A Blog about Cartoons

7,945 notes

Anonymous asked: You're an extremely talented artist that could represent anything. Why do you choose to depict celebrities and iconic figures? I believe your artwork could have so much more merit and can contribute much more to society then just entertainment. You even have your symbol as the golden spiral, which I find rather smug for an artist who creates "fan art". I don't intend to offend, it just greatly bothers me to see such a talented artist create advertisement and I would like to know why.

samspratt:

Oh boy.

"Smug" is arbitrarily thinking that one entire genre of art is less than another. 

"Smug" is anonymous back-handed compliments that insult an entire group of artists while trying to police what I choose to make.

"Smug" is thinking that you bestow merit to art and decide its value or contribution to society — or that it needs to do that to begin with.

"Smug" is believing that advertisements are something that automatically lessens art when some of the best painters and works throughout art history, from Leonardo to Caravaggio to Rockwell and Leyendecker have worked in advertising for clients (churches included).

"Smug" is looking at my portfolio of hundreds of paintings over 3 years that cover dozens of genres, styles, subject matters, clients, and sits everywhere from the internet, to billboards, album covers, magazine covers, galleries, newspapers, movie posters, bus-sides, books, homes of friends, strangers, and celebrities, and still choosing to think that I am one thing — a thing that is just as valuable to me as everything I’m paid for professionally.

"Smug" is being a smug dicklet and throwing in “I don’t intend to offend” to cushion the smug dickletishness of it all.

"Smug" is not seeing a simplistic connection between realism in painting and the golden rule that is genre-irrelevant, but again insulting an entire group of artists while commenting on something you haven’t bothered to understand. 

But most of all, “Smug” is thinking that I, or any artist, owes you anything. We can make whatever we want, however we want to. I will keep making advertisements, I will keep making album covers, I will keep making posters for games and movies, I will keep making all that I’m hired to do and choose to take on, but I will also keep making fan art because despite the merit or value that you’ve decided it has — I want to — and that’s all the reason I need.

Take your soggy waffle compliments and fuck the fuck off. Viva la fan art.

5,738 notes

bombsfall:

tenaflyviper:

The Innovations of Fleischer Studios  

Besides changing the face of animation by bringing the world the invention of the Rotoscope, as well as the concept and animation technique of "Follow the Bouncing Ball" sing-alongs, Max Fleischer and his studio also pioneered a revolutionary technique in animation, known as the “Stereoptical Process”.

In this process, a circular, 3-D model of a background - a diorama - is built to the scale of the animation cells.  It allowed for a spectacular sense of depth and dimension, long before Ub Iwerks came up with the Multiplane.   Within the model setup, the animation cells could be placed at varying levels from the scenery, and even between objects, so that foreground elements could pass in front of them, adding to the dimensional effect.  It was an effective method for panning and tracking shots, which would require a turn of the table with each photographed cell of animation.

The process was used in many of the studio’s cartoons, particularly in their longer, “two-reel” shorts, such as Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor (1936), Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves (1937), and Betty Boop in Poor Cinderella (1934) - the only color (albeit in two-strip Cinecolor), theatrical cartoon ever made starring the iconic animated songstress, which features her as a redhead!

So interesting :D

Possibly my favorite thing to happen during that period of animation.

(via wilwheaton)