These computer caricatures are way too depressing and grotesque for my taste but they do prompt an interesting question: how long will it be before we start seeing computer caricatures in theme parks? I mean caricatures done by an artist sitting at a computer.
Aargh! I couldn't bear to end this without something hand-drawn. Here's a portrait (above) by caricature genius, Grigor Eftimov.
Here's Grigor at work.
33 comments:
AAARGH!!!
those computer generated things (i refuse to call them caricatures) are ANNOYING!!
argh....ah... jesus.
yeah, thank Christ for the hand drawns @ the end of this post. it's either that or suicide.
Handrawn Caricatures are better than Computer caricatures!!!
Computer Caricatures are unreal, cold and look artificial and they are not really funny. Nobody can replace a human talent and feelings.
It seems that they try to replace anything with computers and later we live in a world like the Matrix.
A world without hand drawn stuf would be a sad place. I would rather be superman!
There are already photo booths that filter a picture to fake a hand drawn look, so ones that distorts things to look vaguely caricature-ish can't be far off.
These computer-aided caricatures do show the flaw in their process. Caricature is about distilling what's there down to the best parts and adding to them. You can't do that if you're taking everything good & bad and just pushing it around.
With any luck there'll always be people with an appetite for fine home cookin' versus those who crave nothing but microwaved frozen burritos.
Am I an optimist, or what?
Are those really caricatures? Distortions, yeah. A caricature, for my money, has to make you feel like the artist has a magnfying glass that better shows a person's true nature, whether that's really accurate or not. Those computer manipulations don't really do that, and I think the medium is largely incapable of it. But theme parks? Maybe. Not much different than a funhouse mirror.
Computer nerds steal more jobs than illegal aliens.
Those have some novelty appeal, but they are more like arbitrary distortions than caricatures.
A good caricature has a statement and a personal view of the subject. And thought-out choices-what to distort for a reason.
An artist tries to capture some personality of his subject rather than just to do a weird version of him or her.
Computers are very dangerous to art. They make it easy for people without artists' senses and skills to do things that to the average person appear very superficially like actual art.
Now everyone can be an instant artist, animator or graphic designer, regardless of whether he has any actual skills or natural talent.
I wonder when computers will do this to writers, or dancers and singers and actors for that matter...
It's already a lot easier to physically write a stock cartoon plot than it is to draw characters or backgrounds. Couldn't a computer easily imitate formula scripts?
I always found it funny how people are more able to take (Brutal?) honesty from a machine than from a fellow human being. I guess if it's a photograph that's been thrown through a couple of photo shop filters the person has to accept it and say "Well its a photo, that's what I look like" where as with a good caricature the person has to deal how someone else sees and interprets them. I like to think there's more truth in a human drawn caricature because we're able to see more than just what the reflected light tells us. Maybe the machine has a friendlier disposition, I'll admit when I draw someone's caricature I'm a little nasty. You know I smile, I shake their hand, talk to them, and stand there politely while they rip my drawing up.
Thousands of people visit art galleries every Sunday on earth in Manhattan. And they don't line up to see CGI nor grotesque computer caricatures. They're appreciating 2D art done by human hands. A certain line of greeting cards has already cornered the market on this sort of computer 'caricature' and helped brand it for what it is: kitsch.
What about this one?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/190461188_ade5ea4265.jpg?v=0
See ya
Steve
I hate looking at digital art, because it's so obvious to see every move they did to make those weird haphazard things. There is nothing artistic in the stroke of the mouse, whereas looking at a real work of art, the brush strokes are intentional, and beautiful, and contribute to the greater whole of the picture.
The digital age, and it's readily available technology is fine for artists to sort of sketch out their ideas. But the reality is now to find a real artist you have to weed out through the giant mass of amateurish slop to find the sugar at the bottom of the bowl. Yippee.
Computers are very dangerous to art. They make it easy for people without artists' senses and skills to do things that to the average person appear very superficially like actual art.
Now everyone can be an instant artist, animator or graphic designer, regardless of whether he has any actual skills or natural talent.
No problem there.
Once upon a time, everyone had a pencil, but we knew everyone was not an artist. Musical instruments also became cheap enough for everyone to afford one, but we still knew the difference between amateurs and talented musicians. the talented poor, however, were able to excel because they had tools they could afford.
Pop culture being overrun by the mediocre is a different problem than the mass availability of tools. That's not a problem at all. It's in fact an opportunity.
Its not going to replace real caricatures, it will merely become part of the digital photo booth, for people to distort things themselves (where the fun is).
I think people would still rather have (and pay for) a real drawing in comparison to the equivalent of a photo of a fun house mirror.
I prefer the old black and white photo strip real chemical photo booths to the ones that digitally print an ink jet image on photo paper.
http://www.jasonseilerillustration.blogspot.com/
This guy impresses me though, some of his stuff is so realistically done that people think it's photo manipulations but they're not.
Computer caricatures suck because they don't take skill! All you need is photoshop! They're only caricatures by the vaguest definition of the word...and aren't funny.
This guy does studio work in Corel Painter. He also does live work at Busch Gardens. I don't think they will replace him.
Hand drawn. Hands down. Simple manipulation with a computer is leagues beneath anything drawn entirely by hand.
Careful guys, the computer is just a tool. I hear a lot of Luddites sounding off here, but despite the crap the computer thinks is great, it's still just a tool for us to use, and it's up to us to find out how to use it right.
You can still do hand drawn caricatures on the computer. I realize that this is a bit like using a Jet to get the groceries, but hey, it's still possible.
A bit of playing devils advocate here:
You showed us some bad examples of computer caricatures with not much essence. Thats pretty easy to find and exploit. They are abundant and hardly qualify as "caricatures" using John K's definition, which I agree with, for the most part. I can also show you tons and tons of bad caricatures done with a pencil too. Does that mean the pencil is a bad tool?
I propose to you that a good competent artist, ie. one which can draw a good caricature by hand, would also be able to use a computer to do one in the same way if they were so inclined and wanted to take the time to experiment. The misconception is that computers are there to try to "replace" skills that freehand artist have honed. That may be true for the hacks, but doesnt have to be for everyone. Its just another tool that has different possibilities than most use or are willing to experiment with. Now if they can just stay away from the filters and no brainer, "one click" buttons that most people think makes them instant artists.
I'm not talking about taking a photo and merely enlarging to exaggerate features or pushing around surfaces to distort. Theres a hell of lot more to a good caricature than that. You just dont see many good examples because, like hand drawn stuff, it also takes time, skill and effort.
Computers are like fast food restaurants. They make the quick easy solution to fill that niche market that wants this, making for quick turn around time and relatively easy preparation. But these same "fast food restaurants' (computers) could also make a fine cuisine with a good chef and proper ingredients too.
Dont blame the tool (computer) for bad art. Blame the "tools" (ie.hack artists) making it who dont take advantage of all these new possibilities. They need to try to innovate instead of replicate.
Pencil, brush, or stylus... its the responsibility of the artist to bring something more than a sterile generic caricature, or whatever art piece, to life in an interesting way.
the photoshop ones are sure odd and sterile. the one of larry king closely approximates what a completely timid caricaturist might do. the one of john stewart is utterly dependant on a caricaturing trope that wouldn't exist without 2D.
as much as i don't like them i have no doubt there will be more and more of them.
BTW the satire magazine RADAR has some outstanding carticatures of the Democratic presidential hopefuls in its pages, drawn by John Kascht. Unfortunately they chose a mediocre photoshop gag of them for their cover.
cableclair
Jason Seiler is an exception since he's a true caricaturist, who happens to use the digital medium. But you're right, his works are so photo-realistic that the untrained eye would think it was just a manipulated photo!
I give 5 years and there will be booths saturating the malls and theme parks. Which is sad, because they're simply a "funhouse mirror" effect and not really a caricature anyway - just a general distortion of the image.
Unfortunately I bet your typical customer will find this more enjoyable than sitting down for a REAL caricature. Much like how today's masses prefer lifeless 3D animation over the great hand-drawn stuff. Technology just cheapens art in countless ways.
Those computer caricatures look like halloween masks.
I can't stand computer caricatures for the same reason I can't stand the performance capture "computer animation" that Robert Zemeckis keeps making (The Polar Expresss, Monster House, and Beowlf), it is just too freaky. It is too harsh. It is just plain difficult to watch. No matter how grotesque a hand drawn caricature is, it still has a special life and beauty to it.
@Kali Your sugar at the bottom of the bowl comment made me think of when I put sugar on my Cheerios, and no matter how well I mix the sugar in, there is always sweet, delicious sugar at the bottom of the bowl
Personally I feel that those caricatures are free from bias and emotions and paint a more objective portrait than a human ever could
Man I wish i had the fantasticulous skills at caricatures that Grigor does. Every time I try to batshit crazy on paper, I just can't do it like either him, or even Marlo. I'm guessing I should really step it up a notch or five. Anyways, handrawn is so much more fun than some click and manipulate "caricature" done on the computer.
oh and I agree with what John K commented too.
I like the Computer ones! It uses the actual picture of the person and gives a more "pure" abstraction rather than the numerous imperfections and personality quirks of an obsolete "artist" drawn caricature
Steve: Holy Cow! The ultimate hand picture!
Will: Thanks for the reference! I Googled Kascht to see who he was and stumbled on an interesting picture of Chuck Jones by Pete Emslie.
>>>
I wonder when computers will do this to writers, or dancers and singers and **actors** for that matter...
<<<
Actually, this seems to happen right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(2007_film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icBuBjboGzk
Those are distortions. I'm surprised that you and John always use the worst examples of 3d and computer art and then the best examples of 2d. Why not a fair comparison.
This is a 3d model of jimi hendrix
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=431478&highlight=hendrix
Chickens: Boy, that is an impressive picture. Even so there's more technical skill than art in it. I really hate to say that because it's so obvious that the artist knocked himself out to do a good job.
I'm with the "computers are just a tool" crowd... EXCEPT... I know from one of my old graphic design instructors, a top flight illustration guy that photo manipulations are replacing the old school illustration guys. You still see their work in places but nowhere near as often as you see digital compositions that could've been done cooler and better as line art by a person with ink and a brush.
I'll me the first to mention that grigor's work is really *&^%$ing great!
Post a Comment