Art Philosophy: Decoration vs. Design

What is design?

I define design as function + aesthetics, meaning a well designed work should be both beautiful and functional. If a work is only functional, then it is utilitarian, not well designed. If it is only beautiful, then it is decoration, not design.

For example, a brochure needs to catch the eye as well as communicate information and possibly sell a client on a product or service. If it's only pretty, it's useless for anything but hanging on a wall to add color. If it isn't pretty, it's little more than a specifications listing. A website needs to look cool as well as be easy to navigate and find information. No one is going to spend much time or return to a website they can't find anything on.

This idea first began to jell in my head at art school when an architecture instructor talked about Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy and how he didn't believe in decorating his buildings, but wanted everything to serve a purpose. For him, at least according to this instructor, he believed in enhancing his buildings using the structure to increase the aesthetics, not merely decorating it to make it pretty. That struck me.

So why am I bringing this up? Recently I've been working on a brochure for a high end client who has very clear ideas about what they want. That part is good, because it makes the job go much quicker and the client usually ends up more satisfied. The bad part is they make requests that actually hurt the effectiveness and/or quality of the work. This client wanted boxes that contained the most important information in the brochure and therefore should be the most prominent to be more transparent so they blend into the background and make the text less legible. The transparency may add to the overall beauty, but it makes the text difficult to read and therefore less valuable. The boxes with a small transparency looked nice. But this request pushed the design into decoration territory. They're paying for it, so I'll give them what they want, but it is a lost opportunity.

When I first started working professionally, things like that really bothered me. I used to argue and fight with clients trying to bend them to my way of thinking. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't. But I've been in this business long enough that I think very little of it. I've reached a point where a tell a client honestly, "Version A is more effective because of Reason 1, 2, and 3. Version B is less effective because of Faults 1, 2, and 3, but you are paying for the Work so I'll do what you want." It's worked well. I've done my job by informing and educating the client on what would give him or her the best results, but I don't fall into the typical graphic designer trap of "I'm so great and wonderful you should do whatever I say and not speak little dumb, uneducated public." That gets annoying and makes additional gigs hard to get.

The menu above is a design prototype to show a client what i thought would make a nice design for his Hostel. It looks quite inviting, but it's also practical in that it clearly lists items you can order, cost, a description of each, and they are divided by when you can order them. Beauty and functionality.

Fake it 'till you make it

I've written before about how the media you use should look like the media it is. That makes digital a little bit of a sticky wicket. It certainly has its own look, but at the same time it's really good at mimicking other media.

So is it wrong to try and make digital look traditional? I think so, because on is missing a real opportunity. There are things digital can do that nothing else can, and one would be silly to not take advantage of it. Of course, what does that mean? Certainly the time saving and money saving benefits. But what about the look of the final product?

I think even if one wants a work to look traditional, they should let a little of the digital's nature shine through to give the work that extra umph.

The two illustrations above were drawn with a Japanese brush pen and then colored in Adobe Photoshop to look like watercolors. But if you look very closely, you'll notice they are digitally colored, and I think it adds.

But what do you think?

Art Philosophy: Is the Pen mightier than the Brush?

You've probably heard the old saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," but what about the brush?

Definitions

Let me begin by defining terms. By pen I refer to words (creative writing, business/professional writing, critical writing, etc) either written or spoken. By brush I refer to visual art (illustration, painting, photography, sculpture, etc.). These tools may be used separately such as in a novel, poem, or painting on a wall. Or they may be used together such as in an advertisement or storybook.

Show Not Tell

Often English and Writing teachers and so-called "experts" will tell you to "show, not tell" implying that painting a visual picture in the mind is better than explaining a situation with words. They claim this creates a more vivid picture, evokes feelings, communicates ideas, etc. that mere "telling" just can't. This suggests that the brush is mightier than the pen. And this from proudly professed wordsmiths.

Wordless Stories

But then I've read many statements by comic book writers/artists that get all excited about creating a completely wordless issue (all start out as artists illustrating other people's stories) and then complain about all the limitations and difficulties they face not being able to put in simple captions such as "2 hours later" or "the next day" because while you technically can show these concepts visually, they take up a lot of space and aren't always clear. And in movies you see words used at the beginning to set the scene, at the end of "based on a true story" summing up how the story really ends, and throughout the movie even when we can visually see when and where we're at. This suggests there are times the pen is mightier than the brush, and this from artists first who later write.

So the simple question does not have a simple Yes or No answer. There seems to be times and situations when one is better than the other. So what about the meatier parts of the story? And is a combination of both better than the sum of the parts?

The Book was Better

Most movies it seems are either remakes of older movies or adaptions of books, plays, comics, etc., so there is a book or other written source to compare it too. And more often than not people who have both read the original and seen the adaption adamantly claim with absolutely no hesitation the book was better. Why is that? The book only had words, the pen. The movie had both visuals and words, both the brush and the pen. So shouldn't the movie always be better?

This may seem like a paradox, until one considers there are other factors involved. First, books tend to require several hours to read meaning they have more time and space to tell their story. Movies are, with very few exceptions, 1 1/2 hours to 2 hours long meaning something has to be cut, and usually a lot of somethings. Second, movies also tend to want to do something different than the book to justify its existence and because it is a different medium. I've seen direct adaptions to the screen and was always very disappointed. There are things film does very well and you have to make changes to take advantages of these. A lot of times people don't like these changes or resent them. Third, while books are just words, they can paint a mental picture, meaning they can mimic the brush and use it's strengths. A lot of times people complain about certain things being left out or not as well developed. This tends to be the narration or thoughts of the characters that are clearly spelled out and explored in great detail. Movies don't do that as well both because of form and time.

In my experience, whichever one I experience first is more likely to be my favorite, because it sets the expectations the other has to live up to. Of course, this requires a caveat. I usually experience both only if I liked the first. (I'll only watch the movie if I liked the book and vice versa.) If I didn't like the first, I usually don't experience the second and give it a chance. I liked the book Timeline better than the movie, but I liked the movie The Fellowship of the Rings better than the original novels. But this isn't always true. I saw the movie Paranoia before I read the book, and while I enjoyed both, the book was better.

These examples have complimented the matter further providing arguments for both sides while creating a third side.

I don't know much about Art, but I know what I like

Unlike math, science, engineering, IT, or other fields of study, art has a large measure of subjectivity you just won't find when adding 2 to 2. This subjectivity seems to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Someone may love a work of art because it brilliantly exemplified the principles of design while another person hates it because it's a picture of a dog and he hates dogs. This subjectivity tends to contribute a rather large undue influence over an otherwise objective evaluation of a work. This explains why the same book or the same story can appear on both a 10 ten list and a worst 10 list. There are some people that are snobs for one thing or another (such as book snobs that insiste the book is ALWAYS better even when it isn't or physical is better than Kindle edition even if they are identical). One can say, "well his or her opinion is only his or her opinion and doesn't matter," but it does--to him or her.  That opinions shapes not only thoughts but judgement and enjoyment.

Conclusions

The answer to the original question isn't as important as the journey to answer it. Through the journey one learns the strengths and limitations of both the pen and the brush and how external factors and forces influence them both. Using this knowledge, one will be better equipped to best communicate whatever story, message, emotions, etc. one has to spread. And isn't that the most important consideration for both a writer and an artist?

Art Philosophy - Thoughts on Style

It's amazing what a difference style makes to a work. One can use the same drawing technique and basic design approach and yet come up with three completely different looks that almost appear to be from three different people all because of a change in style.

Style has a huge influence on a work. It it the first thing that the viewer notices. It's a close tie between style and subject for the major reason someone is drawn into a work. A unique enough style can even cover up a multitude of artistic blunders and weaknesses, at least for a short time.

And yet style also puts a work into a pigeon hole which both creates and limits the audience and potential uses for a work. Ironic.

The three illustrations above were all drawn with different tools and colored with different programs in different styles. My overall drawing style still pulls them together as being done by me because it is pretty strong and distinct, and yet there is some nice variety and experimentation going on.

Which do you like best?

Art Philosophy: Power of Line

 

Line is one of the most basic, and yet most powerful, elements of art. With just a few strokes, an artist can communicate a person, an object, an emotion, a place, or just about anything else. And with many, many lines, and artist can create an image that looks like a photograph. 

Sir Kenneth Clark remarked, "The difference between what we see and a sheet of white paper with a few thin lines on it is very great. Yet this abstraction is one which we seem to have adopted almost instinctively at an early stage in our development, not only in Neolithic graffiti but in early Egyptian drawings. And in spite of its abstract character, the outline is responsive to the least tremor of sensibility."

And Lance Espland remarked, "Line is a rich metaphor for the artist. It denotes not only boundary, edge or contour, but is an agent for location, energy, and growth. It is literally movement and change - life itself."

It's amazing how something as simple as a line, a mark, can convey the weight, the feeling, the emotion, and the identity of a subject. It can make the viewer think and feel if executed well. And it can be created with almost any object imaginable.

Line work has the power to stand on it's own, and yet it also plays nicely with others. You can fill it in or paint over it and create a completely different and yet equally successful work such as in book illustrations, scientific illustrations, comic books, graphic novels, and fine art.

The drawing above is the line work of a Halloween illustration. I do plan on coloring it, but the line work worked so well it can stand on its own. So I'm letting it. I drew it with a Copic pencil, a Bamboo brush with Sumi ink, and added a few finished in Adobe Photoshop.

Let me know what you think!

Art Philosophy - The Power of Black and White Shapes

Shape is one of the basic Elements of Art. Line is little more than an elongated shape. It's amazing how one can place a few shapes together and create a powerful and emotionally stirring image, especially when one is limited to only two colors -- black and white.

The illustration above is from an upcoming page in the ongoing Wandering Koala eSerial. When I finished drawing this with a Japanese brush pen and a Sharpie marker, I was amazed at how well the emotion was conveyed without color. Color is a very powerful element and by far the most effective to convey emotion. I wasn't sure the black & white shapes would be sufficient, but they were. The zoomed in composition helped to turn the hair and facial features into shapes so the design dominated which also helped greatly.

What do you think?

Art Philosophy: To Color or Not to Color a Line Drawing

Color is the most powerful element of art, and all works of art have it -- even so-called "black & white art (black and white are colors despite what many painters and art teachers may tell you).

In all periods of art one can find examples of line work that has been colored in from early printing to illustrated manuscripts to cave paintings. People seem to be hardwired to capture an object in lines and then add color.

Incorporating this element in a line drawing presents several interesting questions:

To Color or Not to Color?

That's a mute point since everything work of visual art has color. The question should actually be should one add colors beyond black and white. Black and white artwork is unique in that the viewer reads it much like one reads words. Black and white art tends to create an intimacy with the viewer and draw him in. That could easily be one reason why Japanese Manga is so popular and independent comics have such a following.

How Much Color?

Should a work be monochromatic (meaning one color with its associated shades, tones, and tints), or should it use every color in the rainbow? Should one limit oneself to two colors and make the most of them? The fewer colors one has, the more one is forced to design with them, and the more harmonious a work can be. The more colors one has, the less harmonious a work tends to be, because the eye and mind has so much more to process. But this extra processing creates a certain buzz and overload of senses people like, so there is a reason to go for it.

Flat or Gradiated?

Many early printed works were printed flat (meaning a block of solid color) because of technology. Just read old comics -- you'll find simple gradients but that's about it. When technology reaches a point that colors no longer have to be flat, a common trend is to go overboard and overrender a work to death. Just pick up a comic book from the 90s. Garrish. Even if one is using a monochromatic scheme, one can use a few greys, flat greys, or the full gambit of 256 greys.

So what's the Right Answer?

The right answer really depends on the question, and the question for coloring art is what is your ultimate goal or purpose. Once you know why you're creating a work, then the question of how to apply color becomes simple and obvious. Of course, answering the question of a work's purpose may not be so simple and obvious, but that's a question for another day.

The illustrations above were inked with a Japanese brush pen and colored in Photoshop. The illustration is part of the ongoing Wandering Koala serial that presents a page of text and an illustration each day. If you haven't checked it out, go there now and enjoy! The story is just getting started.

Art Philosophy: The Next Morning

 

I'm always amazed at what a fresh perspective can do.  Often I'll finish a work of art and think it either looks great or terrible, and the next morning I'll wake up and look at the same work and think just the opposite. I'm sure the art didn't change (although art gremlins sneaking into my computer and altering my illustrations would explain a lot). The illustration above is just such a case.

I'm finishing up the latest issue of Wandering Koala Digest and have everything ready except the cover, and the cover is probably the most important part, because it is what will catch the readers' attention or wave them off and away. The image above is my first attempt. I thought it looked pretty good last night when I went to bed, but this morning it's disappointing. The drawing is nice. The composition works. The colors are unique. But it doesn't seem catchy and inciting enough. Which means I need to come up with a second version. And it also makes me glad I didn't rush out and publish the work without taking a second look at the cover.

I remember in art school how one of my instructors told me he would set up a painting at the end of the room so he'd see it first thing every morning for several days. This allowed him to see the work with fresh eyes and catch things he missed initially but those looking at it later would catch. It's a good technique and practice, although a bit of a luxury in the commercial art world were work is literally being pumped out with tight deadlines.

Sour Grapes, or Typical Rantings of a Graphic Design Degree holder

Recently a friend of mine shared a blog post by a graphic designer via Facebook. This wasn't the first time he had shared one, and I doubt it will be the last.

In this post he was lamenting the loss of the HTML/CSS guru and blaming it on web standards. I found this post odd, because whenever I look at job listings, there are just as many listings for an HTML/CSS guru as there have ever been. The author of the post talked about how web standards had eliminated all the quirks that used to exist between differing browsers. I wondered if this guy had built a website in the last month, because there are still a mountain of quirks one has to deal with just as there were over a decade ago when I started designing sites. True, many of the old quirks have disappeared, but with the introduction of HTML 5 and CSS 3 have come dozens of new quirks designers and programers have to deal with. If you write old code (HTML 4 and CSS 2) then yes, the code will be very consistent across browsers with very little need to write extra code to handle the quirks (but it will still require some). But who wants to hire someone to write old code? Most people have jumped onto the HTML 5 bandwagon thinking they need it without really understanding what it is or why it exists.

Reading that post, I was reminded of another rant another friend had posted about the decline of the art industry. At one time, the author had a booming business, but his clients had moved to outsourcing to cheaper labor in other countries that could deliver the same product. His solution was a certification program to block new entries into the job market.

And that post reminded me of a third post where a graphic designer was ranting and raving about people getting access to professional graphics software (especially of the Adobe family) and thinking they were designers but producing horrendous efforts. (This one I did have some sympathy for, because I have seen some pretty awful work by people who had never learned the basics of design.) His argument was the graphic design was some magical skill only a few possessed and should not be undersold. (He apparently was being underbid.) Graphic Design is a skill, but unlike other art skills (drawing, painting, storytelling, sculpture) anyone can learn it. And anyone can learn it from books or online resources--you don't need a special class or degree.

All three of these posts reminded me of numerous people I have come across who have BFA degrees in Graphic Design but couldn't find a job for years. They blame the market, the economy, and everything else but themselves. For some reason, it never occurred to them that they just weren't as good as they thought they were.

I've been a professional graphic designer/web designer for over 11 years. I got my first job as a designer two months after graduating with a degree in Economics. A couple of years later, I was offered another job replacing a guy who didn't even have a college degree, but was producing professional graphic design/web designer/motion design for large clients and delighting them with his work. Later I worked for several years as a Senior Designer/Webmaster for a large financial institution. In all these different positions, I've worked with many other designers, and I've noticed a pattern: the majority of those I work with do not have degrees in Graphic Design. Those that do tend to have less ability and fewer skills than those who majored in something like Communications.

But there is one thing that holders of BFAs in Graphic Design have that others do not--an excess of EGO. I don't know why, but designers think they are wonderful, everything they produce is a masterpiece, and everyone else is incapable of producing anything worth looking at. And this seems to be unique to designers. I went to art school, and I have a lot of artist friends. The illustrators, draftsmen, sculptors, and others are all nice, easy going people that admire others' work when it is good and recognize that they could improve their own. Those that are professional graphic designers with degrees in something else also recognize and acknowledge good work regardless of the source.

And that brings me back to this post's title: Sour Grapes. The three blog posts I've mentioned were all very negative and very angry. The authors were not having the success they wanted, and so they lashed out placing the blame on various sources. And others who felt the same way or were in the same boat reposted and/or shared these posts thinking they were masterpieces that hit the nail on the head. But never once did any of them even consider that they weren't as good as they thought they were. They never once suggested that they had gotten complacent and hadn't bothered to update their skills or learn new ones. They also didn't consider that the economy is a dynamic place with jobs and careers disappearing or being reinvented in all industries, not just design.

Being an expert with Photoshop is nice, but anyone can learn the commands and techniques. And when the new version comes out, many of the processes, short cuts, commands, etc. will have changed, so the old skills lose value. What does have value--and always will--is an eye for what looks good together, what fonts should be used, what colors, how the elements to be arranged in relation to each other, how to organize a work so it is accessible. These skills will always have a place, although their application may change drastically. Design has as much to do with taste and fads as fashion, and designer that was hot last year may be yesterday's news this year. And these are the skills the designers who write such blog posts seem to be weakest in.

The solution to their dilemma (not as much work, money, or prestige) is to improve their skills and make themselves better designers. Instead, they take the approach that many other failing and failed businesses have tried and that is to eliminate competition and vilify whatever elements they see as the source of their problems. It rarely works, and when it does work it's usually temporary and requires a great deal of maintenance. (Does Detroit and the car industry ring any bells?)

Writing this post, I realize that those who would benefit most from it will probably never read it, and if a few of them do, they will be sitting at their computers yelling at the screen arguing against the points I've made claiming I just don't get it not realizing how ironic that accusation is.

The expressions of the muses on the book cover at the top reminded me of the expression I imagine these blog post writers having and their desire to control the world as if they were the three fates of Greek mythology. Fortunately, they do not have that power. Just imagine what the world would be like if they did.

Art Philosophy: Metaphors in Art

 

I remember one day in a high school English class we read a poem about dandelions that compared them to an invading army and fighting them to war. I thought it strange, because I love dandelions. They're one of my favorite flowers. I've never understood why people try so hard to fight them. They're pretty, and they grow with no effort. How is that now a perfect plant? (You can even eat part of them.)

I was staring at this page from Wandering Koala Digest 2 and contrasting the friendly, happy snowman with the more menacing version and realized he was a metaphor for snow. Like dandelions, some people see snow as a wonder--pretty and fun. Others see it as a menace. I don't like slick roads, but that is really the only negative to snow I see. I suppose one could say that's why I made the menacing snowman mostly cute and cuddly.

Great art allows viewers to each take something different from a work. Not so great art forcing a particular view on the viewer (such as insisting dandelions are the evil invading army of the enemy). What do you see when you look at snow?

Art Philosophy: When Universes Collide

 

One thing that makes the Marvel Universe so much fun is how easily and how often characters in one book will crossover into another. In the DC Universe that's always been a lot more rare. Probably why I enjoyed (and still do) SuperFriends so much.

But while I love to see Superman meet Batman and Wonder Woman and Spider-man team up with DareDevil and Captain America, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of Superman meeting Spider-man. I love both characters, but for different reasons. They each have a different tone and feel that just don't mesh well with each other. And I don't mean just because one is heroic and the other is tortured, but there is a different feel to the Marvel Universe as opposed to the DC Universe. Their universes are just so different, that they don't make sense to me together. Am I alone in this? Even when the same writer and artist team work on the different characters, the work is so different. Take a look at Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's Batman: The Long Halloween and compare it to their Spider-man: Blue or Hulk: Grey--they have totally different vibes.

But there are some characters and universes that make sense to meet. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have had a lot of crossovers, and those have made sense. Hellboy has shown up with characters from other companies (including Batman) and it worked. So I guess I'm not against crossovers per se, but I want the crossover to make sense. I want the characters to mesh.

So does Wandering Koala meeting Wonder Woman make sense? I think so, and not just because I created Wandering Koala. I think they work, because Wandering Koala is a pulp-style hero, and pulp heroes seem to have the most flexibility because of the visceral place they come from. Pulp art and pulp fiction is as basic to humanity and human emotion as one can get, and for that reason it makes sense with other characters. Look at Tarzan--he crosses over with everyone in one form or another (KaZar in the Marvel Universe for example) and he works. Hellboy is pulp and works. Spawn in some forms is almost pulp and he made sense crossing over with Batman. The new Arrow series on the CW is a pulp interpretation of Green Arrow, and it works better than any other version of the character.

What do you think of crossovers? Do you enjoy them? Have any ever bothered you?

Archetypes in Art

 

Archetypes are recurrent motifs or images in art or literature. They include the Hero, the Wise Old Man, the Damsel in Distress, the irredeemable Villain, the Magic Animal, etc. Evidences of them can be found in all cultures and all times. Some speculate that they are part of our makeup and that's why we respond to them so readily and why they are not limited to any culture or time period. One of the most famous scholars to study archetypes is Joseph Campbell. His book was a major influence on George Lucas when he wrote Star Wars.

Above is my version of the archetype of the Thief. In this version, he is a masked highwayman on a motorcycle robbing from the good and the innocent. I drew it with a zebra brush pen and colored it in Corel Painter. I really like the greyscale with one color approach, and in this image it almost looks like full color. And it's very appropriate for Halloween.

Let me know what you think!

Art Philosophy: Silhouettes, The Penultimate in Minimalism

I'm currently working on a new graphic novel I hope to release in October. I'm a little over halfway finished drawing, inking, and lettering it. While working on it, I try to make each panel as interesting as possible and say as much with as little as possible. One great way to do this is thru silhouettes.

There is a principle of design called "Less is More". The idea is the average person tries to put too much into a work, and by stripping it down to its essential parts, one strips away the competing elements so only those that convey the message are left. The result is a clearer, stronger message without static or noise. In principle this is a good idea, but like anything else, it can be taken too far. (I'm talking to you Jon Ives and your recent iOS redesign and a few other things you've stripped too far down.)

Silhouettes are one common and powerful result of this principle. As with the example above, there is basically a large black shape with a few lines for the candles (ok, I did cheat by adding lines for the candles, but it made the panel so much more atmospheric). Even without seeing most of the details, it's clear who the proprietor is and the sense of the macabre and creepy comes thru clearly. In fact, blacking out his features may be even creepier.

Another form of this principle is chiaroscuro, or lights and darks. This was quite popular with painters in Rembrandt's day. The idea is to push the darks extra dark and the lights extra light so the image almost appears to be black and white shapes but with a few important details. Flemish painters tended to use color, but I like the modern uses in film noir and Frank Miller Sin City comics that use strictly black and white shapes with a few lines. I, of course, had to use a little chiaroscuro in my graphic novel as well.

Another advantage of minimalism is it adds to the stylization of the work. Stylization is nice, because it adds interest and uniqueness. I used to think only photorealistic renderings were good, but now I realize that the further one abstracts or stylizes a work from the way it appears in ordinary sunlight, the better (again to a point because any virtue taken too far is a vice).

You probably noticed the title says penultimate, which means one away from the ultimate. So what is the ultimate in minimalism? That's a revelation for another day.

Art Philosophy: The Use of Color

Color is an interesting animal. It is one of the Elements of Art (which include Line, Shape, Form, Value, Space, Texture, Color, and Motion), and probably the most powerful element. Differences in color will override any other design elements or ideas and immediately draw the eye to it.

Because it's so powerful, it needs to be used judiciously to gain maximum impact. In the early days of printing, this was forced onto artists, because of the difficulty and limitations they had. Artists were forced to design with color and really consider and plan for its use.

In the current digital era, color is so easy to add and print, it too often is overdone with form and shading meticulously rendered on every last hair. Just pick up a comic book from 2005 and compare it to a comic from 1995 and one from 1985. You'll see the approach and use of colors is completely different. In 1985, colors were created from hand cut film with each plate (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, and Black) being a value of the whole divisible by four (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). This limited the number of colors, made multiple colors more difficult and expensive, and so forced good colorists to make the most of a few hues. The results were really amazing. The 1995 comic shows the beginning of computer coloring with every color under the sun thrown in as a gradation with chaotic patterns of lights and darks and photoshop filters thrown in just because you could. Comics from 2005 seem to forget there were multiple colors and use mostly browns and greys with every value of each to create a very bland and muddy look.

This is just one of thousands of examples how the ease of adding color has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because an artist can now use any color he so chooses. But that creates the temptation to use every color just because you can. There is no longer the technical restraints to force an artist to plan his color design--he has to rely on self discipline, something creative people tend to lack.

The two works I've posted are different color treatments of the same image. The first followed my current move in color to use black & white plus one color. The second is a more traditionally colored version with flat shadows added. I like both, but the first on just seems to look more like art while the second looks more like commercial pandering. Not that there's anything wrong with commercial pandering, but it is nice to have a break from it. After all, we're faced with it everyday nearly everywhere we look.

These were drawn with a Zebra disposable brush pen and colored in Adobe Photoshop and Corel Painter. I'm still not sure which I like better, because each has things going for it, and each have places they could be improved.

What do you think?

Inspiration

The Universe wasn't created from nothing. God didn't point his figure at a void and boom! everything came into being. There was existing matter that God organized to create "worlds without number".

Art is no different; it doesn't come from a vacuum. Every work is inspired and informed by something else. When I was in Art School, one of my instructors after an Art Seminar pointed to a speaker and mentioned how it was patterned after the golden section the visiting artist had talked about, and how the golden ratio was based on proportions Jesus had used to create the Earth. Ultimately everything an artist "creates" is a reinterpretation of part or parts of the world around us.

And that doesn't apply to just visual art. How many times have you read a book, seen a TV show, or watched a movie that reminded you of another story? Probably quite often. There are only so many plots and characters out there.

The wall hanging to the left was inspired by Japanese and Chinese prints. I know what you're saying--it doesn't look very Japanese. And I agree. But the approach was very much inspired by oriental art, but with my western and personal interpretation. It's that unique interpretation which makes a work "creative" or "original" when everything in it came from an already existing world around us.

And in case you were curious, I drew the figures with a Zebra disposable brush pen and then colored them and designed the backgrounds in Corel Painter.

Let me know what you think!

Stylization in Art and Illustration

Currently I'm designing characters and backgrounds for an animated short. While coming up with the look and designs, I asked myself what style I wanted this short be. I thought about other animation and cartoons I enjoyed and considered each one for a direction to go in. Looking over animation how to books I got to thinking about style and stylization.

I tend to enjoy an artist's work during the formative years while he's developing his stye and less once he has an established style (with a few exceptions like Frank Miller and Jack Kirby). I thought about a friend of mine who I love his brilliant pencil sketches, but can't really stand his stylized figures. I realized the reason I like the earlier works is there is less stylization and less reliance on conventions. The thought came to me that stylization is like seasoning: a little bit enhances the flavor of the main course, but too much and all you taste is the seasoning until it burns your tongue.

Looking over my own work that I've posted, I've noticed some of my works are more stylized than others. I really like the heavily stylized work, but others seem to respond much better to the less stylized works. This raises a question of which route should I go? The answer depends on another question: why do I create art, to please myself or to please others? Therein lies the problem, because I want to please both. But you can't please all of the people all of the time. So I do some works for me, and I do some works for others. Is splitting my portfolio a good strategy long term? We'll see.

The drawing above is a digital illustration created in Corel Painter 12 colored like Bat-Manga comics, which I just love. I really want my new series of eDigests to use this style, but I'm not sure if others would respond to it like I do.

Let me know what you think!

An Illustrator who Designs or a Designer who Illustrates

In art school one of my instructors asked the class an interesting question: Are you an illustrator who designs or a designer who illustrates? It was an illustration class but our assignment was to design a personal logo with a matching set of stationary. Our instructor was an illustrator who had been paid to design a few brochures.

At the time I was an illustration major. I had been a graphic design major the first semester but quickly switched. So of course my answer was an Illustrator who designed. Being a graphic designer was considered a fallback for those who wanted to be creative and create art but couldn't.

The funny thing was I really enjoyed my graphic design class (the only one I took until my MFA almost 15 years later), and I was always sneaking into the graphic design classes to observe instruction, critiques, and presentations. Just a few years later I accidentally became a graphic designer/web designer and have been doing it for the past decade.

Looking over my work, I realized that the compositions I approached as a design turned out infinitely better than those I approached as an illustrator. I've also come to realize that design is just as much art as oil painting landscapes. The stigma wasn't from the discipline but the people who pursued it and the reason they chose to do so. Most graphic designers I know are frustrated artists--they chose graphic design because they couldn't do any other type of art but wanted to. My reasons were I stumbled into it accidentally and then discovered web design was art plus technology just like animation was, and art plus technology were two of my passions that go together amazingly well.

Style

Style is an interesting thing. It's something unique to each person. Some style has style while others don't. It's something that is developed, yet it almost happens subconsciously--someone can't sit down and say, "I'm going to create a style and it'll be like this."

So how does one go about developing a style? It's a time consuming process, and some would argue one that never has an ending. But there are a couple of things one can do to speed up the process. And they all involve a sketchbook.

First, every time you see something that inspires you or catches your eye, emulate it in your sketchbook. Emulate--don't slavishly copy. Create something original using the aspects that caught your eye.

Second, go thru your previous sketches and artwork. Look for things you tend to do well, things you do poorly, things you like, and things you don't like. Make a conscious decision on what you will continue to do, what you will stop doing, and what you need to improve. Then do it. In your sketchbook.

You'll still spend a great deal of time developing your style, but these exercises will focus your effort and speed up the process.

So what does this have to do with the above image? I've been working towards a certain type of style, and with this illustration, I think I've reached it.

What do you think?

Should Digital Art Look Digital?

I've always thought that art materials should be true to themselves. What I mean is a watercolor should look like a watercolor, and an oil painting should look like an oil painting. Just because you can make watercolors look like oils doesn't mean you should. Each material has unique properties that allow you to do things you can't in other mediums as well as certain restrictions you have to work around. It's part of what gives artwork its charm.

But that brings up a bit of a problem when it comes to digital art. The computer has a unique look to its graphics, but it can also do an amazing job of emulating traditional art (thanks to Corel Painter!). So should the same rules apply to digital art as traditional art?

On the one side I'm inclined to say yes. The computer has introduced a whole set of new "looks" that hadn't been done before. But then I look at these (like vector illustrations and flash animation) and I'm taken back aghast at how ugly they can be. Too sterile, too mechanical, too generic.

So that flips me to the other side where I see the computer can emulate the natural media without the messy cleanup or the expensive art supply bill (of course, it's not like computers and graphic software are cheap, so that's probably a wash).

This has led me to experiment a lot with style. I tend to not like my work that is too "computery" so I've been trying to get a look that is closer and closer to natural media. But there's no reason I can't throw in a few digital flairs here and there. And maybe that is the answer. Maybe a mostly traditional route with digital flourishes is the unique look.

Take a look at my latest sketch and let me know.