I came here to post this. The art on the left represents realistic humans. The art on the right is far more stylized. I'm of the opinion that the stylized art isn't as hard to draw as realistic, and I don't like it as much.
To add to this, the images on the left were likely all hand drawn, where as the images on the right were likely all done on a computer. The reason this is important is that the characters on the left had to be drawn by hand hundreds or thousands (I honestly don’t know much about animation) of times, where as on the right they had a computer to help with the animation process. My point being is that not only are the ‘80’s and ‘90’s characters more realistic, but they had to be hand drawn that way to a high level of precision over and over and over. They are not the same.
I'm not really into art, I just know what I like, so I had to look up CalArts Style. TIL:
There’s really no strict definition for what the CalArts style is. It honestly depends on who you ask. In general, though, it’s been used by critics in a derogatory sense to criticize animators for a lack of creativity and a generally lazy approach to animation. It typically involves thin-lined drawings, characters with rounded faces and noodle-like arms and legs, and generic colors and shapes. The characters also typically feature large heads, small bodies, and ovular eyes.
What I found even more interesting, is it the term was coined by the creator of Ren and Stimpy, and he alleges that it's the product of a school-to-work pipeline between the California institute of the Arts and Disney. Basically these people are just lazy animators because they know that they will get a job when they graduate. Interesting.
One other thing I've seen of the style that again fits with "lazy animators" is the flatness of the illustration - left side, there's shading there, there's extra lines that help you imagine the shape of the head being drawn.
Right side, it's a Mr Potato Head. No definition to anything - presumably, that'd slow down the output, and that's not something the Fun Factory can tolerate...
from how i understand it these awful styles like calarts and that one corprate clipart like one are desigend to be easy to learn and replicate so as to make artists using it easily interchangeable and replaceable.
You know exactly what I mean. Anyone that can draw the GI Joes on the left can draw Peppa Pig, but the reverse isn't true. Fuck, I can draw Peppa Pig and probably half of the characters on the right.
Art colleges don't even teach anatomy anymore. It takes many hours to be able to draw people in their proper proportions and with all the little bulges that show correct underneath muscles and bones.
that's not the argument at all. the argument is that GI Joe style is (objectively) more difficult to draw and that (subjectively) that property gives it more merit.
it's not as cheap as possible. it was as cheap as standards allowed. and as you can plainly see what was "cheap" back then is hell of a lot better than what we've got now, because the standards were changed. deliberately.
I came here to post this. The art on the left represents realistic humans. The art on the right is far more stylized. I'm of the opinion that the stylized art isn't as hard to draw as realistic, and I don't like it as much.
To add to this, the images on the left were likely all hand drawn, where as the images on the right were likely all done on a computer. The reason this is important is that the characters on the left had to be drawn by hand hundreds or thousands (I honestly don’t know much about animation) of times, where as on the right they had a computer to help with the animation process. My point being is that not only are the ‘80’s and ‘90’s characters more realistic, but they had to be hand drawn that way to a high level of precision over and over and over. They are not the same.
There's nothing wrong with stylized characters. The problem is when they're all stylized the same way.
I've heard similar comments regarding the "Cal Arts" style, which doesn't seem well suited to representing human beings...
I'm not really into art, I just know what I like, so I had to look up CalArts Style. TIL:
What I found even more interesting, is it the term was coined by the creator of Ren and Stimpy, and he alleges that it's the product of a school-to-work pipeline between the California institute of the Arts and Disney. Basically these people are just lazy animators because they know that they will get a job when they graduate. Interesting.
One other thing I've seen of the style that again fits with "lazy animators" is the flatness of the illustration - left side, there's shading there, there's extra lines that help you imagine the shape of the head being drawn.
Right side, it's a Mr Potato Head. No definition to anything - presumably, that'd slow down the output, and that's not something the Fun Factory can tolerate...
from how i understand it these awful styles like calarts and that one corprate clipart like one are desigend to be easy to learn and replicate so as to make artists using it easily interchangeable and replaceable.
No one tell him that realism is an artistic style.
You know exactly what I mean. Anyone that can draw the GI Joes on the left can draw Peppa Pig, but the reverse isn't true. Fuck, I can draw Peppa Pig and probably half of the characters on the right.
Art colleges don't even teach anatomy anymore. It takes many hours to be able to draw people in their proper proportions and with all the little bulges that show correct underneath muscles and bones.
Let's not pretend GI Joe wasn't done as cheaply as possible to sell plastic shit to little Bobby.
that's not the argument at all. the argument is that GI Joe style is (objectively) more difficult to draw and that (subjectively) that property gives it more merit.
it's not as cheap as possible. it was as cheap as standards allowed. and as you can plainly see what was "cheap" back then is hell of a lot better than what we've got now, because the standards were changed. deliberately.