Eisenberg and Hazelton* Contrasted

Harvey Eisenberg's natural style was fairly traditional - basically very rounded characters like 40s animation: Tom and Jerry. When he started having to draw comics using Ed Benedict's more stylized angular characters, he went through a transitional period where he tried to adapt.
His clean compact and controlled compositions were evident right away, but he had some trouble figuring out how to tilt the characters' angular heads at first.
Yogi's perspective doesn't make much sense in the panel above.
His cheats became more subtle as he got used to working in this style.His staging is always very controlled and easy to read.
Gene Hazelton - who had a similar background in animation had some differences in his style. He works more on a part by part design basis. Each individual piece of his picture has a pleasing design and style, but the overall staging and composition is less organized than Eisenbrg's. Drawing your pictures piece by piece, rather than from the big elements down to the smaller ones inevitably leads to a more cluttered look.

I think Gene was more concerned about how the characters looked, and he filled in the trees and background elements in all the spaces left between the characters.
Gene's specialty was stylish cuteness. He was known for his cute kids...

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/old-brew/gene-hazeltons-angel-face.html

Harvey's kids are cute too, but a bit more pudgy, less Valentine's card sweetness - and again he is more concerned with the balance of the composition, the negative spaces, framing of the characters and readability and flow of the whole picture.
Gene is also known for his cute women.
Here's Gene with a less cluttered composition. With cute fishies.Here's Harvey showing off perspective and his easy organization (hierarchy) of a lot of detail.
I loved these strips when I was a kid and thought that the artists must be animators, because the comics seemed to have elements of modernity, appeal and style that was more evident in animated cartoons than in the general comic strip style - which was traditionally more stiff.

http://allthingsger.blogspot.com/2010/06/bear-with-me-tuesday-comic-strip-day.html

another giveaway:

Eisenberg - these men have overall forms that are pulled along the lines of action. Their details- hair, clothes, arms, facial features all are kept tightly conformed to their dynamic overall statements.http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/05/eisenberg-subtleties-studies.html

Below are Gene Hazelton's men. They have lines of action too, but less direct. Their details are sticking out more and breaking up the overall flow and statement. - but each individual detail - the shape of the eyes, the fingers etc. have interesting angular shapes.
Each part of that phone receiver draws attention to itself, but the parts contradict each other and break up the overall shape of the phone.

Harvey thinks from big to small. Gene thinks from small to small and hopes it all adds up in the big picture.

*** Mark Christiansen thinks that the art I'm attributing to Hazelton here is actually Iwao Takamoto. He could be right, although it looks to me like Hazelton at least did the finishes and the faces.

Either way, these are all great cartoonists and the differences between Eisenberg and the other artists are still evident.

Thanks Mark!

http://www.markscartoonart.com/

Mark is a wonderful cartoonist too, so go check his blog...

Character Design 3: Layout Artist With Versatility, Conservatism, Style and Control

This drawing was not done by the designer, but it took design ability and drawing skill to do it. A lot!

All Ed gave the artists was this:
2 poses!The model sheet pack for Yogi Bear in 1958 was 2 pages high. As opposed to our 6 foot stacks of paper that we call models today and force hundreds of artists to strictly adhere to, no matter how stiff and ignorant the drawings are.
Even in 1965 there were still cartoonists who could really draw, that weren't abstracted specialists on an a broken assembly line. The last gasp before the hippies came.

Gene Hazelton (and the others who did these comics) were less specifically "character designers" than they were great draftsmen with style. They could draw just about anything - and from any angle. They didn't need all the poses and angles of the characters spelled out to them in model sheet packs.This is drawing functionally-drawing scenes on command. It requires more than raw talent or design sense. Yeah, these are very stylish and that's great - as a final topping to the strong compositions and solid drawing.I used to be impressed by fancy sketchbooks that young cartoonists showed me and have hired many cartoonists on that basis alone. I am more wary now. Even if you have raw talent, drawing one-eyed monsters and half naked girls floating in space is a far cry from being able to sit down and draw a careful scene of some event on purpose. ...That has very specific needs of staging, storytelling, continuity and a hundred other skills.
These panels are stylish yet very conservative at the same time. Conservative in the use of extreme self-control - in making the picture say what it's supposed to say and say it clearly and with finesse.
Granted, the stories aren't very funny or interesting, but then most comics and cartoons aren't. But if it was a funny story, artists like these would only make the story more powerful.

I could have the most talented sketchbook or Deviant Artist in the world working for me (and there are lots of them), but if he couldn't draw a folding chair in perspective on a beach he wouldn't be able to do this scene. He would sit and stare at the paper for days, or scribble madly hoping by some stroke of luck that a good looking picture might appear. I've seen it happen many times. Forcing some artists to be functional is just too much for them. They have been praised so long for their abstract sketchbook drawings, that controlling their pencils and forcing them to do something on purpose and on command is just too stressful and depressing.
Studios used to have a solution for this. They started beginners artists as assistants to already functional artists and they learned from the ground floor up. Now you gotta learn everything on your own and that's hard to do.

This above panel looks more like Iwao or Jerry Eisenberg than Hazelton, but who knows? All those guys could really draw.
Whether you like Hanna Barbera characters and their cartoons or not is besides the point. I am sure these artists could do anything I (or any other director) asked of them, and I could push them to be more exaggerated. Tex sure did.
These boxes are very slightly off-kilter, but only enough to make them cartoony and stylish, not enough to make them wonky or to confuse the viewer as to what positions they are inhabiting in space.
These layouts use all the principles and techniques I talk about. All the positive areas-the trees, the leaves, the characters are full of variety and interest-but they are all separated by spaces that are just as interestingly designed.
The poses are varied. They have lines of action and opposition to each other. They are asymmetrical, yet controlled and solid. This is an exercise of extreme balance. It takes an artist who is also a complex thinker to pull off layouts like this.

That's a nice down shot of the kid's head. It's not cheated like in modern cartoons where you just take a 3/4 head pose and tilt it down, making the character look like his neck is broken.
The spaces and the trees accentuate the exaggerated perspective of the ladder. The whole picture is designed, not just the character.
I love the shape of that mountain in the background. Its very subtle curves really make it seem huge and far away. The whole scene would be very difficult to draw, but Hazelton's flair makes it all look simple carefree and easy, like swimming with brand-name protection.
How many character designers can draw a solid simplified motorcycle?
Let alone in perspective.
Ranger Smith is sporting some fine bitch tits in this careful composition. This is surely Hazelton. You can tell by the cuteness of the mom and the kid. (How did Smith get such a hot wife?)
These trees and the composition really look like Eisenberg, but the characters don't. I'm confused about how they made these comics!
I always loved the title lettering in the HB comics. It was different and stylish every week. Nowadays, the marketing department demands that each show and character have an official trademarked title logo. Someone explain this oddity to me. Isn't variety more fun than stale sameness? Smells like lawyers ruining all the fun again.
These are definitely Hazelton kids. Drawing a running crowd and making everyone read clearly is not a simple task.
How many artists today would crap if the director came in and said "Draw a train in perspective screeching to a stop and partly coming off the rails."? I know I would! I'd make Vincent do it.
Anyway, I would trade a thousand "character designers" for 2 great layout artists with style. Hopefully someone out there can see why.

Thanks to Chris Lopez for digging up more great and rare treasures of cartoon art.
http://comicrazys.com/2009/12/18/yogi-bear-sundays-1965-1967-gene-hazelton/

Stylish Flintstones Comics

Chris Lopez has done us another great turn. I don't know where he gets these old comic strips, but it's generous of him to share them with the world.
I loved these comics when I was a kid. I'm more critical of them now, but still enjoy looking at them. I wish I had them all.
Most of the drawings are probably Gene Hazelton (according to Chris they might be Dick Bickenbach) but both had very pleasing, sedate but somewhat modern styles.
Someone drew a good dead Fred.
This looks like an Ed Benedict character. He told me he ghosted for awhile in the 60s.
I love the great lettering in the comics. The title lettering was always a thrill. Unfortunately these are from truncated versions of the strips that leave out the title panels and possibly other panels. What a crime!
I have been spoiled by widened tastes and discovering many more great cartoonists over the years. Harvey Eisenberg's careful compositions and perfectly balanced poses make me think of these comics as being kind of clumsy by comparison. Milt Gross' wild layouts and funny posing makes this stuff seem really tame to me now.
I think the big difference between strips that catch on and strips that may be great, but not so popular is character. I'm of the opinion that a wide audience reacts best to cartoons about characters, rather than mere genius of execution - or even humor. They'll take mild humor with strong characters over hilarity with weak characters.

Milt Gross, Harvey Kurtzman, Geo. Herriman all did brilliant work, but never created strong characters that the public could latch on to. Segar, a lesser draftsman than all mentioned created Popeye, Olive Oyl, Wimpy, Bluto and a host of interesting characters who could carry long stories and many stories. That's the key. He has drawing skill for sure, but is not as adventurous visually as the other guys.


The Flintstones were such strong and distinct characters on TV, that they didn't need to be executed brilliantly in order to last 3 decades. A mere 6 seasons were played over and over again forever because the public got the characters. They seemed like real folks and people like to hang around with characters more than with geniuses. Same thing can probably be said about Peanuts. Or the Simpsons. I've never thought much of the meandering stories and weak gags in the Simpsons, but I sort of understand how the public got used to the characters through sheer exposure. It's on 12 times a day. It eventually became like visiting your neighbors and befriending them. Even if your neighbors are boring, they are easily accessible and recognizable, so you enjoy their company through familiarity and habit.

Tex Avery on the other hand is an obvious genius, an innovator and very funny, but he never achieved the popularity of the Warner Bros. characters or even Tom and Jerry, who are barely characters at all - but at least they never go away. People got used to T&J because it's all Bill and Joe made for almost 20 years. Tex never settled on any strong characters and it robbed him of the acclaim and riches his greater talent deserved.

The Flintstones comics weren't funny and didn't match the show concept exactly, but were stylish enough to look at and our already strong familiarity of the likeable TV characters made us enjoy the strip version - at least until it got too influenced by late 60s comic strip styles and no longer had any resemblance to the Flintstones. I love silhouette panels in comics and the odd time they do it in animated cartoons. It really tests an artists' skills to make something read clearly in silhouette.
Familiar characters done reasonably well give us comfort. Genius makes us feel and think - or run away if we are kind of stupid. Some folks just want to relax and forget about the day's troubles.

I like Clampett because he gives us everything - fantastic characters and funny stories with great execution.

Hey do me a favor, willya? Type in "Clampett" in that Ligit search slot at the upper right of the blog and see what happens. I'm doing a test.

http://comicrazys.com/2009/10/23/the-flintstones-sundays-1965-1966-dick-bickenbach/