Thursday, May 16, 2013

shu fa

I was just looking for 2 sets of written calligraphy for Shenshu's reference from two poems.
I ended up taking up 1.5 hour taking in other side references.
One of the constant problem that I have with Shenshu is the amount of scattered references and endless research pit. In a way, that's a good thing, but sometimes it's hard to stop and just do it.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

ugh, no more cell shading


That's it. Edepth is not going to have cell shading on the next chapter. I can't take it anymore. >.<
Now that i look back... it does look like I change medium on this manga every 6 chapters or so... or shorter.

D:

Even though its not really good for the manga series to be unsteady with the medium, I need to stay inspired.

This isn't some goddamn animation where I have no choice but to color cell shade other wise die from extra workload etc. 

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Attack of the boobs

parody version of

Shingeki no Kyojin OP


Just book marking!

Fire Emblem - awakening


I think after playing Fire Emblem I should be able to promote myself from a casual gamer to a normal gamer.
(Used to never play strategy RPGs, just watching) 

It was encouraging to know something like Fire Emblem series still work in the main stream market (like how it sold out of all physical copies in the US) 
It's a direction I can think about and model after with my stories. 
BTW, I really want to draw that poster now. XD

Saturday, March 30, 2013

The Croods didn't work *spoiler*

The family film that got way too family, the groods

Now I feel like one of those people who won't write until I see something that's not working.

I didn't have high hopes when I saw the advertising... but I like Dreamworks, I like their films in most cases just like I like Pixar. So I gave it a chance, paid my 13 dollars to see this "family" film in 3D.

I noticed only adults laught, none of the children were laughing in the theater .. but my sample size is extremely small so it's not quite as accurate.
But apparently even though this film is full of slap sticks, nothing was funny enough to build up too much, except with a few cough ups exceptional funny moments. Particular with the Belt character. He's probably my favorite in the film.

I think the reason why this film didn't work was character writing... There are so many characters, so there's no focus. The most interesting part was probably between the struggle between the Dad and the New Guy.

Yet the show was originally going to focus on the Dad with the Daughter.
1 hour 20 mins.... there's not enough time for 2 conflicts to build up and be both resolved convincingly.
I wished they spent more time on the writing and storyboard and figure out their true focus on this film.

I personally thought... if the New Guy wasn't quite that nice and innocent, play a bit of anti-hero and be a bit more strategic with politic within the family, he can easily play the simple minded family around a bit more toward his own advantage despite their brute might, his position to get in between the father-daughter conflict would be more interesting.

Perhaps the audience will also side with the Dad, not so one sided with Guy hoping for "NEW" things, really see the DANGER the Dad was so desperately trying to keep the family away from and truly make that survival sense shine... and thus will make the big reveal about the Guy's background much more intense and more convincing, leading upto the final moment.
However, I did find the last resolution to the Dad's plot a bit weak..... even though it's entertaining.
This film also has some really really bad one liner... I understand it's writing a bunch of uneducated people, but the writer could never quite get into their skin. If there's going to be bad one liner, make that funny. Don't make it important.

There's a real threat here, a real threat any Dad, any family would be scared of... The earth is changing, it's giant earthquake, the end of the world....

The Groods also failed to build up the sense of danger in the scope of the film when in the background, the world is changing, something very intense is happening, the characters gave no sense of that.
It felt as if the writers themselves can't believe in the world. Playing with survival and danger.... they wanted to bring in a comedic tone to the whole thing, which is not a bad route to take for stories... but failing to build up on the conflict is a killer for the film. The conflict in the film can be introduced with one line... It's WAY too simple. I understand its a film for children, but adults are there to help them learn. I feel the film makers can feel more at ease about bringing in slightly more complicated situation in a family we will see. Children see the complicated adults everyday.... why not give them a chance to learn something new? I believe that's what children films are for.

Clearly, the story failed to resonate .. it's really regretful because the visual is stunning, the colors and imaginative designs of the creatures were a lot of fun, and they have a cute touch to them, I also really enjoyed the 2D in the beginning. I do find the 2D style a lot more charming than the 3D adaption of the 2D character. I would have loved seeing more work on the style too of the 3D film.

If only they worked on the story more.... The Groods have something interesting to offer, but thoroughly missed the gold nugget that could have made it a moving film.

I also feel this is probably a script right before a really good script, if only it was worked on it more. 

Monday, March 25, 2013

Why Do people confuse diversity with originality?



I see it time and time again. Especially from people who try to talk youngsters out of doing a particular style they are into. The current target is anime. (Cartoon is out of the picture for now...)

"Anime is not original."
"Do your own style."
"Do you have your own style?"
"Do realism, don't do anime because ..... (list 1000 reasons.)

So you are basically saying... Do cartoon or realism, your choice, just don't do anime.
Why?

Because it's what Japanese do, you are not Japanese, are you?
Why don't you tell them don't do Disney style because it's not their style?

May I just categorize that as a form of nationalism rather than true logic for an artistic development?

What really develops a style?
Is anime really that bad or just a national enemy because it's an iconic style from Japan?

------
For the sake of the argument, these words will be identified as such: (according to my understanding of the public conception of their meaning when they say the above statements.)


  • Style: A visual arrangement of drawing, painting elements that forms identifiable, consistent iconic features for a series of art pieces by an artist or a group of artists. 
  • Realism: Painted, drawn art styles that very closely, accurately resembles natural, real life subjects. 


OK, let's establish the agreement here I have with this type of view point:

1. Do realism: YES
Every artist who do study art should try at realism, and get good at it. It is the foundation of all illustrative based work.

2. Expand yourself: YES.
Do go beyond what you know right now, study different stuff, different styles, don't just stay around your little box, whether it be anime, cartoon, disney, or realism.

  • I have seen people who can do realism claiming he or she can't draw cartoon. WHY? Because he or she has become so used to realism they can't deduct information from realism to simple lines. 

I also warn against an elitist mind set that can possibly prevent further learning. It's everywhere. Even the most humble artist can have that dark corner. Artists are elitists to begin with, other wise we won't work so hard to master a skill. But if being "elitist" prevents you from widening your skill set, you should be aware of it, and make a choice for yourself, while keeping respect for others.

If a person thinks Disney or Anime is the best style there is, he/she won't bother to learn another style, if they force themselves to try at it, usually they quit without getting it completely, and then bash it, failing to appreciate the actual ingenuity of the style itself and the reason it's well accepted. 



3. Develop your own style: YES.
Developing a style requires a base to start with, like a painting, you start with tubes of colors, or color palette on a computer. There are styles you take from, and merge with to make your own styles.


  • A person can develop multiple styles of their own through out their life time before they reach somewhere they feel happy to stay with. A natural style development includes interest, admiration, challenges that bring satisfaction, and that changes with time. In my years of observing, I find most youngsters move away from the first style they used as base and end up somewhere really different naturally. There's almost no need to sharp-turn them, which is making them abandon the style they were doing and adapt a new style quickly. 
  • However, sharp turning students' style development direction is a good thing, because it causes expansion temporarily. I don't disagree with sharp-turning them and tell them to try different styles immediately. The thing I disagree with is how the elitists do it. 


Now, disagreement:
1. Anime style is not original: YES and NO. It all depends on time period trend, whether you are judging it in its time or outside of it.

Anime style is limited, especially its an established style for animation, based on the trend in the industry.
Can I say Disney is not much better just because tens of thousands, even millions also draw that style without reinventing it because it's a style that's very practical, useful for animation, cartooning, and very it's successful?
Doesn't Disney have it's own acceptable variation with each show? Anime is the same, as well as the so-called realism style.

Can I say Marvel and DC has established a market style too, that renders anyone who draws and follow that trend also less original than perhaps a cartoonist who invented his own scribble style, but will be required to follow it if they desire to enter the industry?
Can I say there's a certain expectation you would have for hyper realism sci-fi?
Or a certain expectations of fantasy elements in all concept art for those MMO RPG games?

Are they less original or are they just designed for the trend and needs of the industry?
Designed for being pleasant on the eyes, being easier to adapt, or designed for excitement?
Can I say even the old UPA cartoons had a particular market trend where everyone must tilt that door or window because of inspiration from Picasso?

Some styles are market trend styles.... they are designed to work for a team. Certain styles work for a team, cross countries, certain styles don't. Anime style is one of them. Formula has its uses. And studying successful formula can't hurt.

Does doing anime make you less employable? 
In certain industry, yes. So artists should study all sorts of styles and find out their range, find out what is preferred, tolerable to them, what isn't. And just choose jobs they can enjoy. Other wise, why be an artist?

Does doing realism really make you more original or creative than anime artists?
I say no. In fact, realism is the style with the most limitations, most rules, and also, the most variation because nature itself is a master we reference. It's the bases for all imagination to work. It's much needed, but knowing how to apply all the techniques doesn't make one more original. But the artwork will sure look awesome, even if its the oldest idea, the most impractical design possible.


Originality for a piece in concept has nothing to do with originality of visual style appeal. Most people seem to have that confused.
An awesome artist who can draw and paint a realistic mermaid with unusual decorative design has originality in design, not the originality in style appeal.

A really original drawing style will be VERY iconic, it might not look pretty, but it will always be recognized, like Yugioh, that's why I like to use his style as example. But is he better than the 5 star realism artist? Not really.

In fact I don't think most people are that interested in an very original style unless that original style just have the right combination to create the next classical trend/era. Most of the most original drawing style stay on the lower end of the popularity scale during their time... Like Van Gogh. His painting style was not appreciated until he died.

In a sense, it's almost better to be less original and more trendy. Originality's value in the market? Maybe 1-2%.... People want something they can see and understand immediately, and just want it a tiny bit different from everyone else so people can tell it's YOU. That's it.
If you are 2-3% different from everyone else, you are not human anymore, you are an ape.... either you are now a monster, or you are a specimen to be studied and marveled at.


To train originality for a style really ought to do with how you combined what you learned your own way. Learning anything in particular only gives you the tool sets, not the originality. Therefore... it's almost better to know more than less, if your plan is to survive as an artist.

In fact, if you enter the industry for art... you might find its not much a place for an artist, it's more of a place for art technicians. Clients often have a very specific vision based on existing series and styles, and even subjects. And your client base depends on how wide, how willing you are to do different styles.

You can be really good at one thing (a market trend style) and be specialists and work in a big company, or you can be one who knows a lot of different styles and adapt any work situations. Or you can just do what you like and hope that people who like the same finds you. Each path isn't easy, how you want to walk it is a completely personal choice. But if you are truly the next Van Gogh that will start the movement of the next era, hats off to you, I am not sure if you will make it in our time. I can only wish you the best.


I personally think the word "Originality" is really overrated, overused, not understood enough in the USA society of arts.