Classics

More Genius

Cute chicks in the midst of wacky characters

Great Use Of Positive VS Negative Space

Funny Crowds

Dynamic Perspective

Best Use Of Shapes

Composition

Interesting Panel Designs
Best Biddy designs
Great poses and drapery
Fantastic layout and composition
Strange Happenings

He's the greatest natural cartoonist ever



http://comicrazys.com/2010/03/21/the-complete-milt-gross-comic-books-and-life-story/

Milt Gross Funnies In Print

Milt Gross is probably the purest cartoonist I've ever discovered. He has a magical ability to make funny visual ideas flow out of his pens and pencils. His drawings are uninhibited energy and excitement. It doesn't look like he struggles to get his ideas out at all-unlike the rest of us poor mortals.



Finally, there is a book reprinting my favorite work of his "Milt Gross Funnies". This is a must for every funny cartoonist and fan of cartoons!

His amazing life story is also included. I'll tell you more when I get my copy in the mail, but I checked out Mike's the other day and it was filled with comics I had never seen.

All this and tons more!

JUST A HANDFUL OF THINGS HE'S GREAT AT

"How Can I Get Life In My Drawings?" - Tell A Story

If you agree with my dead cartoon style theory and you yourself would like to draw with life rather than death, here's a tip: DRAW STORIES

Write a short simple story and draw your characters performing it. Either in a comic or a storyboard format.

This forces you to draw characters, poses and expressions in context, rather than in the abstract. Your poses have a reason to exist.
This is much better for you than drawing random doodles in a sketchbook. When you do that, your drawings are slaves to luck and the skill of your wrist flicks-but the drawings don't mean anything because they have no other purpose but to exist in an obscure sketchbook. Or on your blog or Deviantart.
There is a huge difference between being able to draw a character that looks sort of like a character - and actually telling a story with pictures. Huge. The second thing is much harder, more important, and infinitely more rewarding.
All these individual Jim Tyer drawings have attitude and life, but they are part of a story and that naturally inspires him to draw certain poses-not random ones, not only poses that he's already memorized, but specific poses that tell the story and are funny.
When you read the actual story in continuity, you can see the characters change attitude, poses and expressions from panel to panel.
Someone in the comments the other day sent me a link of some superhero teenagers from an old Hanna Barbera cartoon series-but drawn in a more modern angular style. His point was to show me that even though the original designs were bland, a talented artist could make them look cool and hip. I looked at the drawing and just saw the same characters standing straight up and down smiling, like they were right off a model sheet. They weren't doing anything. Characters who do things are much more fun than characters who stand around posing as if for a family photo.

That's what is so bad about the modern idea of staying "on-model". Most modern model sheets just show the characters standing, doing nothing. And if that's what staying "on-model" means, who needs it?

The best model sheets are the ones that are made after a cartoon is finished - not before. They used to take poses that the directors and animators drew and paste them onto a sheet so that other animators could see the characters alive, doing things and feeling things.

ALIVE

This doesn't mean you should steal these exact poses and use them in place of poses customized to your story. That's another problem we have in animation today. We use the same poses and expressions that we have seen in other cartoons - instead of treating each character and story as something new.

DEAD

I worked on stuff like this for years and it was torture to draw such deadness - or trace it, which is what they wanted me to do.

I know when I try to just draw a character for somebody, out of context - not part of a story, I tend to draw stiff. My most lively drawings are done when I'm thinking about what the characters are doing and why, instead of merely what they look like.

http://jkcartoonstories.blogspot.com/2009/12/slabs-first-fist.html

That's why "designers" should have less say in the total look of a cartoon than they do today. The designs should be allowed to constantly improve as the actual storytellers put the characters into action, rather than just tracing the model sheets.

READ THIS FUNNY JIM TYER STORY: The Brand New Penny

I have lots more to say on the subject of getting life into animation again, but I'll wait and see how this goes over.

Gross Props and BGs

Milt Gross draws my favorite backgrounds. They make no logical sense and don't follow perspective, but somehow they aren't wonky.
I have no idea how he does this, but I wish I could do it.

http://comicrazys.com/2009/11/08/pete-the-pooch-hi-jinx-6-1948-milt-gross/

next

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/

2 of My Favorite Cartoonists Contrasted

I like Harvey Eisenberg and Milt Gross for some traits they have in common and some that distinguish them. Their main difference is that Harvey is very conservative and Gross is very radical creatively. Harvey uses construction, Gross doesn't. But they share many other controls or the use of principles.
Harvey's compositions seem to be very carefully, logically thought out while Gross' seem more spontaneous and anarchic. They may look anarchic on the surface but they still are full of negative shapes, clear posing and the BGs are composed around the characters. They are filled with what could be considered mistakes -like tangents, but that adds to the spontaneity of his images.

Opposing Angles

They both compose their characters in reaction to each other using opposing angles.

ROOM LAYOUTS

They both use interesting angles in their BG compositions and frame the bgs around the characters.

Action, Acting

Gross uses line of action but also goes beyond the limitation, while Eisenberg pretty much sticks to the rules. Gross' poses seem much more lively than Eisenberg's. Eisenberg uses great control and the classic principles to make his images read clearly and have good artistic pleasing balance.

BG Composition

Gross tries to get more observation and grit into his BG scenes, and uses more interesting shapes. Eisenberg is able to draw dynamic angles but is very careful about it.

Wackiness

Eisenberg can be wacky, but in a very conservative way. Gross is always wacky and in constantly inventive ways.

SHAPES

Gross really uses shapes to keep his images full of contrast, inventiveness and interest. Eisenberg sticks to a handful of stock animation shapes, plus a few of his own stylistic inventions. His construction is very careful with some purposeful cheats, while Gross ignores construction altogether. He gets away with it because he has so many other artistic principles in his work to hold the images together.

Panel Layout

Gross' panels are all different shapes and angles, while Eisenberg's are mostly rectangles.

Gross is the far more creative cartoonist, but I also really admire Eisenberg's control and discipline. Eisenberg is born to layout. Gross is born to genius.

I love both these guys and they each have their place. My own style is somewhere in between the 2 approaches. I wish I was as inventive as Gross and as controlled as Eisenberg.

See the whole comics here:

http://comicrazys.com/2009/06/26/pixie-dixie-mr-jinks-lone-star-hero-artist-eisenberg/

http://comicrazys.com/2009/06/19/pete-the-pooch-hi-jinx-4-1947-milt-gross/