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.

Science is a Fickle Mistress

Without science, there wouldn’t be science fiction. It’s an essential ingredient. Some stories—like hard science fiction—center around a scientific principle, theory, or discovery. Others—like space opera—rely on the results of science, but don’t delve too deeply into specifics.

What's great about science, at least for scifi fans, is it is always changing. Anyone who’s studied the history of scientific thought will see that science changes its mind more often then a lady about what to wear on a date. Here are just a few recent examples: 

Astronomy

The ancient Greeks believed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything else revolved around it. They believed the sun, moon, planets (or moving stars), and stars were on spheres, one for each body in the sky, and constructed an elaborate system to explain their movements. But as more objects were discovered and their movements more carefully mapped, the spheres couldn’t keep up.

Then in the early-16^th century a German named Copernicus postulated the theory the Earth revolved around the sun others had proposed the theory earlier, but Copernicus had math to back him up). Others followed him and were promptly punished for their heresy. Eventually the idea became generally accepted.

Then science changed its mind again and said the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, but around its center of gravity. But don’t expect that to be the final word on the matter. 

Physics

Issac Newton was a smart guy who began the modern movement of science. He is credited with many discoveries such as the Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, and many others. Many believed he had “gotten it right”.

And then this obscure clerk in Germany named Albert Einstein proposed a couple of theories, one relative and the other special, that took center stage and led to quantum physics. Newtonian physics just couldn’t describe the microworld. When GPS satellites were launched into space, Newtonian physics couldn’t cut it but Einstein’s equations made the system work.

In the 1970s, a new theory called String Theory came into favor to explain the very fabric of existence. Then several different flavors popped up such as M-Theory and Superstring theory. Then they fell out of favor. Then they fell back into favor. And the story is far from over.

And don’t get me started on the Unified Field Theory…

Biology

Just a decade ago the egg was considered to be one of the worst things a human being could eat with its high cholesterol. Then a few years ago a new study came out that said eggs were good for you and should be included in a healthy diet. So, did the egg’s effect on the human body change? No, scientists just changed their minds on it.

Sugar, artificial sweeteners, and corn syrup have an equally jaded past. At one time anything with sugar in it was considered the devil and many foods moved to artificial sweeteners. Then people realized sugar was natural and easier for the body to digest than artificial sweeteners. Soon after high fructose corn syrup was seen as the anti-Christ and removed from food to be replaced with all-natural sugar (or dehydrate cane juice if your marketing team was especially clever). Just like eggs, sugar and its effect on the human body haven’t changed, but that doesn’t stop scientists’ minds from changing.

Dinosaurs 

Dinosaurs are one of the most rapidly changing theories in science. A century ago they were dumb beasts sluggishly dragging themselves across the landscape. Soon researches decided they were intelligent and quick lifting their tails as they ran. Current theories speculate they weren’t lizards at all but giant birds. And then there’s that asteroid that got people laughed at in the 1970s for proposing it was the cause of the dinosaurs’ demise but is now the most widely accepted theory. 

Fickle mistress means unlimited story ideas

All this changing is bad if you’ve accepted science your religion and believe “that’s the way it is. Period.” New discoveries are an anathema to that group, because they change previous views. What science believed yesterday isn't what they believe today, and tomorrow they'll be on to some other theory.

And for scifi readers and writers it’s wonderful, because it means we’ll never run out of things to write about. Every new discovery or theory can be turned into a dozen new stories. And who doesn’t love a great new story?

Play Ball!!! a Cully Koala cartoon short

For decades I've wanted to create a Cully Koala animated cartoon. The  I never thought I'd be able to because of technical limitations. But technology has exploded, and anyone can create beautiful animation  (they just need to know how).

Cully was originally conceived as an animated character. I used to watch and love Peanuts and Garfield cartoons. I thought they were animated cartoon characters; I didn't realize they started out in comic strips in the newspapers. When I created Cully, I wanted him to be like a Mickey Mouse, Snoopy, Garfield, etc. I didn't have anyway to animate him, so I followed the examples of Charles Schultz and Jim Davis and created a comic strip. Once I discovered Calvin & Hobbes, Cully took on a whole new dimension. But I still wasn't completely satisfied.

Then I discovered Richie Rich and Archie comics, and created a Cully comic book of my own. The characters worked much better in the longer format. I thought maybe comic books would be a doable outlet. But it lacked something.

A few years ago I took a graduate class in animation and discovered a way to animate with Apple's iLife. I created a really cool short, but it was so much work that I knew that route wasn't viable. There had to be a way to let technology do the grunt work while I concentrated on the creative side.

Enter Anime Studio Pro. I've been considering this program for a while, and even downloaded the demo to try it out, but I'd never had the results I wanted. I was about to give up and go back to drawing cartoons by hand, but I said to myself, "Self, you've got to push thru. You've got ideas, and this program can make them happen."

And it did.

Let me know what you think!

Character Sketch: Princess Ballroom

You've probably noticed I've been pretty quiet on this blog. Why, you ask? I've been working on an animation project. It should be finished soon. until then, enjoy my latest character sketch:

This was inspired by Princess Knight by the great Osamu Tezuka, a graphic novel that was recently released in English and I just finished reading. The story itself was kind of a mess, but the drawings were really nice. The style was more early-Tezuka then late-Tezuka. There was a strong influence from Disney cartoons.

This was drawn in Corel Painter X with the background rendered in Adobe Photoshop with Painter texture drawn on top. Overall it turned out well, but I don't think it's a style I will keep exploring.

Stay tuned for the upcoming animation. Here is a sneak peek:

Character Sketch: A Real Cowboy

So I'm back to character sketches and character designs. This time I turn to the West for a cowboy.

I drew this in Corel Painter X. I'm really starting to enjoy the look of digital inks. As I mentioned in a previous post, digital art should look like digital art and not traditional, and this is another step towards creating a unique look for my work.

I created two versions to test coloring styles. For the first I used my typical painting style in Painter from the half page comic days. For the second I used a new style with Photoshop shadows. I thought the second version would looks better, but I think I like the first.

I think the background turned out exceptionally well. The figure I'm not as happy with. It's good, but not great. He feels a little stiff.

But let me hear what you think.

Digital Painting - New Tool or New Medium?

This may surprise a few people, but there was a time before computers existed. No really, there was. Back then artists created work with paint, watercolors, ink, charcoal, and other physical mediums, not Photoshop or Wacom tablets. Once computers were invented, it didn't take long for computer graphics to rear their pretty heads. At first they were pretty primitive and had a distinct look. (Check out The Last Starfighter to see what I'm talking about.) By the 90s, computers were powerful enough to create work that looked like it had been made by hand. That lead many to ask whether computers were merely a new tool to create work that looked like traditional art, or whether computers were a new medium with it's own look and characteristics.

They were both right.

Many people use computers to mimic traditional art methods. But not me. I've said many times that a watercolor should look like a watercolor, and an oil painting should look like an oil painting. While you can create photorealistic oil paintings or rich watercolors that look like oil, one has to ask why. Each medium has really cool and unique properties, and the artist should take advantage of them. And that doesn't apply strictly to visual art either. Movie adaptions of books should take advantage of cinema and not try to follow a book to closely, as should book adaptions of movies.

I've been working with a number of computer programs including Adobe Photoshop, Corel Painter (which does an amazing job of emulating natural media), Google Sketch Up, and others. I've been trying to create a style that looks digital, but not cheesy-we're-still-stuck-in-the-90s digital. The drawing above is my latest attempt. It has all the hallmarks of a traditionally drawn and painted work, but there's no question it's digital. I'm happy with how it turned out. I think an illustrated eBook with this type of art would be pretty cool, especially on a tablet. Maybe for my next project...

The next phase of painting

Man has been creating art for as long as he's existed--at least as far as we know. He's used every medium, tool, and device he could get his hands on. In the ancient world, painting on walls was very popular. Unfortunately, most of those walls have fallen and taken the paintings with them. In the middle ages artists used more portable canvases such as wood panels and stretched canvas. More of these exist today but not in their original locations. For those works specifically designed for a space, something is missing.

In the 21st century we have the same tools as previous artists--oils, watercolors, graphite, charcoal, pastel--and we have a few additional tools: pixels and electrons.

The illustration above is my latest attempt at digital painting. I tried making it look like a traditionally painted painting, but that just isn't me. And in today's world, very little traditional painting and illustration is used. Just look at a a movie poster, book cover, magazine graphic, or even newspaper. All of these used to be filled will hand drawn and painted illustrations. But today they use photography and computer generated works. It's the current trend. The good side is it is much quicker and cheaper to create media. The bad side is legions of artists are graduating from art school with little opportunity to use their skills to earn an honest living. What does this mean for the art? Good question.

While you ponder it, enjoy my latest work, and be sure to comment and let me know what you thing.

Exploring the mysterious caverns and caves below the ground

I've always been intrigued by images and stories about caverns and caves below the earth. Maybe that's why Mole Man is one of my favorite villains--it certainly isn't because of his powers or stories that have been told about him.

While exploring a new digital painting style, I thought the style would lend itself nicely to rock formations. And it did. Then I had to decide what to fill the caverns with. After all, it isn't the rocks alone that make these stories so interesting, but the exotic creatures and plants one finds down there. So I created a collection or unseen beasts based on the works of George Méliès and a gargoyle. The colors are the palette I've been using from old Steve Canyon covers. The characters were inked with a Zebra disposable brush pen and colored in Adobe Photoshop.

Overall, I like how it turned out, but it isn't exactly the style I'm going for. Back to the drawing board.

The shape of the canvas matters

I've been experimenting with a new style created from an amalgamation of things I've learned from past styles. (One of these days I'll settle on one--no, really, I will!) The style was meant for an illustrated novella, so naturally I created it vertically.

But I wasn't very happy with the results. I had moved on to another illustration, but something in the back of my mind said it had a lot of potential and only needed a little tweaking to realize it.

So I tweaked. I changed the format from vertical to horizontal, and wallah! Success. I'm much, MUCH happier with the result. But don't take my word for it.