BLOGGER WON"T LET ME PUT UP PICTURES!

Or maybe my computer's on the Fritz. I don't know. I can't figure it out. Whatever it is, it'll probably be better tomorrow. Anyway here's something that'll probably look good in print. It's the opening title for an old 30s radio show called...


GRAND CENTRAL STATION


ANNOUNCER: (SLOW BUILD) As a bullet seeks its target , shining rails in every part of our great country are aimed at GRAND CENTRAL STATION, heart of the nation's greatest city.

Drawn by the magnetic force of the fantastic metropolis, great trains rush toward the Hudson River... (FASTER BUILD) ...SWEEP down its eastern bank for 140 miles...FLASH briefly by the long, red row of tenement houses south of 125th Street!

SFX: RACING ENGINE. TRAIN'S BELL.

ANNOUNCER: DIVE with a roar into the two and one half mile tunnel which burrows beneath the glitter and swank of Park Avenue! AND THEN...

SFX: ENGINE CHUGGING SLOWS. TRAIN'S BELL. HISS OF AIR BRAKES.

ANNOUNCER: ...GRAND CENTRAL STATION!



Nifty, huh? That's what a REAL writer does! Why can't we have writing like that in our industry!?

IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO DRAW AT THE ZOO?

No it's not, not unless you have a special reason. If you're a realistic animator working on a sequel to "The Lion King" then by all means go and enjoy yourself, but if you're a cartoonist you might find yourself wondering if the trip was really necessary. Artist-friendly zoos are a myth.


Zoos used to be a great places to draw. Older zoos like the one above kept exciting animals like lions in horizontal cages where the lions used to pace up and down for half the day (the other half was spent outside). It was hard on the lion but great for artists who got to see repeated side views of dynamic walks only a few feet infront of their sketchbooks. The cages were indoors and the lighting was perfect for drawing. Best of all, there was no wind to blow your paper and you got to hear the lions roar at each other with the sound echoing off the walls.


Modern zoos put the lions into enormous outdoor habitats. It always takes visitors a minute or two to locate the lion who's usually sleeping behind a rock. No roars, no pacing, just...sleep. If you try to draw the parts of the lion that are visible then you encounter the other problem, namely the difficulty of drawing on reflective, snow-white paper under a blazing sun. Contemporary zoos are not really artist-friendly.


Another myth that artists have is that it's fun to draw at baseball games. Is it? From the grandstands the players are tiny figures that seem to be miles away. If you can see to draw those guys then you've got better sight than I have. It might be fun to draw the fans if they'd only turn around but they won't, unless it's to give you a dirty look for drawing them.

LEARN TO DRAW YOURSELF

If you're an animation cartoonist then it's your responsibility to learn how to draw your own mannerisms and quirks. Pay attention to the way people describe you! Things you do that annoy other people are particularly valuable! Don't stop slurping your soup, study it! Analyze the slurp! Forget about drawing at the zoo, that's for realistic artists. If you're a cartoonist then YOU are the weird and funny animal you ought to be studying!

I'm too sleepy to illustrate this with new drawings but here's (above) a few old ones that might help. The top one is how I feel when I'm talking to people in a restaurant. It's probably not the way I really look but cartooning is more efficient than realistic drawing at portraying mental states and it was fun to draw it that way. Anyway I had to analyze what I was feeling and what kind of personality I have before I could draw it.

Ditto with the second drawing. The first bite of pizza is sacred to me. You have to tune out the world and focus solely on the delicious food in front of you. I tried to...to... I can't type anymore. I'm falling asleep.......

CURSE OF THE PUFFY CROTCHES

Why is that!? Who's responsible for this!!?? Do other people have this problem or is it just me!!???

THE BEST CONVERTIBLE EVER

The car above isn't the best convertible ever, I just put it there as a teaser. No modern car qualifies. The modern aesthetic allows only the head to appear behind the wheel. You can't get an open car feel when you're cocooned that way. 

Early convertibles had a better idea: They (above) were a sofa sitting atop a motorized carriage. The driver was high off the street and could feel the wind all over his body. Driving it must have seemed like a magic carpet ride. If you didn't look down you'd hardly be aware you were in a car. It would seem like your seat was just floating down the street.

Okay, here's (above) my pick for the best convertible design of all, the best of the best. I speak of the Stanley Steamer. It has all the advantages of the austere gas-propelled car at the top of the post but is a beautiful work of art besides. I actually had a short ride in one of these, thanks to Jay Leno.

Here's (above) a later version of the Stanley. It's still beautiful but now you have to open a door to get in and you're behind the engine rather than above it. It's a great design but I prefer the earlier green and brass model. In the newer version the driver is a functioning part of the car's steering and control rather than a god-like figure who floats above it.

Here's (above) a Mercer Raceabout. The dashboard is far in front of the driver so he still feels somewhat independent of the car. No doors, a beautiful piece of work. This is one of the last convertibles that really delivered the convertible experience. After this drivers would sit in enclosed boxes.

PHILOSOPHY CORNER

My favorite recent films are both deeply philosophical. Hurry up and rent them

so we can talk about them!

The first is 'The Devil wears Prada" which asks the question, "What kind of person really makes the world work?" The film's amazing answer is, a mean, self-centered, dominating, talented tyrant like the character Maryl Streep plays.

I believe it. My hunch is that at the heart of everything really worthwhile is a tyrannical genius who wills the thing into existence and who sacrifices everything to keep it alive (no, I'm not talking about John K.). Everyone else is either too dumb or too inept to do it. This person is indispensable.

A lot of people would be willing to accept all this providing that the tyrant isn't dominating and self-centered after work. Under the gruff exterior some people demand a heart of gold. I'm not sure if I go along with that. It seems to me that in the real world you have to play rough to keep the ship afloat. Nice guys would sink it because nice guys can't keep the bad guys at bay. And you can't play rough part time. You'll never be good at it unless you're rough all the time and unless you actually enjoy it. Our tolerance of people like this enables the rest of us to live the humane and stimulating lives we currently lead.

Are there exceptions? Of course! John K 's a nice guy, so was Clampett. So was Bach! So was Mozart! But every leader and innovator can't be like that. We should have the wisdom to accept antibiotics with gratitude regardless of whether or not Pasteur was nice to his assistants.

The other philosophical film was "Pursuit of Happiness" with Will Smith. I almost didn't see the film, it looked so hokey. Boy, am I glad I did! The film reminds me of the old saying, "Nothing is as beautiful as a good man struggling against adversity." Smith's character is such a man. He doesn't blame anybody for his problems, he doesn't turn cynical, he just keeps focused on finding a solution, no matter how bad things get.

I don't know much about the Stoics but I can't help thinking about Smith's character as a stoic hero. I never took the stoics seriously because I thought their way of dealing with loss is never to want things in the first place, which seems drastic and unnatural to me. Things I've heard lately make me wonder if I misunderstood them. Smith's character definitely has an effective philosophy and if it turns out to be stoicism then I want to find out more about it.

PICTURES TO DRAW FROM

All photos by imogene Cunningham, except maybe the first (above). Click to enlarge.

BRASSAI'S PARIS AT NIGHT (1930s)

I think I can guess how Brassai must have felt. Even today the area around Montmarte (spelled right?) is full of mystery after dark. Late at night when the streets are empty and fog covers the treetops the effect is unforgetable. Click to enlarge.

Holy Cow! The text is slanted! I'm leaking consonants! Anyway, the quote above is the reason I put up this piece about Brassai. Before reading it, it never occurred to me that a part of town that's particularly appealing or mysterious should be left standing even if the architecture is just so-so. A street or a square or a neighborhood that attracts people, that exerts an indefinable magnetism or charisma over generations, should be preserved even if no one can figure out what the attraction consists of.

A famous thriller writer called this "felicitous architecture." He pointed out that some churches seem especially "holy." Others seem especially suited for weddings. He talked about a cheerful room in Williamsburg where three future presidents proposed to their wives. On the other hand he talked about places where murders routinely happen. Maybe he's right. Remember Van Gogh's picture of the ugly red pool room? He called it a room you could die in. Maybe architecture and spaces have the power to subtley influence human behavior.

The trench-coated figure above is Henry Miller who would frequently drop by unannounced to see if Brassai wanted to explore the night-time streets with him.

Another terrific quote! You wouldn't want to do without the melting clocks and flaming horses of full-blown surrealism but you could argue that the greatest pictures of all are the more subtle ones which show the weirdness underlying everyday reality.

WHICH BACKGROUND MEDIUM FITS FUNNY CARTOONS?

Pen & ink with light wash?

Ink wash (above)?

Watercolor (above)?

Gouache (above)?

Acrylics (above)?

Computer (above)?

Myself, I would say the ink wash method supports gags and cartoony drawings the best. If humor was the only factor to consider I'd say the whole industry should switch to ink wash (or a black & white gouache equivalent) tomorrow. It's funnier by a mile.

The problem is that audiences like color and so do I. I can't help it, I like beautiful cartoons. In my opinion the color mediums that best support the comedy/beauty combination are watercolor and gouache. Some of the best and most indisputably funny Ren & Stimpy episodes used acrylics but the acrylics were done in a style that often looked like gouache so they're difficult to classify.

Certainly the background medium that supports comedy least is the computer. Can any background be funny if it's colored in a computer? I've laughed at gags in shows that had minimal computer backgrounds but in those cases the job of the background was simply to not get in the way. It wasn't a positive comedic asset, except as a design element. There are probably exceptions to this but I'm too sleepy to think of them.

KANDINSKY'S COLOR THEORIES

It's unfortunate that most of the color theorists since Chevreul have been abstract painters rather than representational ones. I like to thumb through my Itten, Albers and Kandinsky color books once in a while but I have to admit that they're not very usefull. They are a lot of fun, though. Here just for the heck of it, are a couple of Kandinsky color theories. Maybe they'll spur you on to make theories of your own.

According to Kandinsky certain colors (above) have an affinity for certain forms. A dull shape like a circle deserves a dull color like blue. A shape with intermediate interest like a square deserves an intermediate color like red. A dynamic, interesting shape like a triangle deserves an enegetic, luminous, psychotic color like yellow.

A hexagon is midway in interest between a square and a triangle so it gets the midway color it deserves, orange. Toilet cover seats get green.

Lines also have an affinity for certain colors. Bold, dynamic lines like diagonals get a bold color like yellow. Less drastic diagonals get a less drastic color, red. Dead lines that are nearly horizontal get a dead color like black. Slightly active lines like verticals get a dull color like blue.

Kandinsky even has a theory about coloring lines according to their centrality in the composition. Lines in the middle get yellow. Sad, unloved lines that hug the edge of the frame should get dull colors.

The same goes for angles. Drastic accute angles get drastic colors, more sedate obtuse angles get bland colors like blue.

Ditto curves. Of course a line usually has both drastic and sedate curves and angles and the color of the line changes accordingly.

Here's all these theories in a single painting. Interesting, huh?

THEORY CORNER SPORTS PAGE: MUHAMMAD ALI & SECRETARIAT

Just to show Ali's method, here's (above) a quick win that he scored against Brian Lamb in 1966.




Above and below Cassius Clay (Ali) vs. Sonny Liston. Liston hated Clay and on one of the rounds they kept fighting even after the bell. What a battle!







The fight was stopped by a doctor after part three, so if you're in a hurry you can skip part four. Watch it if you can, though; it's a fascinating glimpse into what the people who ran the fights were like in the 60s.





Above and below two races by Secretariat in the early 70s. These are hands down the best races I've ever seen. Seabiscuit certainly was an interesting horse, and I liked the film, but could he do this?

MY FAVORITE ARTIST'S MODEL BOOK

I have to admit that a reference book about artist's models is a strange subject to post about on the Saturday before Easter. I hope the airbrushed nudity doesn't offend anyone. I'm so excited about finding this rare and useful book in the library that I feel I have to share it so that I can free my mind to think about other things. Click to enlarge.

I'll let you know what the title is as soon as I can locate a copy to buy on the net.

I LOVE WRITERS!

I love writers, real writers, but our industry doesn't seem to have attracted many of them.

Visit an animation artist's site and you're likely to see samples of what the guy did recently, paintings by favorite artists, and the like. Visit an animation writers site and you're likely to see gripes about not getting residuals, nostalgia for super-fast writers of the past, shop talk about who's hiring and the like. No celebration of beautiful words, no discussion of clever plots. If you're a fan of good writing, which I am, it's disappointing.

One thing that does abound in animation writers' sites is slick prose. The notes and memos these guys send to each other are beautiful. I don't mind saying that I'm envious. If any of these guys offers to teach memo writing I'm there. They're models of economy, euphony and wit. Verbs instead of adjectives, everything in the present tense; Stunk & White would be proud. Unfortunately for these guys there's no memo industry to absorb them. They had a skill with no place to go, so they bailed out into animation, which they dominate.

If I can digress for a minute.... did you know that at one time arists dominated the pulp sci-fi industry? Well, sort of. The editor of one one of the early science fiction magazines (Gernsback? Cambell? Amazing Stories? Astounding?) used to provoke his artists to come up with wild, imaginative covers then, when he got something he liked, he called in a writer to write a story that would justify it. Interesting, huh?

When I heard this the first time I felt sorry for the writers, who after all are entitled to dominate the industry that they created (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells), but I sometimes wonder if my sympathy was misplaced. Some writers like to call the post-pulp era the golden age of science fiction, but was it? You could argue that the writer-driven psychological stories that came to dominate sci-fi eventually killed it. Maybe the genre was healthier when it dealt with weird gadgets and monsters. Maybe but....hmmmm, I think I'll still come down on the writers side on this one. It just makes sense to me that writers should call the shots in their own writing industry.

And animators should call the shots in the animation industry! Why do writers fail to see the wisdom of that? Well, there's an obvious answer. Money. Animation writers are like kids in a candy store. There's gold in them thar hills! After the style and tone of a show is set the rest of the stories are easy to write and there's lots of time left over to write freelance stories for other projects. Animation writers are often loaded to the gills with freelance! They can't be bothered to edit a script to a proper length (it's faster to write a long script than a short one), or to figure out really clever plots and dialogue (Sigh!).

Well, I still like writers. Real writers, that is, writers who care about character, plot, humor and writing for performance. I'll end with that. There's more to say but this'll do for a start.

BTW, I know of a couple of writer sites that are all about classic comics and drawn media. I have nothing but sympathy and well wishes for these sites but they don't amount to a contradiction of what I said about animation writers not discussing words and plots with any frequency.

Also BTW, the pictures here are of Shakespeare, Hugo and Dickens.