating a cast of bear characters that looked like caricatures of the type of performers one would see on the stage at Nashville's "Grand Ol' Opry". Here is a picture of "Big Al", as an example of what I'm talking about. The facial design and physical body type are very much based on the character's human equivalent, yet never losing sight of the physical design of the actual animal either. For many students, this seems to be rather confusing and a challenge to pull off, while for others it seems to be a very natural, intuitive process.



For the uninitiated, just so you have a clear idea of the distinction between what I'm describing here and the aforementioned, dreaded "Furries", here is a link to some Google images of the latter. As you can see, they are more mutant than animal. As a general rule of thumb: If it is embarrassing to look at your animal character when he or she is naked, chances are you've drawn a "Furry"!!



Just to solidify the distinction, here is a clip from Disney's "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" that shows how to successfully translate animals into two-legged anthropomorphic characters while still maintaining the animal's physique. I really love this clip, as all of the gags are based on the traits of the actual animals, yet every one of them also conjures up a "Human Type" equivalent as well. Wouldn't you agree that the big ugly rhino puts one in mind of some thuggish, skinhead footballer? Of course, the sleek and agile cheetah is more of the David Beckham type.