Welcome to TalkGraphics.com
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: pussycat

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,284

    Default Re: pussycat

    no rules in art - plenty of methodologies for creating an effect, should you choose to want it, but no rules - and methodologies are flexible too.... course you have to
    actually be an artist to understand that, like as not
    -------------------------------
    Nothing lasts forever...

  2. #22

    Default Re: pussycat

    Quote Originally Posted by handrawn View Post
    no rules in art - plenty of methodologies for creating an effect, should you choose to want it, but no rules
    You’ve managed to confuse rules of light and shadow with laws of the land.
    Visiting/participating in TalkGraphics since i/us (’97).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Hautes Pyrénées, France
    Posts
    5,083

    Default Re: pussycat

    James, I think what people are trying to say and you don't accept is that the rules of physics do not and don't have to apply in cartoons. You only have to watch Tom and Jerry to appreciate the validity of that. The pussy cat drawn by the OP is a cartoon. In a cartoon you can have a thousand different light sources, real or imagined. Just because some cartoonists adhere to the rules of lighting, it doesn't make it a crime to ignore them. I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon. If it was a still life I would certainly have a problem with the lighting.
    If someone tried to make me dig my own grave I would say No.
    They're going to kill me anyway and I'd love to die the way I lived:
    Avoiding Manual Labour.

  4. #24

    Default Re: pussycat

    Quote Originally Posted by beretgascon View Post
    James, I think what people are trying to say and you don't accept is that the rules of physics do not and don't have to apply in cartoons.
    The rules of physics don’t have to apply in cartoons.

    Just because some cartoonists adhere to the rules of lighting,
    Among published cartoonists who use strong light, shadows and reflections, to provide the illusion of three dimensions, the vast majority abide by the aforementioned rules. Like Larson, they put great effort into this.

    it doesn't make it a crime to ignore them.
    It doesn’t make it a crime to ignore them.

    I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon.
    I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon. Expressing a view is not ‘having a problem’.
    Visiting/participating in TalkGraphics since i/us (’97).

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,284

    Default Re: pussycat

    Quote Originally Posted by James Allen View Post
    I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon
    I think your problem is you can't tell really good art, from art that needs to be licked into shape

    go back to post #3 and re-read it:

    "It’s a nice drawing Derek, and will be a great drawing when you tweak the lighting"

    I'm sorry but what a load of patronising arrogant bu****it that is

    I wouldn't care to try to show Derek any thing with "the sweep of a hand and a few strokes of a pencil" I'd be too afraid he'd wipe the floor with me
    -------------------------------
    Nothing lasts forever...

  6. #26

    Default Re: pussycat

    Standing in front of a drawing, a hand gesture and a few words is all you need to convey an opinion about light and shade. The artist understands immediately. Conveying the same opinion in writing takes much longer, and may not be as easily understood. This also applies to music, dance, sculpture, etc.
    Visiting/participating in TalkGraphics since i/us (’97).

  7. #27

    Default Re: pussycat

    Not that the volleys between Handrawn and James Allen aren't fun to read, but the ultimate question IS whether more "physics-correct" lighting would improve the cartoon in question...

    The answer to this question is subjective. (ie. we all could each form our own opinion with no one being specifically right or wrong)

    (Personally)...the trees in this image look fine (to me). They could be ground illuminated from the neighbor's yard. (the edges are strongly highlighted and are lighter at the bottom than at the top) This could go either way. As for the fence, my opinion is closer to James Allen's in that everything is more shadowed towards the front of the picture. For that strongly defined shadow on the cat, there can NOT be a light source of any strength in the foreground. Because of this, the side of the fence rails being very white appears wrong. The argument (but why?) could be made that there is a light source on the other side of the fence that is in fact illuminating the tops. It wouldn't affect the cat area of the picture because of the fence...HOWEVER, if we look at the side of the fence and the hole, we can see that it does appear to be front-illuminated while everything else shows in great detail that the light is from behind the cat. This appears to be a simple error.

    While reading these comments and thinking about it, I am reminded of Bob Ross. (famous American painter who had a popular TV show for over a decade showing people how to paint breathtaking scenes by following his relatively easy instructions, which he demonstrated in real time 30-minute "masterpieces") On one of the shows, he mentions that he received a letter from a quite upset viewer stating that the picture Bob made on the show was perfect UNTIL Bob decided to put a big tree in the picture. Bob handled this problem in his normal grace and style and commented that in HIS world there is a great big tree there and that perhaps in the viewer's world there is no such tree. (ie. all views are valid and personal)

    Because of this, I can't really make a firm opinion one way or another. The Pussycat picture is a great image just as it is. In the artist's (Derek's) image, the lights do NOT have to follow the laws of physics or appeal to anyone except Derek as it his dramatization, a product of his imagination. That being said, I did just as James Allen did and saw the front-lit fence as a simple "error" that distracts from what is otherwise pretty much perfect.

    Is it a great image? Yes.

    Are there some "problems" with the lighting? Probably.

    Is James Allen nit-picking? I don't think so. Though dryly delivered, it was constructive criticism from seasoned eyes.

    Should Derek "fix" it? Only Derek could know.

    Should we move on now, anticipating the next great image from Derek? Undoubtedly.


    Peace

    James
    Last edited by ODdOnLifeItself; 02 February 2011 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Division by Zero: Undefined

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,284

    Default Re: pussycat

    constructive criticism would first have looked at the body of work that the OP has here, and determined his style

    constructive criticism would then have asked the question as to whether or not the effect was intentional - not just assumed it was bad workmanship

    constructive criticism can only come from those who understand what is being done, it does not come from those who think they can turn others art into 'great art', 'just like that' because they know better

    back pedal all you like - but that is where it began

    [thanks for the backhanded compliment by the way anyway ]
    -------------------------------
    Nothing lasts forever...

  9. #29

    Default Re: pussycat

    I enjoyed reading your response James – you shone some light on the subject, if you’ll pardon the pun.
    Visiting/participating in TalkGraphics since i/us (’97).

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Hautes Pyrénées, France
    Posts
    5,083

    Default Re: pussycat

    It is probably time to move on now...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	the_cat_is_pushing_a_watermelon_out_of_a_lake.thumbnail.jpg 
Views:	251 
Size:	23.2 KB 
ID:	79691  
    If someone tried to make me dig my own grave I would say No.
    They're going to kill me anyway and I'd love to die the way I lived:
    Avoiding Manual Labour.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •