Another Kaspar

The lasts analysis of the bulldog and Kaspar byu John really made the things much more clear.
Here's a drawing that I did of Kaspar following john's lessons.


Analysis:

My attempt:

Shit! Now that I put this drawing her I realize that I evened out the sizes!
I will continue anyway...


I also see that the stall must be bigger and it's in a wrong angle.

Some good BG layouts

These are drawn by someone who has actually drawn in nature and then found ways to simplify what he saw into cartoony shapes.
A lot of people since learend to draw BGs by copying these types, instead of going outside to see what things really look like. Over decades, copies of copies of copies have led to a degradation in drawing ability.
It's good to copy these to see how this artist solved the problem of simplifying natural forms, but then go out and look at nature and see if you can simplify it in your own way.

KåspäR

Here's my first attempt at Kåspär.


I pretty much ruined the shape. His was more soild and had more distinct edges. I've turned it into a circle with more evened out edges.

I equal fail again.


BUt I'll keep trying.

Analyze the Statement First

Before you start even analyzing mechanically how a drawing works, look at it and FEEL IT.

What is it saying? Once you feel it, then go ahead and use the analytic tools to do your copy.

Anything you do that distracts from that pure statement is a mistake.

Don't add lumps to it,
don't change the direction.
Don't fill in negative shapes that help make the statement read.
Don't have cramped areas of detail.
Don't add big lumps and wavy parts.

Halfway isn't a Contrast. Observe the contrasts, say them out loud, then write them down before drawing

If a detail crosses a character in the middle - or halfway, it has no contrast. It's even.

50-50 is not a contrast.

60-40 is a slight contrast. You can caricature 60-40, by making 70-30. Get it?


My drawings naturally tend to have strong conrasts, so you don't need to push them much further. But you do have to preserve the obvious and most important parts.

Obvious contrasts in this drawing:

1) Very long arm. It's about 1.5 times the length that he is tall
2) The arm is high up-IT'S NOT IN THE MIDDLE
3) His belly fur is a triangular shape that tapers towars the bottom
4) His face is up high on his head
5) His face is high up
6) His nose is big compared to his little eyes
7) He has tiny ears

Now if Paul had written all that down before drawing he probably would not have drawn this:

Every one of the contrasts I listed above have been lessened.
His arm is shorter
It's lower down on his body - APPROACHING THE MIDDLE
His face is bigger in comparison to his body - LESS CONTRAST
etc.

He noticed some of these problems but didn't write them down.
Instead he just tried to copy the drawing again and made the same mistakes, but not as severely


And he added some more mistakes.
The belly shape splits his body exactly in half now. 50-50. NO CONTRAST

The legs have lost their bell-bottom shapes
The other arm is up too high, it was low in my drawing - which CONTRASTED with the higher longer arm that is pointing

KEEP FORMS SIMPLE AND SOLID-DON'T ADD LUMPS AND WAVY PARTS

Negative shapes have been filled in (between his legs)
Lumps have been added. Lumps take away from the overall statement.
He also has some wobbly shapes - like the feet.

Let's not draw details anymore until we can get the main points-the overall emotional statement and contrasts

first studies of KASPAR!

http://cartooncollege.blogspot.com/2009/10/analyze-with-word-before-you-start.html?zx=2b6e34ca162ed0d0

these are my first tries of Kaspar..

I am still very impressed with Vincent Waller's drawings... he doesn't toned down anything.

I just wanted to share this with you, I will go back to practice the backgrounds as sugested by Mr. John K.

tchau

John Notes:

You want details to be funny, but not to cut into or distract from the bigger forms.

Kaspar has unruly fur in my drawings and we want to preserve that but still have it make sense and not draw attention away from THE STATEMENT.

Background Studies

One thing I've always been terrible at is backgrounds, so I decided to study and practice. Talk about stiffness! I'm starting with this book about my homeland. When you see a whole scene like this, it's so filled with detail and information that it's hard to know where to start.I'll try to analyze what makes a tree recognizeable:

1) its overall shape
2) the pattern or structure of its branches and leaves - now I can see this in the picture above, but I don't know how to put it into words or even form a mental picture of its general form. Aaargh!

here are my first scratchy quick studies of random stuff outta the book.
I tried to get simple structures that looked like the trees without having every leaf drawn. It's not easy. I want to find cartoony ways to stylize the shapes and patterns that look fun and confident. I sure am not there yet.



I couldn't resist drawing that crawfish and the kid around it. It's an interesting bunch of angles, and not what you usually see in a cartoon because of the difficult point of view.
I like these flowers a lot. They look simple on the surface:

1) They have an easy to see overall form-long s curved frond shapes.
2) They have a pattern of details that follow the frond shape.
The pattern is made of the rows of flowers that are neatly lined up perpendicular to the waving stem.

I see it easily, but it's another thing to try and draw it so it looks good.
I gave up on that one.
Here's a nice winter scene that has some trees that have very bold shapes.

Their patterns and textures are much harder to decipher.

I made a mess of the composition and evened out all the sizes. It's very frustrating that I can feel the way the needles on the tree branch out and are weighed down by the snow. They are definitely making a very noticeable general pattern, but I can't figure out how to translate it.I would suggest to everyone to not neglect how things other than characters look. If you have a park nearby or scenic area, grab your pads and get out there and do some sketches. Squint your eyes when you look at the scenes and try to decipher the overall big shapes and forms first. Then fill them in with descending levels of patterns.

Try to notice the different shapes that different species of trees take. Many cartoonists like me have stock cartoon trees in our heads and we just draw the same one over and over again, which is lazy and boring.

The world is full of visual interest that can be cartooned. Get out there and look at it. Don't just learn what a tree and a cloud looks like from the comics. There's more variety in real life.