Remember when art and design was commonplace? (Before&Af

[MartinRedmond]

My problem with most airbrush coloring is that they seem to assume light comes from the center of whichever form they're coloring and it gets darker as you reach the edges. It's truly horrible.

[AmishVader]

It's pretty clear that a lot of "art" today is done by the layout designer with the use of photoshop and a couple of filters. When it's bad, it's really bad. Unfortunately, it seems to be "good enough": Good enough to get the point across to a public that's deluged with images already. That Tony the Tiger functions to grab the attention of some poor mom who just wants to get out of the store. Of course, for some things, there's no excuse. Take a look at the covers of the Batman: TAS DVDs: they're horrible. I think there was already a thread on those, but it's not like there wasn't some good art laying around that they could have used. Instead, they had to whip out the airbrush, and draw spooge-like highlights all over Batman's tights. I guess that makes it 3D.

[TheAtomicTerrier]

wow Rob , you've really inspired me! We should have a Cereal box re-design thread!!!


I'm with you guys , look at Asian candy wrappers and then look at American ones then tell me who's got design in mind.

[rainboy]

yeah, I love how e Jap design their tibits wrappers.

[Obi Wan Shinobi]

Who needs designers when desktop publishing does it all for you? Kerning by eye instead of mathematical precision? Bah!

And then it has to be able to read from across the room. So a nice painting of some tigers on a white background loses out to a garrish blue and complimentary ornage tiger with his name clearly printed on his kerchief (although it's more clearly a dog bowl around his neck?).

[Mike Mitchell]

hahha Amish Vader!

[chingas]

One observation: Do you notice how most of today's "mainstream" design is so ...symmetrical?
It's amazing how what is considered "old" or "retro" can still be so much more modern than "modern".

"Perpetual moderness is the measure of merit in every work of art."
?Ralph Waldo Emerson

Did I already mention this is a great thread?

[trigger25]

Great thread guys...

I am just amazed at how it seems that every example of cartoon commerical art shown here utilizes extensive (and often crude) use of shading and modeling. What I want to know is why? Why does much of modern commercial cartoon art seem compelled to render its subjects in this way -- even when the subject they are advertising (ie Batman, Sleeping Beauty, etc) are not rendered that way in the actual product?

The only thing I could come up with is that this kind of approach is so prevalent because it moves the artwork away from the abstract and more to the "photo-realistic" (for lack of a better term). The effective use of design and color has given way to shading and modeling -- or in other words, crude tricks designed to feign a kind of realism. But why is realism so important? Especially in something like cartoon art where the whole idea is to appealingly abstract reality?

Its not just in package design, either. Look at comic books. The elegant and restrained use of flat colors and limited palettes has given way to elaborate (and in some cases) over-rendered, color work. The newspaper comics page is seeing this transition as well (case in point: the new Opus strip). In animation, well-designed 2-D is giving way to photo-realistic 3-D work. What is the source for this change? Is it because someone believes adding realism to cartoon art somehow adds value to the end product? And if so, who is demanding this addition of perceived value? The artist? The company marketing the product? Or the consumer?

It's an interesting subject, and I feel if we could find some reasonable answers to those questions we might be better able to understand this trend. And hopefully, we may even be able to push prevailing tastes back to more appealing forms of commercial work.

T.

[emceeONE]

The only thing I could come up with is that this kind of approach is so prevalent because it moves the artwork away from the abstract and more to the "photo-realistic" (for lack of a better term)

Hit the nail right on the head with that one. The 4 horsemen shirt I did a while ago fell prey to this. My original concept was more cartoony. The client rejected it outright, saying he wanted something more realistic and less comic booky. While the deisgns themselves still feel comic-ish, the rendering in pencil were done to please the client. I'm still proud of the work and effort put in as I learned a lot, but it's certainly not a direction I enjoyed going in and doubt I'll be as willing to go in that direction again. Moral of the story: blame the client. They don't have taste. They just want something that looks skillful. Cartoony? "kids can do it." Realistic? "Only an expensive artist can do it." Or, at least, that's the way they think the consumer response is. Funny thing is, they still pay shit. Either that or it's a reaction against Picasso and the like. Couldn't understand it and don't wanna see it.

edit: just thought of something. You know how in art history they showed art of basically 3 greek periods of sculpture and egyptian hieroglyphs and african pottery? And the highest regarded art (by non-artists) were not the ones that necessarily felt well designed but just looked realistic (I took it in jc, sue me). I guess the general public regards photorealism as skillfull and design as an abstract immeasureable quality and therefore unimportant.

[ihorace]

I have to agree with the last post - it's that element of them wanting realism. Another part of the problem is a lot of these folks don't even know basics of good layout. It's become throw a bunch of stuff on the page and hope it works out - or if there is a semblance of layout, it falls apart on close scrutiny.

That's part of the reason why when I see a poster, an image, a book cover (or interiors), that has the fortitude to actually do something to capture my attention, I a) look at it, b) consider buying it - even if I don't agree with what the product is. Why because someone took the time to "design" Case in point: Kill Bill. I haven't seen it yet, but the ads make me want to. And that's just the posters.

[Thorsten aka T Bone]

Well at least thelast two Disney-Golden Books on FINDING NEMO and BROTHER BEAR go back to the good ol fifties style...look:

[ihorace]

Well aint that intriguing. (re:The Disney Books...)


I don't necessarily think we need to return to the past and remake it - so much as actually continue to build on it. I think that may be where modern art/design falls apart. People have thrown out the structure with the bath water

I think we could and should continue to push boundaries and attempt new things as much as possible (is there anything that hasn't been done yet?) but we can't forget what it was built on.

[AmishVader]

It makes me think of a book on software by Alan Cooper: "The Inmates are Running the Asylum". His argument is that the problem with software is that too often, the user interface is designed by software engineers, not usability designers.

I'd argue that something similar has gone wrong with graphic design: too much is designed by the layout artist. I mean, the "realism"/airbrush thing is only half the problem: the other part is that most those images look like they were thrown together using a library of images by somebody who knows how to lay out a page, but nothing about composition. (I can say that with the authority of someone who is horrible at composition).

A friend of mine says two clients have called her non-airbrushed designs, "that South Park look". Hmmm.

Tony

[digitaldreammachine]

I think there was a thread on that great Finding Nemo book. I picked up about 5 copies and sent 4 to various friends.

I'm going to look for that Brother Bear book now.

There's a pretty good commercial for the card game Uno up here in Canada that has some cartoon characters - boy and a girl - that look somewhat 50's - 60's style. One of the better ones I've seen.

Lou: Great Links!

STiCKy: Great ad. Wonderful how the Lion really isn't dead, but is looking up at the hunter. And is that supposed to be an African or a monkey? Its certainly no secret that some designs back then were stereotypical - so was Disney, Fleischer Superman and many other though.

[flukec]

I agree with Atomic Terrier that the Japanese are definitely beating us at commercial design.



These designs don't strike me as "retro" in the least. Yet, they're still appealing and fun to look at. Walking through the grocery store in Little Tokyo in Downtown LA is so much more refreshing(if you can stand the fish smells) than a trip to your local grocer.

I dont know what went wrong with American design. Though, I dont think it can be blamed only on the garish 3-d rendering, because the drawings underneth the rendering aren't all that great to begin with. Take any of the examples posted, Sleeping Beauty, The Grinch Cartoon Cover, etc... In all of this new cover art the contrast and life and appeal have been sucked out of these poorly re-drawn characters. The 3-d rendering is just a final insult to my eyes.

I think those new Disney Golden books are a step in the right direction. Though, things could be taken way more in that right direction. Those covers are just a ghost of the wonderful deisgn work of the first half of the 20th century. What would it take to see a rebirth of that? Maybe it has something to do with artists having little control over their designs. I dunno.

-Luke