But when a realistic human makes faces even half as expressive, it has more impact and meaning, and I think makes them more expressive than even the bulgiest cartoon eyes.
But when a realistic human makes faces even half as expressive, it has more impact and meaning, and I think makes them more expressive than even the bulgiest cartoon eyes.
Doesn't this depend on the style though? All those humans up there are making very convincing expressions, but they don't work as well (at least in my opinion) as the cats do.
Cilla Black on
0
Options
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
wonk
Q. Why cats?
A. When dealing in sociopathic criminalism and gratuitous violence, how could it not be cats? Don't take it too literally, though. It's mostly just a device I like to use for characterization. The mobile ears, tails, and big eyes help me emphasize gesture and expression more than I could with human characters, they allow me to be as ridiculous as I like, and, well, they're just plain fun to draw.
I have no qualms with cat people. Any artist should do whatever they want as long as it fits their vision. My thought is that people see cartoony styles (anthropomorphized animals very common in this field) and they think 'Well, that's not real art.' Then they see the immense talent of Tracy Butler and think 'Why is she reducing herself to a lesser style when she could be drawing the hardest thing -- real people?'
I don't have an opinion on the matter other than I like seeing real humans make funny faces. I think her cat stuff is great, too. Although I wonder why she doesn't go full-haul with an animal world? At the very least, something with dogs. (Then again, I guess it wouldn't be called Lackadaisy Cats anymore)
Yes, the main reason is when a human doesn't look right, the human looking at it knows right away. It's the most recognizable form to the human eye because it's the thing we see most.
Yes, the main reason is when a human doesn't look right, the human looking at it knows right away. It's the most recognizable form to the human eye because it's the thing we see most.
See I still wonder about this though, because such things only pertain when you're trying to be as absolutely realistic as possible. Like, photo realistic. Otherwise what is the difference between "not looking right" and the artists style? Obviously bad art isn't a style, and this is usually a very obvious thing, but is it is any more obvious with human representations than anything else?
It's true in heavy stylization humans are the most recognizable, but at the same time, the closer you get to realism, the more the problems in a human become apparent than other forms. When I speak of drawing humans, I do mean realism, which is what Tracy did with those human versions of the Lackadaisy cats.
This person attempted realism with a cat.
Obviously it has glaring problems with the face, but it's not disturbing.
this person attempted realism with a human.
Again, glaring problems, but much more disturbing.
those people were clearly going for two different looks dude
the level of detail in that cat wouldnt permit the same kinds of plane errors that the tattoo does and there isnt even an attempt to add any more than the most rudimentary depth
mensch-o-matic on
0
Options
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
while I agree with your general message, those examples are flawed
MUCH more realism was attempted with the human face, as well as much more detail, giving more room to fuck it up royally, even inventing details that didn't exist
Posts
Aspire to adequacy! Be all that you can be without exerting yourself very much!
i admire your gusto.
i'm 100% certain he could draw some pretty amazing stuf if he wasn't so damn complacent.
and devoid of any and all ambition to get better.
you know he literally has folders of eyes noses and mouths that he c+ps in to make faces
and they all look identical
like, it isnt even ironic
someone better than me should make something funnier with this
http://www.homestarrunner.com/stinko_comic.html
She is a Cerebus where she is on a mission or something to recapture the spirits that got out of hell
It's nice to see a woman in that comic that doesn't have a backbreaking set of breasts
Man, Mordecai is classy.
she thinks of it exactly the opposite
cartoony cat people are more expressive
Exaggeration is easier with cartoony faces.
you might be surprised
Doesn't this depend on the style though? All those humans up there are making very convincing expressions, but they don't work as well (at least in my opinion) as the cats do.
I don't have an opinion on the matter other than I like seeing real humans make funny faces. I think her cat stuff is great, too. Although I wonder why she doesn't go full-haul with an animal world? At the very least, something with dogs. (Then again, I guess it wouldn't be called Lackadaisy Cats anymore)
Nooo my sordid past! (mostly because I hate how I drew that cat. I drew Rumpy really well in an earlier comic. I am not consistent at all.)
See I still wonder about this though, because such things only pertain when you're trying to be as absolutely realistic as possible. Like, photo realistic. Otherwise what is the difference between "not looking right" and the artists style? Obviously bad art isn't a style, and this is usually a very obvious thing, but is it is any more obvious with human representations than anything else?
Backgrounds are
and the hardest thing to draw is
"a peacock"
because "you have to color all those feathers"
art'ed
This person attempted realism with a cat.
Obviously it has glaring problems with the face, but it's not disturbing.
this person attempted realism with a human.
Again, glaring problems, but much more disturbing.
those people were clearly going for two different looks dude
the level of detail in that cat wouldnt permit the same kinds of plane errors that the tattoo does and there isnt even an attempt to add any more than the most rudimentary depth
MUCH more realism was attempted with the human face, as well as much more detail, giving more room to fuck it up royally, even inventing details that didn't exist
mensch gets it