AVC: It's hard to pinpoint any hard influences on The Cars besides old-time rock and maybe krautrock. What were you listening to then?
RO: As a songwriter, oddly enough, my influences were people like Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, and Buddy Holly. Some psychedelic stuff, too. Back then, there wasn't a lot of press on bands. There was Creem and Rolling Stone, and that was about it. There certainly wasn't the Internet. You would stay in your basement and create something and then come out. You didn't have anything to rub off on. You didn't know what the band down the street was doing, because you couldn't look it up, and you couldn't see it on TV. I think people tended to come out with things that were different because they weren't influenced by their environments as much. I find these days, you almost have to force yourself to stay in a vacuum to become different—if you really want to be different. Maybe you have to have something different inside of you as well.
This got me thinking about how this applies to art and cartooning. The internet has made available such a wide variety of material, but instead of creating diversity, it seems to have created a kind of "blandization" or homogenization in art, music, movies, and culture in general.
What do you think?
.jpg)
1.jpg)
hNJ)pQ~~60_3.JPG)
.jpg)
33 comments:
I thought Ric ocasek sung this.Now I know better. Thanks.
I think it it slightly different for art and cartooning. Since from the beginning most of the top artist were widely published. Also, Cartooning and illustration has a long tradition of using swipe files and reference "morgues" so influence is more of a positive tradition in cartooning and illustration. I think despite the influences the top artist always rise to the top to influence even more artist. I think the key has always been to find your own voice and incorporate your influence to make something new. For Example, Calvin and Hobbes is obviously influenced by Winsor McKay, Pearcy Crosby and Charles Shultz. But. is so different from it's influence that's it's new and wonderful. I think the problem you are talking about is because we are not just seeing the top artist but all of them.
The Cars rock!
Interesting question. I don't think it's generally true because of the way 1 + 1 (can) = 3 in creative arts - an idea inspired by two others can be greater than the sum of the parts, so influence played a key role but diversity was the result.
I suspect a greater challenge will emerge some years from now when algorithms that recommend content get very smart and will tend to confer significant attention on work that is similar to other successful work. The notion of 'selling out' suddenly becomes a whole lot more nuanced.
Or perhaps we can just hard code our desire for diversity.
I agree... look at flash cartoons.
I heard once that Jamie Hewlett didn't look at any bugger elses cartoony pictures as he thought it would taint his own work.
For my point of view I know it's true... i look at hunt emerson stuff and i draw like that... your stuff the same... lambey's stuff, same.... John K.... and on and on. i would never have even heard of Shane Glines if it wasn't for the internet and in particular, the drawingboard.... and your influence would never have ended up in pictures
"Since from the beginning most of the top artist were widely published."
The mainstream artists were, but there was an exciting underground, with artists like Crumb, Peter Bagge, John Waters, David Lynch, etc., that created diversity, as well as fed inspiration into the mainstream. With the internet, there is no underground.
S.
Going down my blog list, do you think the average guy on the street can tell the difference between Ren & Stimpy or the Mighty B? My drawings or Bill Presing or Justin Coffee's? Ice Age or Horton or Monster's vs Aliens? Shannon Tindle and Shane Prigmore? Kali Fontecchio and Katie Rice? Darwyn Cooke and Bruce Timm?
This isn't a criticism, I LOVE all those artists, but we're all cannibalizing each other, and I have to wonder what happens when the bones are picked clean.
It's a wonderful miracle that there is so much amazing work so readily available, but I wonder if being exposed to so much hasn't kept us from putting more of ourselves into our work, which I think is the point Ocasek was making.
S.
Is the animation industry looking for originality or a common "look" that sells? It seems you need to be both a great pitch man and artist to make it.
This is a VERY good point. I would argue that our interests have narrowed as there is plenty to seek out in very specific genres (and obsess over). I have 100+ items to go through every day on google reader (all artists in a realm that I've decided "I Prefer")
I do like this thought by Gabriel, though:
"I think the key has always been to find your own voice and incorporate your influence to make something new."
Voice is so much deeper than style (which is surface). I'm particularly fond of Richard McGuire's work because it takes so many forms—and yet, his voice is immediately recognizable and unique.
I do appreciate your challenge to tune out for a bit and see where it takes us.
"Is the animation industry looking for originality or a common "look" that sells? It seems you need to be both a great pitch man and artist to make it."
They will hire you for your originality and then make you or others water down the designs until it looks like everything else.
S.
Just had another thought:
I wonder if the high volume of immediate feedback that the internet provides hasn't contributed to this homogenization.
When I was a teen I used to draw my own comics inspired by Jaime Hernandez and Peter Bagge, and the only people who would see them would maybe be my girl and a couple of buddies. I might put in some joke or references that I knew would make my friends laugh, but mostly they were for my own enjoyment.
Now, everyone on the internet is a superstar, receiving all kinds of comments and praise from hundreds of people on blogs, Facebook, email, etc.
With so many people watching and everyone fighting for attention, I think the natural tendency is for people to produce work that receives the highest rate of approval, "comments" being the currency of the internet.
Unfortunately, the material that generally receives the most attention tends to appeal to the lowest common denominator: Cats playing the piano, school fights, dancing babies, and drawings of Poison Ivy with her boobs out.
S.
What a brilliant post and discussion... Your last comment hits pretty close to the mark, Shane, at least for me.
As a art major struggling to get better, I've gotten into the mentality you describe - working for comments. Sometimes I suspect it's simply for attention, but on a deeper level I think it's a way of validating that I am actually improving at my craft. I really hope people will critique my art and let me know where I can improve. After reading your blog post, I have to wonder whether the suggestions I and other learning artists receive all come from the same style-mentality - whether we will all turn out the same once the Internet says we've fixed everything.
Anyway, not sure that adds anything to the discussion. Guess I mostly wanted to post because this subject got me thinking so hard. Thanks, Shane!
Thanks for the great comments, Clean3d, and everyone else.
I am constantly amazed at the high quality of work being produced by kids right out of school. Technically, the work has never been better. Super slick, great shapes and color, fancy tricks and effects. Everyone with Photoshop and a good eye can now do a competent take on Mary Blair, Mel Crawford, Tadahiro, etc.
It all looks perfect, the colors are right, the proportions are mathematically correct for maximum appeal, but I find myself missing that individual quirkiness and personality that comes from imperfection. When you look at great cartoonists like Kiraz, or Sokol or Roy Nelson you see all these strange quirks- weird feet, odd color choices, a shaky line, or just a general strangeness that may technically be wrong but feels so good because you know it's a reflection of the artist's personality.
This goes for music and films, too.
My favorite director is David Lynch. His movies have gorgeous cinematography, great music and sound, good looking actors, but at heart they are a reflection of Lynch as an artist. They are true to his quirks and personality, and that is what I'm missing and craving lately. Strangeness. Unpredictability. Personality.
I'm bored, and not only with my own work, but most of the rest that's out there as well. I don't even bother to click through to most blogs anymore because I already know what I'm going to see, because I saw it on another blog yesterday, and last week, and last month.
What's the solution?
S.
Dear Shane,
What a great dicussion! The questions you ask are very interesting.
To a degree I have to agree with you. Because of the internet everybody seems to be looking at the same artists for inspiration and because of this a lot of art looks more or less the same. I do think that most art out there on blogs and fora is bland and feels somewhat uninspired.
But it is also important to remember that we humans tend to forget the bad stuff when we’re looking back on past times.
Take a decade like the 70’s for instance. (I wasn’t around back then, by the way but I don’t think it matters for the point i’m trying to make) if you look at popular culture from the 70’s there was an awful amount of ugly stuff being made, in clothing, movies, music or on any other platform. Yet we now remember the 70’s as it is being pictured in movies like Starsky & Hutch (2004): an übercool, campy decade with cool clothing, great music and awesome cars. The same thing happened with the 50’s & the 60’s and is happening with the 80’s & 90’s right now.
It’s true that “the average guy on the street” doesn’t know the difference between Pixar & Dreamworks. But do you think that was any different in earlier times? Could “the average guy on the street” in the 60’s tell you the difference between Kurtzman & Crumb?
You are right when you say that young artists make uninspired art because they are too much focussing on positive comments and hits on their blogs. But that is also a thing of all times, I think. Young people are always looking for praise when they should be looking for criticism. (I’m guilty of this too, I’m 28 now and only the past year have I began to care less about those slaps on the back)
I do think that we are all fishing in the same pool too much, everybody seems to have the same inspirations and is using the same tools. There is a need for more diversity. But I’m pretty sure that inspiring new stuff is also out there. There’s just not as much because there are more mediocre artists then great ones.
But I truly believe that in the end we will only remember that great inspiring stuff -that we maybe haven’t even seen at this time- as being the art of 2010.
I think that the internet has changed one thing; it's made the crap shinier and prettier.
And I think for young artists it's been a great resource. People that aren't confident in their own tastes can just borrow the tastes of someone else. They can mold themselves to be like the artists they perceive as the best. And in lots of cases, this will lead them to success in the terribly close minded animation industry.... But there is no guarantee that they will become truly great.
With the endless amounts of material on the internet, it's easy not to take risks and find your own way. For me it's about finding a way to swim upstream. And it's a slow process.
I'd be lying if I didn't say that watching the countless bland copycat cartoonists receive praises and accolades didn't affect me. I am constantly getting upset and mad at my own abilities and am always question my goals, small or large.
But I've decided that I like the opposition, and I like that not everyone agrees with my opinions.
Anyway.... I think that the cream will always rise to the top. All we can do is hope that we're part of it.
...and my sidebar rant....
The semi recent influx of "how to draw", "how to designs", "how to create appeal", has made me want to break every "rule" in every way I can. All of the guides and tutorials are full of good "tools" but I feel sorry for the people that believe that they are true rules.
....i think I went pretty off topic there.. haha sorry Shane. Great discussion.
I think you made some great points, Phil- and I actually think you're a good example of someone breaking from formula and doing some new and interesting things. And I think shows like Adventure Time and Superjail are perfect examples of the type of work I'm craving. They look and feel nothing like your typical Disney, Dreamworks, Pixar, Nick, or CN product.
Mick and Katie Rice are other good examples of artists taking popular styles but injecting them full of their own personality.
New thought:
Maybe art is becoming homogenized because people are becoming homogenized. When I meet young people today I'm struck by the sameness of them all- the speech patterns, gestures, opinions, clothes... It all seems to come from reality shows and the internet. I guess that's not surprising when you see how media and entertainment has more of an influence on our lives than anything else. It makes me miss all the freaks and weirdo's of my youth.
I'm venturing into bitter old man territory here, railing against "the kids of today..."
S.
Hey Shane,
I agree with the latter comments, that this is a great discussion, and really worthwhile to have because it touches on all forms of art; cartooning, painting, movies, books, music, etc. The internet has changed all of these things, some for the better. 10, 15 years ago, a single person couldn’t make their own film and edit for essentially the cost of owning some really affordable software and a cheap digital camera. Bands that would not have had a chance to put their record out with an actual label can now record an album and put it out via their own website. That's exciting, because it circumvents the record companies and movie studios which have traditionally been the gate keepers.
However, I agree that all of this access has made what is out there somewhat less appealing. When I was in high school there was only one “indie” record store in town. They sold all sorts of punk music, and really strange stuff that was years away from making its way to a mall, and essentially being mainstreamed. The same thing with comics; I loved Eightball and Cerebus and Savage Henry, but I could only find these types of comic books at one store in town. I think having to hunt for these things made it all more sacred to me. These are the things that influenced me the most; I sought them out and was glad I did. I too count David Lynch as my favorite director, and an artist who completely changed the way I look at films in general. Seeing Blue Velvet for the first time split my world open, it made me want to watch German Expressionism and New Wave and Japanese films from the 20s. Now everything is readily available, in an instant, and who knows what or who would have had an influence on me if I was a teenager now. Maybe it’s because I’m nearing 40, but it does get hard to sort what is relevant and what isn’t. I’m not sure what the answer is, or how to break out; it’s like were trapped in one big Tarintino movie in which pop culture is continually being recycled and spit out again and again. Of course, on the flipside, from watching the Flintstones every afternoon as a kid, as well as countless other Hanna–Barbera shows, I tend to draw stuff that looks like I’m ripping off Ed Benedict. So in my case, as well as many others I’m sure, my problem is watching too much TV as a kid.
Dang..yeah..this is a really great topic Shane. I just took one of the most amazing painting and drawing classes of my life.
I put down the books, stopped visiting all the blogs, out of frustration of this same thing. Then I got in this class and everything I was thinking was echoed by the teacher. He said forget everything you know we are starting from the basics. He taught us very strict principals from basic gesture to complex contour phrasing and shading the figure to the point of starting to see how the flesh and muscle falls uniquely over an individual. There was no curves vs. straights talk no talks of rules or formulas. Only principals to take and use in out own way.
Bill Sienkiewicz is my favorite living artist and I really believe this is how he has progressed. He worked under some super masters and still ended up doing his own crazy bad ass work. Even if he does something many wouldn't care for. It is always highly principled and always his own. The Milt Gross stuff you post is very much that same way.
The last point this teacher made that I will mention was about looking at books and other artists. It was simply stop looking at how other people are solving drawing problems. How they are drawing their eyes or hands or how they are applying a technique, what formula or abstract they use to idealize the figure. Instead ask how you can apply the principals you know to solve the problems that lie in front of you.
Personally I'm not that creative but if I can pass on some of the knowledge I've gained maybe someone who has that sort of brain can run in a cool direction with it.
Great post Shane!!!
That sounds great, Craig- I'm envious!
S.
This discussion was leaving me pretty lost, Craig, until I read your post. Hearing a couple of the hints your instructor left you is already helping me to think differently. I can't imagine how awesome it must have been to TAKE the workshop. :)
This topic is one I can't seem to escape or bury for long.
It's hard to deny we're witnessing some cultural homogenization resulting from widespread use of the internet, looking at the same stuff, etc. I reckon this happens whenever there's a major advance in communication.
Using the internet, I can now access a glut of homogeneous material. I do wonder, supposing there was some way to measure "rate of homogenization," if the actual rate would be as great as it seems. Am I witnessing an marked increase in the rate of homogenization or am I witnessing homogeneousness that's been there all along, only now I have better access to the evidence?
Heh, I suspect both're true.
Wandering off topic a bit, my own perception of homogeneousness is increased by the medium of the internet. The instant access, click-and-its-yours experience hinders differentiation. Even the finest imagery is diminished, rendered the same by the viewing experience.
"What's the solution?"
Speaking for myself, I'm browsing the interwebs much less than I did a few years ago and I'm spending more time with old favorites (in print).
Okay, now I'm the one wandering into "bitter old man" territory. :)
Edit: "The instant access, click-and-it's-yours experience hinders differentiation."
Lots of good points here.
I do agree that this is going on, and I'm certain that technology -and the internet specifically- have a lot to do with it.
In the first or second grade, just before Christmas vacation, they'd run some holiday-themed cartoons on an old projector for all us students bunched up and seated patiently on the floor to take in. As a result, I don't know how many times I've seen 'Pluto's Christmas Tree', where Chip and Dale terrorize Pluto and Mickey repeatedly blames and shames him for his antics. When the main titles came up yet again one year I had to express my disgust! The short was ALWAYS on television- CONSTANTLY, it seemed, and here they were showing it to us at school, AGAIN. Why couldn't they have found something else?! I knew nothing of educational budgetary constraints or the difficulty there might be in accessing new material. I was just desperate to see more, and knew there was more to see. And back then I had no real means of finding anything myself.
It was right around this time that a friend in class had mentioned he had a VCR at home. My eyes grew wide with wonder... you could tape cartoons and other shows right off the TV and watch them again and again! Did such a contraption really exist?! This might help explain why I'm as much of an internet addict as the rest of you guys.
So yeah, the culture of today can now be accessed with the click of a mouse. Not just the underground... the High, the Low... pretty much EVERYTHING. As consumers and especially as artists, it's up to us to not be lazy but keep pushing and searching to find new things that both inspire and challenge our creative thinking.
For the most part I am amazed with the work coming from younger people today. This is in no small part due to all that's been made available to us. I'll never forget the first time I saw Roy Nelson's work, or Ana Juan's, or any number of others. If those moments seem far and few between these days, maybe it's because you're bored with what you have. Or because you need to look harder. Or elsewhere. And that could be anywhere, like Jon suggests, not just here on the internet. Go into the world and find stuff... push further than what you see in old magazines and films and music videos. Talk to people. Listen to their stories. Try to remember vividly the details of your life... what make you who and what you are today. Then if you should you find something exciting or cool, the temptation will be too great, and you'll want to share it with everyone... and the whole process begins again. Maybe what's missing for some of us is that we're not DOING enough with what we've found before sharing it with the rest of the world. We're not processing it enough before spitting it back out.
And I'm sure this last part will drive some of you up the wall.... but I should add that these days I kinda LIKE 'Pluto's Christmas Tree'. It's charming and quaint, and I can go look at a whole lot of other stuff later now too if need be the case.
"Maybe what's missing for some of us is that we're not DOING enough with what we've found before sharing it with the rest of the world. We're not processing it enough before spitting it back out."
I like this comment very much, Marc. Thanks.
wow! i've been wanting to put this into words for some time now! Thank you! The closest I ever got to was: "If you want to keep your creativity (perhaps even originality) dont look at someone elses work." However that was way too simplified, open ended, and loop hole-y. Thanks again!
I have been sitting and reading all the comments in this long and interesting desiccation
And I have to say that I disagree with your basic declaration about today's line of artists and the internet.
You made a point that people can not distinguish your art from Bill Presing or Justin Coffee's art, I have to agree, and I find it had to see the differences
but most people couldn't see the difference between the paintings Alfred Sisley, Camille Pissarro, Jean Frédéric Bazille and Claude Monet, and this doesn't lower it's value,. They are all great artists in there own rights.
All artist in any time in history are bound to create something that looks like something done by others who take there inspirations from the same places.
TV, comics, art and cinema always had the same influence about artist as you describe in your post.
The only difference is that the internet gives you a wider range of choices.
With out the internet I couldn't have been reading Rip Kirby comics and Walt Stanchfield lectures about animation, and I wouldn't know who you are, and this dissection wouldn't have taken place.
I think the problem is …Although it seems that every one is doing the same thing, the people who post there art in I blogs and on the internet represents only a small fraction of the artists of the world, most of the blog posters are sealed with in this prison, and spend too much time looking at what other people do, things that are practically the same as what they do.
That is why I like your blog so much, you rarely show your own work, and help expose people like me to years of professional creation I couldn't have been exposed to other wise.
Another big problem is that too much people are doing illustrations and character designs for the sake of doing pretty illustrations and character design and forget that those are only tools too tell an interesting story. They can not stand by them self as art does.
That is why they lose there relevance to normal people who are not involved in the comics and animation industry.
I LOVE that we have so much access to art on the internet. My grievances are similar to Gad. Despite there being a breadth of information, I think everyone is tackling the same questions.
On the content side, the corporate studios ask the questions. What characters can you come up with that will be appealing for kids, can be entertaining in a room by themselves, etc. And studios have a strict criteria for what they think will fufill that, so we as artists pander to that. It's no wonder that television show after television show and feature film after feature film rehash the same formulaic stuff with a slight twist. The studio is asking the same question, and we've found a great answer that works.
On the design side, corporate budgets ask the questions. There's the economic models that restrict what's plausible. For television it's easier to just have snappy, posey Flash type animation. Flat designs don't require as much draftsmanship, and lends itself to be tweened. The designs become formulaic because there's no room to experiment.
But nobody asks their own questions. I was shocked to see how few people work on their own projects when I entered the industry. I mean, their own consumable products, like a finished film or comic. Everyone does doodles or whatever, but I"m talking about something for an AUDIENCE. For all the talk on the internet that I've read about how things could be better, very very few people put their money where their mouth is and SHOW that it can be done. Or try something new themselves. It's like in art school how there were talented students that were going to obviously get jobs, and then there were students who were the critics.
I think the most interesting stuff is coming out of independent projects (Nick Cross, David Gemmill, Perry Bible Fellowship) or studios that are willing to change their questions (Adult Swim picking up Superjail... which Augenblick Studios tested the concept before... INDEPENDENTLY!).
I really appreciate all that you do for the animation community, but I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, Shane. I couldn't be more excited to live in a time where I have access to all the great artists, I have access to a program (Flash) that let's me animate, cleanup, and color animation (what it would take a team of 60 people to do at Flieschers), and I have every opportunity in the world to learn and produce WHATEVER I want.
Don't get down, you're doing a great service. Just know that you might not find inspiring work on blogs and within the animation community. Working in studios can give you cultural tunnel-vision, methinks. We have more opportunities and knowledge than ever before. We just can't lose our drive!
I'm surprised he doesn't acknowledge Roxy Music. Then again, amybe he wants to keep that particular pandora's box shut....
KK777一夜激情聊天live show成人自拍貼圖自慰少婦自拍裸體圖片台灣色情成人網站情人視訊網情色留言板視訊美女免費視訊聊天室限制級極度震撼情色論壇色情特區自拍裸女貼圖潮吹性影片觀賞小穴情色片a圖片sex story性愛影片美女做愛成人色情網站性愛圖片成人情色貼圖全裸寫真集圖片走光圖女生陰毛自慰影片色情av1007成人色情聊天室女生自慰裸體照成人影音聊天台灣色情網站色情片打手槍情色天堂成人視訊聊天免費情色網站av網超性感辣妹激突成人論壇情色視訊聊天鹹濕成人網站av成人論壇免費美女視訊
Hey Shane, this is a great topic with some inspiring posts. As a comic book maker who still has a lot to learn, I find the abundance of blogs like John K's, teaching solid drawing principles (and trying to teach more nebulous concepts like appeal), priceless.
More freely available information on cartoon art means a wider range of influences to use. What I've found on the best blogs has sharpened my mind and helped translate my visions into solid form. But it's only good when I can apply those new skills and concepts to my own work without over-thinking (or it just comes out stiff).
There's a time to fill yourself with rules and influences and a time to follow your instincts. I've found one of the hardest things is separating the two. Your analytical mind can paralyze you (the same way you can put a great athlete off their game by making them think exactly how they do it). Creating now and analyzing later is an important and difficult skill to learn. So I try to learn the fundamentals from the ground up by drilling myself and hoping they sink in, then learning how to get into my own flow.
I find my drawings hollow when I consciously try to apply principles or copy other artist's styles. Partly I think this is because the buzz you get when you create something from within (a sort of ecstatic self discovery) is lacking, so the drawings have less emotional resonance. In this way we're wired to be original. But it is easy to rely on principles and use other people's styles as a crutch, instead of relying on your own instincts. This is especially true when there seems to be no short term financial incentive for originality. When many businesses copy each other for a quick buck and drive out creative competition it seems more swiftly gratifying to do what someone else has done. But it's less rewarding emotionally. And there will always be a hunger for new ideas. We're wired to notice novelty.
Either way I think a greater range of quality influences stimulates the mind and refines the tastes, so long as you filter it through your own personality and use the energy for something constructive.
Blogs like yours and John's and Eddie's are great because they keep your mind spinning with different approaches and a wider range of tools to work with. As long as you don't get caught (as I tend to do) taking it all in and neglect to push out your own. If (like me) you tend to over-analyze, then dwelling too much on analytical blogs and influences is bad. This post of yours is one of the more inspiring because it makes me think about not just how I can learn to appeal like someone else, but maximize the appeal inherent in my own drawings.
One great thing about Lynch (also one of my favorite directors) is that he combines his unique outlook with a high level of craft. He uses his influences and craft to channel his vision, but knows when to bend the rules (especially of storytelling) and let his subconscious reign.
One of my favorite rappers, Saul Williams, said it well: 'the mountain that I'm mining gold out of is me... and I can search outside all I want for definitions... But I've gotta trust in the gold I mine, in its worth...'
I'd like to see more of my favorite artists talking about creative flow. How they use the tools and principles they've learned (rather than letting the tools use them) to create their own projects. Until then I've found these blogs on Psychology Today helpful: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/creating-in-flow.
Check out my blog too, especially if you might have some helpful feedback.
Please excuse the abundance of flabby cliches (like that one) and shoddy syntax in the above ramble. Scratch that. I'll just claim I meant the sloppiness to show the peril of creative flow not followed by rational analysis. Plus, I had to stop wasting time commenting and go create my own.
Post a Comment