Cartoons are the underdog of the art world. Their intention is always to cause some level of unease and offence, whether the cartoonist will admit it or not.
The artist is held in high regard within society for his ability to see what 'others' cannot; his eye and his paintbrush can pick out hues others would pass over, his hand can sculpt extremes others can't even fathom. What interests me most about cartoons and cartooning is that the role of the artist in this case isn't to draw what others can't see, the cartoonist draws exactly what everyone else sees but are too negligent to detail. Be it Charlie Brown's cynicism or the goofy overbite of a caricature, the cartoonist's role is not to show people anything new, or to widen the audience's view of the subject, but to play on the knowledge they already have though perhaps don't realise, or choose not to realise at least. Cartoons show you stuff you already know but try not to mention.
Ages ago I read an article on The Simpsons which, when considering the numerous throwaway jokes littered throughout each episode that you don't even notice half the time, referred to it as a show "clearly made by cartoonists". This observation shows just how integral attention to detail is to cartooning. Though you might consider a totally photo-real drawing of a man's face to be the most 'lifelike', in my opinion cartoons are far more accurate in their reproduction of life, showing us what we really see, addressing every minor detail, beyond the literal transmission of information between the eye and the page. The Simpsons have yellow skin, yet people forgo qualms such as this and end up assigning far more credibility and believability to their world than they ever would to a universe of supposedly 'lifelike' realisations such as Eastenders for instance (I know Eastenders isn't presented as 'real', but you know what I mean and I couldn't think of any examples). I think this is due to the accuracy with which their world is drawn, something unachievable through any other medium. The cartoonist has full control over his viewer's eye, whereas many other disciplines leave the viewer to see what he wants.
Yet still cartoons are the whipping boy of the art world. Call it bad luck, but through the various arts courses I've partaken in over the past few years, I've always ended up feeling my tutors and fellow students didn't quite see cartooning as a credible art form. It's no secret that you'll never find people more narrow-minded than at an art school but I am always shocked at just how little validity these people assign to cartooning. I regularly find myself almost embarrassed explaining to these people that my chosen is cartooning, inadvertently submitting to the assumption that just because they strive for realism, classicism, fashion or modernity in their work, it somehow lends it greater significance and credibility.
I have a hard time pinning down what it is people resent about cartoons so much. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that it goes against many of the rules other drawing disciplines abide by. Unlike most, where there is a heavy emphasis on direct reference, with cartooning a large chunk of reference comes out of the cartoonists head. Obviously cartoons couldn't exist without reference and some styles are just as reliant on it as any other kind of drawing, but my point is that with a lot of cartoons there is far less weight given to this reference and far more breathing space given to interpretation and intervention. I didn't learn to draw by sitting there doing endless observational studies of my cat, I learnt to draw by being bored in maths. My maths teacher resented it then, and my art teachers resent it now. For another exmaple on a more technical, literal level, outline is a big problem for a lot of people. Every good art teacher will tell you outlines are the work of Satan, which I found pretty conflicting growing up, due to outlines being the cartoonist's best friend.
It's the latent pissing all over artistic convention like this that I think so many non-cartoonists have a problem with.
Considering the literal process of drawing, for a long time I thought cartooning (my chosen style at least) came down to a series of shorthand symbols, with the task being to simply learn each of these shorthands; an ear looks like this, mouths look like this, etc. etc. much like learning the words of a language, which you would then combine to make a comprehendable utterance, or image.
I still think of cartooning as a language, but I think my analogy relied on an incorrect analysis of language. On some levels I think cartooning relies a lot on shorthand drawing techniques, but arranged and linked together in a more complex way than I previously assumed. Just the same as spoken languages consist of more than words simply slapped next to each other; you have components such as intonation, accent, inflection, dialect etc. all combined together to make a fully flowing utterance, so too are the shorthand techniques of cartooning linked together with an unlimited array of variables to create a composite, coherent image. A comprehension of these variables, as oppose to the base components, is I think where the mastery lies.
Obviously there are many more facets to be conquered in becoming a successful cartoonist, it's not all down to just simplified symbolic drawing. The biggest being life reference, which clearly enters heavily into things at one point also. I don't want to come across as ignorant of classical drawing, in fact the opposite is true, nothing saddens me more than people who refuse to open their minds to other art forms, as to be a fully-rounded artist in any field, you obviously need to have your finger in a lot of pies. Not to totally contradict myself or anything...
I consider earnestly-drawn cartoons to generally be far more personal an art form than most others. A cartoonist's cartoons often look a lot like the cartoonist themselves, inheriting features and mannerisms in much the same way as a child does from its parent. I have chubby cheeks, a big head and large round eyes and whether I mean to or not, naturally lean towards drawing cartoons with chubby cheeks, big heads and large round eyes. A gaunt, shadowy-faced chap in my class (the only other cartoonist) draws mostly... gaunt, shadowy-faced people. It might not be overly obvious to a third party, but taking a close look at your own cartoons, you can often pick out your own reflection. It's almost spooky once you start noticing how all this time what you've really been doing is subconciously hiding your own face within your drawings. Makes sense though; you see and touch your own features all day long, it follows that you would end up using your own self-obsessed narccissitic ugly joke of a face as a point of reference.
I am still trying to put my finger on what it is that separates a 'normal' drawing and a cartoon of something, where the line is drawn (no pun intended). I think a large component doesn't so much come down to analysing the end product in terms of style, line quality, formal elements etc. but instead the context and attitude in which it was created and has been placed.
---
0 comments:
Post a Comment