Thank God for Photoshop
Cartoonists have been employing copy machines on repetitive multi-panel cartoons like this one since Mr. Xerox was a boy. Now Photoshop lets us appleC-appleV elements and move them around, making complicated cartoons like this one do-able under tight deadlines.
That said, I always feel an irrational twinge of guilt when I cut-and-paste within a cartoon, as if readers have paid me by the line and insist on their money's worth. For reasons I can't explain, I usually go back in and tweak the characters and backgrounds here and there to give the eagle-eyed wannabes something to examine and form conspiracy theories about. It's a ridiculous game that only the wonkiest among us play, but I find myself wondering whether other cartoonists do the same thing.
I know this blog is read by a bunch of cartoonists. Let's go around in a circle and confess our photocopy sins. Who wants to start?
30 Comments:
Has nothing to do with your question above but having enjoyed your work for years, I thought you might like to know about Michael Yon (if already know him, my apologies). A fellow blogger, Michael Yon, was embedded in Iraq (just came back from Afganistan). Blogs about where he goes and what he sees. Takes the poignant pictures. This one was over a year ago but...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/little-girl.htm
Later...
I've felt that guilt and a result have used the light table to duplicate the first panel. Redrawn, the successive versions have some varying line quality. (That is, until I make them look so much like the original that I should have just photocopied them in the first place!)
My photocopier sin is that I draw all my junk on Post-Its and then blow them up about 400X and trace them off on a light table. I hang my head in shame.
BTW - Today's toon is comic gold!
I've always felt like it was cheating. And besides, I feel like my cartoons are "art" and any shortcuts like doing them on a computer or using photocopiers turns the "art" into a "product." I usually do what John Carey mentioned above. This way I still feel like I've created something instead of cranking something out.
If it's used to positive effect, I have no problem with it (digital duplication). I do take issue with the cartoonists who utilize it on a daily basis, like makin' donuts. Unfortunately, I think Jim Davis's work of the last several years fits this. I doubt he's actually drawn Garfield for decades.
Stephan Pastis (Pearls Before Swine) and Darby Conley (Get Fuzzy) drew a funny riff on this several weeks ago, copying material between their strips.
Granted, I'm from somewhat of a new generation of cartoonists, but I've never felt guilty about photoshopping my work.
I think its almost legitimate to say that a computer or a xerox machine is as much an artistic tool as a pen or a brush these days.
Plus, I havent bought white-out in years!
I'm pretty new to the business, but I use Photoshop a lot to add halftone fill and lettering. I've only used it a couple of times to reproduce bits of complicated artwork.
Computers are tools. As long as it looks good and is funny, I'd respect any cartoonist even if they do 100% of the art on the magic screen.
It may not take the same type of skill, but it still takes skill.
Max Cannon's strip Red Meat is probably the best example of repeated panels in a comic. It's totally funny and the duplicated panels give it style and a distinctive voice.
I can't draw a lick, but I write, and I borrow liberally from myself. It allows me to give a consistency to my writing that would otherwise be lacking.
I tried to do it the honest way, really I did, but what I ended up with was a living diary of what pages were written on which day.
Now, I cut and paste phrases and paragraphs and mimick my own style shamelessly.
marci, you better be careful what you say, BECAUSE THAT'S PLAGERISM!
YOU BETTER BE CAREFUL WHO YOU SPRAY THAT INFORMATION TO.
Plagerism is wrong, and its illegal.
You should be disgusted by yourself, Marci.
As a cartoonist on hiatus, doing more writing, my first love, and enjoying my new Grandchild, Maddison,I tried to single-panel everything, right to the point, crisp drawing, short caption and "let 'r rip."
I learned to trust my instinct, tell a story and see where it ended up. Once stamped and submitted the cartoon stood or fell on its own. A cartoonist quickly learns to develop "thick skin." Controversy is always at his right-hand-side.
Someone's using my name. Funny!
Get your own gig.
To prevent further embarrassment to myself, I've officially registered.
And to the poser: it's "plagiarism"...sheesh...
I like my cartoons to have "original" artwork that exists in its completed state in "the real world", whatever that means. It seems to me like the difference between an actual painting, and a print or a poster, you know?
I always feel a little guilty on the occasions when I do have to copy something or manipulate something with Photoshop (lettering with legibility issues, for instance), because I can't help but think of that Calvin and Hobbes where Calvin is talking about his grandpa complaining that all the modern funnies are "nothing but a bunch of xeroxed talking heads", and that makes me sad, because unless it's in service to the joke, as it was there, I don't want that to be me.
Photoshop is an invaluable tool that can save dozens of hours. Copying panels once-in-a-while is okay. The problem in doing this is that the artwork becomes stiff and the dialouge will suffer. People may not be consciencously aware of it, but the repetition will affect how the precieve the cartoon.
Doing it occasionally won't create problems. If you use it as a crutch and people should start calling you Bruce Tinsley.
Jim Borgman uses an Apple?!?! Say it ain't so Jim! Say it ain't so!
{recomposing myself}
My last photochop was when Mike Brown, formerly of FEMA, was taking it on the chin about Katrina. So I decided to have a bit of fun with his likeness. Enjoy!
http://www.phydeux.com/boardpics/brown.jpg
http://www.phydeux.com/boardpics/brown2.jpg
The real power of a political cartoonist in my eyes is to develop the joke. While I could only aspire to draw like Borgman, what I try to do is get better at encapsulating a big idea into a small panel.
So don't feel guilty about how you get there...
What is the purpose of a political cartoonist in today's media? Do readers want to see art from an artist working on the newspaper's staff or do they prefer to read a joke written by a staff writer? This has been a long-lasting dilemma of political cartooning. The cartoonist can either draw but is not funny or the cartoonist is hilarious but can't draw. In my opinion, DaVinci and Picasso would have been tremendous political cartoonists. Neil Simon and Woody Allen are great comedic writers who can't draw. Why would anyone consider Simon and Allen as legitimate cartoonists simply because they had access to photoshop? In my opinion, the most effective cartoons are drawn without using any words. One example would be Borgman's 1987 cartoon on AIDS when he drew the Grim Reaper pushing a stack of dominoes.
Deadlines are unforgiving, and if it's your own work that is being reproduced, it matters not.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Agreed - deadlines are unforgiving.
I had a grand total of 16 minutes to churn this one out (below) last week after my other cartoon was dropped at the last minute on legal grounds.. plant the stake in the ground and start the fire..
http://www.jasonchatfield.com/20060524_SouthFreo.html
PS - I think apart from Max Canon's "Red Meat", Garfield has got to be one of the worst culprits out of anyone..
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE REUBEN JIM!
Well done mate; Well earned.
more important than the 'originality' of your drawings is the ideas you put with them. those are always good.
Think again, Jason.
I know for a fact "Garfield" artists do not use paste-up, Xeroxes or Photoshop tricks in the comic strip.
They're just that good.
Again, congrats to Jim, my half-step cartoon brother.
On Baby Blues, when I have panels that are unchanged, I'll ususally make a photocopy and trace it on the light box, which introduces some natural variation in the drawing. I've been doing a lot more work without a light box lately, drawing my roughs directly on the boards, and in most cases, I will just try to challenge myself to redraw the identical panels as closely as I can without the photocopy.
It's a guilt thing, for sure. I have a nagging feeling I have it backwards, though. If I were smart, I should feel guilty because I don't allow myself more free time by taking advantage of the tools available to make it easier.
Man, this post-Reuben sleep deprivation is wreaking havoc on my spelling.
Has anyone seen today's cartoon by Mr. Lalo Alcaraz?
The one with the wall and the torch?
He could save some time if he bought a photocopier.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but Rick Kirkman, I love Baby Blues. Thanks for stopping by our little part of the internet world.
This looks so amazingly familiar. It's the Alcaraz comic that I was talking about before.
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20060523/lla060523.gif
What does Jim Borgman have to say about the wildly similiar cartoon
by Alcaraz?
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home