Insights: The Decline of Design
Below are insightful posts from Digital Media FX forum posters
on the subject of The Decline of Design. Some posts have been
edited for length or spelling and grammar.
Gordg on May 8, 2001:
Character design has been faltering for years.
The hard earned
wisdom of past artists was lost in the eighties. New generations
of artists appear to lack a fundamental understanding of good
I see two
main types of character designs...
character: graphic creations that don't have a good sense
of weight, volume, proportion or structure. In addition they often
lack contrast, rhythm, harmony and unity. Simply put ... they
don't flow, resulting in an unappealing character.
character: based entirely on a realistic human model. These
designs lack imagination, unique qualities, and strong caricature.
This makes them bland, and unappealing.
I'm not saying
artists need to draw characters that look the same as the old
master's designs. What I am saying is, they need to develop they're
aesthetic sensibilities to the same level as the old masters.
animation industry today is not interested in quality, and does
not allow artists to push themselves to explore their craft. The
industry only requires a competent technician that can emulate
existing modes of design.
This is a
form of inbreeding. Artists learn by copying other artists, who
learned by copying earlier artists, who stole ideas from the original
masters. Today animation artists don't develop their skills of
observation and interpretation of the real world, but rather rely
on mimicry of style, without a true understanding of the underlying
principals of good design.
to be a return to solid drawing skills rooted in keen observations
Samus Aran on May 8, 2001:
Gordg, I think your post was very well-said.
you made about artists copying other artists, instead of using
and interpreting life from observation, is true of other areas
of art too. Many students here want to paint in the same style
as another artist, instead of honing their own strengths... I
also think of all the young people who watch Disney, Japanese
animation, etc. and then emulate only that style in their drawings.
I've seen so many young artists who can only draw in the anime
style, comics, or the Disney style. They use someone else's method
of interpreting reality instead of finding their own. While it
can be a way to start, artists have to grow and find their own
I think design
is a challenging thing to approach because people will like and
dislike it according to their own tastes, in part. But I also
agree that there are fundamental rules to good design, just as
there are fundamental rules to good composition.
When I make
a character, I find myself drawing it over and over again changing
it, until it just looks right to me aesthetically. It's a lot
of 'artist's judgment'. I could probably get better at it if I
knew the guidelines to good design better... I'd be interested
in hearing what other people here consider good visual rules of
is inspirational... Makes me want to hit the sketchbook.
by Streep on May 8, 2001:
Gordg, I wholeheartedly agree.
made me think of Picasso. I have heard that he was an accomplished
realistic artist. It was only after he had worked hard on his
earlier art, that he could then listen to his inner voice that
caused him to create his later art.
can not draw to save my life and I am forever impressed by those
who can draw something that looks like what they were trying to
make. But design today is awful. The hands in Atlantis come to
mind (and to think of it the hands in TENG looked the same). Now
I know that Atlantis is supposed to be emulating the art of the
guy who made HellBoy, but what might look all right in a static
medium like a graphic novel looks horrible in animation. The hands
alone prevent me from suspending my disbelief and allowing me
to enter the world of the movie. (It was OK in TENG because it
was silly and it pushed down the fourth wall, but Atlantis is
serious and that suspension is key at least in my opinion.) And
don't get me started on the glowing yellow balls in the submarines,
I really don't like those at all.
do not see any improvement in this poor design quality in the
near future, especially in this age of downsizing. Without a strong
figure to shepherd a new cast of masters, there will not be any.
It obviously will not be coming from Disney. As long as Eisner
is so devoted to the bottom line that he is willing to cut off
his nose to spite of his face. This is one reason why I like Pixar.
Lasseter (and I am in no way comparing him to Walt) seems to be
creating an atmosphere where art is fostered. From his previous
films, design seems important. I could be wrong as I am only an
animation fan and not in the "know" of certain things.
But that is what I see.
by Penanimate on April 4, 2001:
the strike in the early 80's is what led to most non-theatrical
production moving offshore. It's a different ball game these days;
you can't compare what went on in the 40's to what's happening
the 80's strike may have something to do with this fiscal tightening.
The Tigger Movie was produced "offshore" for significantly
less than Emperor (they came out roughly around the same time).
Tigger generated more revenue relative to its cost than Emperor
did, and those sorts of things open the money boys' eyes really
Sorry to beat
the same drum over and over, but don't forget Disney is a business.
If they think there's more profit (despite lower revenues) from
offshore production, then that's where they'll head. They don't
care one whit about art quality or "legacy". Those are
quaint notions ascribed to the "artsy" types. As long
as we let them drive our thinking, the business types will always
have it over us.
by Dave on May 9, 2001:
How about this for a realistic character; Max Steel and the Final
Fantasy movie - both have photorealistic characters to different
degrees but both I feel suffer the same flaw, both try to show
off how good their motion capture suites are and how realistically
they can model humans, but ultimately the results are boring.
I think there is a difference in design and aesthetics but I wouldn't
say that it is necessarily a bad thing, Ren and Stimpy had such
basic animation and really stylized character design but what
made them fun is the writing in the show.
I agree that
there are a lot of young animators out there who have found a
particular style, be it anime or Disney and stick to it totally,
I personally have a different view, I treat every animated project
I do individually, and every one has its own visual look that
makes it different from the last one, that in itself is part of
would go and see Final fantasy but I somehow doubt it will be
as good an experience as the iron giant
however, visual look of characters aside, shouldn't we be a lot
more concerned with the animation, acting and the story?
by Chris2 on May 9, 2001:
One can certainly mix two schools of design and come up with something
that's a new and interesting mix of the designs. The modern comic
'look' is sort of a mix of Japanese, European, and traditional
American styles. Look at the work of Jim Lee, Joe Madueria, John
Romita Jr. and a few others for examples. Jr's current style looks
like it mixes his father's traditional style with the rough lines
of European stuff and the strong/exaggerated facial expressions
Certainly, one can find variation within existing designs. Although
a lot of Disney and anime/manga might look the same at first glance,
if you take a closer look you'll see there are subtle variations
depending on the artist/studios and their demands. Studio demands
certainly played a role in Atlantis' character designs-if one
looks at Mignolia's actual work, it doesn't look a whole lot like
the stuff in Atlantis. In fact, Mignolia recently did an Atlantis
poster in PC Gamer which shows a visual style which is quite different
with the look of the film.
a few complaints about anime-mainly that it fits into either of
the two stereotypes mentioned by Gordg-but I disagree-there is
plenty of caricature to be found in anime. It's important to keep
in mind that the animation medium in Japan goes hand-in-hand with
their comics industry, pretty much. So they're animating by comic
book rules, most of the time-which is fine with me, personally.
There are plenty of examples of good old 'squash-and-stretch'
though-like in Totoro and even in Akira.
you can call anime a 'compromise' or 'balance' between animation
and comic book staging.
by Mooka on May 9, 2001:
Being a student I have to agree with all this.. I see so many
people in my class just concentrating on trying to make all their
drawings look like their favorite anime show or favorite Disney
feature, and not nearly enough people studying from life. And
it shows.. When we get a character design project you can almost
exactly predict what "studio" their characters will
Now , I do
study the old masters like Reubens, Michelangelo, and Leonardo
to see how they interpreted different things and how they described
the forms on paper. This I think is good. Studying how things
were done so you can see effective ways to describe things.
you referring to the old masters as in the old animation masters?
I think you can learn from them too. I has to be done the same
way though. See how they interpreted something and then applying
those techniques to your own designs. I think too many people
just see a design (for instance, lets say a well designed hand)
and then just copy it and kinda' paste it in with their designs.
I see this at my school a lot too.
of sad really because life drawing and the daily routine habit
I've formed of studying everyday things is one of the greatest
aspects of animation to me. To me it's more enjoyable and rewarding
than anything else. I think I'm learning more by doing that too....
I think... I'll let you know when I get my marks back...
by Gordg on May 9, 2001:
Yes, I was referring to the old animation masters (such as Moore,
Kahl, Thomas, etc.) .... but there is a lot to be learned from
the masters of the renaissance as well. I also find great inspiration
and understanding can be derived from the masters of various disciplines
and artistic movements (storybook illustration, modernism, magic
were based on North American animation, since it's the industry
I'm most familiar with. My anime/manga knowledge is limited at
best, so I won't express an opinion on that design aesthetic.
When I'm speaking
of graphic styles and realistic styles, I am referring to a broad
overall look. Many characters fall into these categories, but
they range greatly to the degree they adhere to the strict definition.
But how closely
they fit the definition is not relevant to how well they use good
design principals and fresh approaches.
I think Penanimate
has distilled the essence of what I was saying...
by Evil_Phil on May 10, 2001:
Again, got to agree with what you're saying. All the time I see
classmates animating and it is very clear that the styles are
not truly there own but ones close to comics, Disney, etc.. When
I started I was heavily into Disney. In the end I was 'thinking'
too much about what I shouldn't be doing that I wasn't allowing
myself the chance to develop a personal style. The lecturers rarely
consider the process of animation in its entirety (Spelling?!!)
They look for nice storyboards and animation but don't give us
chance to develop styles/ characters...
by Alphawolf on May 10, 2001
You can't expect a teacher or lecturer to teach you your style.
They can give you the basics and show you how they and others
do it. But finding your own "eye/hand" in the field
has to come from you. It's work you do on the side because you
love it that will help you "develop styles/ characters".
The key is
to learn to draw what you see first. Leonardo had shelves full
of books on medical dissections and how the body was pieced together.
Those books with notes and sketches in the columns are famous;
many of them are seen in ads and stuff all over today. There were
also designs for inventions and notes on period every day items.
Artist of the renaissance were all pretty much known for this
kind of in depth study. Once you have a working knowledge of drawing
reality, then begin looking to the artists you respect and like
the style of. Mix the techniques and styles you like into your
drawing to create a new look based on all you have gathered.
Now it's real
easy to say that, but I for one have been trying to get it together
with little to no luck for many more years than I care to talk
about. It's not easy. My recommendation is to collect books, sketches,
and magazines, comics, films, and any other media you see that
intrigues you. Keep it all like a packrat. But use it all too.
Take the look of a wolf from a picture you took of some billboard,
put it with the style of Balto or the wolves from Beauty &
the Beast and mix your knowledge of reality and your own style
and get a new wolf.
And if you
ever think to yourself, 'I have it! This is the perfect wolf!'
Put your pencil down, walk out the door and never look back. Youre
no artist. We inevitably never are satisfied with our own work
ever. There is always something we wish we could have done better,
or a technique we see just after we finish the project that we
want to go back and ad to it. Save the new technique for the next
project, work on the skill you want to do better in your sketchbook,
make those notes to yourself and always look to improve. If your
sketchbook is neat and organized and your drawings in them are
all finished products with nothing started and then stopped suddenly
in the middle, your doing it wrong. Logical right brain thinking
in a sketchbook is a sign you have a lot to work on. See the kids
in school who have drawn all over the cover of their math book
and turn in test and research papers with doodles in the columns
and back of it? Those are the potential Picaso's of tomorrow.
If you are
working on a new drawing and just can't seem to get some part
of it right, stop. Make a note in the column telling yourself
what's not coming out. Then back off and find something else to
work on for a second. Look at pictures that inspire you and have
a drink or something. When you come back if you see whats
missing, start again. Also if you see your having trouble getting
a perspective or particular position down; open that sketchbook
and throw down as many rough drawings as it takes till you see
where the problem is, then work on correcting it. I devoted two
sketchbooks to drawing nothing but ears on a head. I still don't
like how they turn out when I draw them. But still I persist at
is not copying what you see, it's adding to it and improving on
the basic ideas to bring about a new product. An amalgam if you
will of everything in you and everything around you to bring a
new life into the world. Anyone could copy the Mona Lisa, but
only a master artist could make her smile.
back over this for spelling I think that this is either really
deep, or a lot of babble. At any rate I hope it helps someone.
by Gordg on May 16, 2001
To achieve a solid finished product you need to take time in the
preproduction stage. This is the most important stage. It sets
the ground work for the intense, time consuming production stage.
If it hasn't been completely thought through , weeks of work in
production could be wasted due to mistakes made in preproduction
... mistakes that may have only taken an hour to correct in preproduction.
Even if potential
employers never look at your preproduction work (but most do),
the overall quality of the film is dependant on a successful process.
you may be able to grunt out a decent looking film with a faulty,
time consuming process, and it may get you hired. But in the end
if you don't understand process, you won't be able to deliver
in a timely, professional manner, and your employer won't keep
you around for long.
It's all about
the process is somewhat organic in nature. It is very important
to build a solid foundation in preproduction, BUT you need to
be flexible enough through out the process to allow for small
adjustments. There is always the potential for becoming too focused
on development, while not leaving yourself enough time to do the
production work. My approach is, take care and get a broad solid
structure for the film in the development stage, but once you
have that , move forward and fine tune it in production.
This is an
approach that works well when developing the story. If you first
build a story with solid structure and fully developed characters
.... humorous bits of business will evolve from it in the production
stage.(as opposed to stringing a bunch of gags together that aren't
grounded in story or character development). But I'm drifting
But I whole
heartily agree, one must always strive to improve. Though in my
old age, I have come to realize it's also important to celebrate
your successes. There is very often good qualities to be found
in your work ... even in work that you feel is 90% wrong. It's
this positive influence that keeps you motivated.
by D.E.E.P. on May 16, 2001
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made above by Gord and
Alpha. Even in this business, your boss will most likely not care
about how much time and effort you have put in to your finished
product. All he wants is results. I have fallen victim quite a
few times to this type of mentality. You have to get used to it.
In my situation,
I have to get a certain number of designs out within a certain
number of days. The schedule isn't necessarily planned on how
much actual time one needs in order to design a show in particular.
It's planned way before anyone really knows how difficult the
work load might be. So if one show happens to be much bigger than
the previous, I have the same amount of time to do it. My boss
doesn't mind that I'll have to put in a couple more extra hours
to finish my work on time, he just wants everything on his desk
by Friday afternoon. That's the way it is.
I know this
sounds a bit harsh, but once you get the hang of it, you find
ways to manage your time better and get everything done much faster.
I have. And don't forget that animation is still a whole lot more
fun than any other job out there. Well, most of them anyway.
by Gordg on May 16, 2001 (in response to post directly above)
... what's your approach to design?
you are often emulating an existing style, so you don't always
have the freedom to explore your own. But ideally what would be
I'm a bit bohemian in my approach. I throw out all the rules on
character design. The rules that tell you to work with simple
geometric forms, lines of action, and well balanced proportional
characters that you can easily turn in space.
What I do
myself in the characters character (odd wording ) until I fully
understand their quirky uniqueness. I then thumb through hoards
of reference material and look for real people as inspiration
(they are usually far more unique looking than what I could imagine)
I use them as a point of departure, sometimes mixing and matching
characteristics from several people.
I work with
fundamental elements such as, line, shape, texture, scale, contrast,
etc. ... completely ignoring the fact that the character will
have to be animated. I take these elements and push them as far
as I can, then I push them further ... to the point of being absurd.
Also I will take my initial inclinations and go in the opposite
After I have
played for a while ... throwing in everything and anything, I
usually discover a few appealing ideas. It is at this point I
start to cull out the essence of what I find appealing. I would
liken it to what Michelango said about sculpting "you remove
everything that isn't the figure" (sorry about the really
bad paraphrasing, but I was to lazy to go find the exact quote).
only then (if I'm still getting a good feeling from the character),
I will begin to think in terms of animation. I take off my creative
beanie and put on my technical hard hat. I carefully adjust the
design to meet the demanding rigor of a character in motion --
I begin to solidify the design. And with a bit of luck, and a
lot of ingenuity I don't lose the appeal in the process.
... then there
are the times when the character leaps out of my pencil fully
realized in a nanosecond.
by D.E.E.P. On May 16, 2001 (in response to post directly
How do I approach design....hmmmmmm.
been hard for me to describe the techniques I use in my work.
I just don't know how to put it into words, that's why I could
never be a teacher. But I'll try to explain it the best way I
thing I do Monday mornings is read the current show's script,
finding the extra characters within that episode. The script gives
you a specific character's personality, which is really the most
important part of the process. Doing that gives me a good mental
picture of what I need to draw. Next comes the research. Most
of the extras in the show I'm currently on are animals. All kinds
too. So if I need to design a crow for example, I'll get my books
on birds and try to find as many pictures as I can of crows in
action. I'll even go on the net and see if I can find some movie
files of crows in flight. One thing I wouldn't do is to go look
at crows from other animated films or cartoons. At least not right
away. I used to do that, and my designs looked an awful lot like
what I was looking at. My boss would notice too. That's why you
need to look at real life when designing in order find your own
way of interpreting what you see. I learned that the hard way
when my boss told me all my designs were way too Disneyish! This
mistake is also the subject which started this thread. Every good
character designer should refrain from emulating another show's
style. It's very hard not to do so, but one must at least try.
What I do
then is lay out all the images I found on my desk and then I start
drawing. And that's where I have trouble expressing my technique.
I don't know what happens exactly at that point. I just pick up
my pencil and draw. Keeping in mind the show's style, the character's
personality traits and the animal's structure. I then try to come
up with something that looks good and that would move well. I
usually do a lot of sketches before ending up with something I
like. But as I've explained above, my schedule is very restrained,
so I have to work fast and be productive. Having a bad drawing
day in TV animation is a killer. Supervisors have no sympathy
when it comes to those. So I get all those bad drawings out of
the way as quickly as possible. I do know experience is a big
factor when it comes to speed. When I started out it took me a
couple of days to come up with just one character, now I do one
or two a day, sometimes more depending on how difficult they are.
In a few years, I'll get faster than that.
When I finally
show my boss the designs, I go through the awful approval stage.
Not only does he need to like it, the client also needs to see
it before it gets approved. So if they don't like it they'll make
comments and I'll then go and fix the drawing based on those.
When that's done I have to clean everything up. Since I do my
own clean up I'm less worried about losing appeal in the process.
But it's still very tricky to keep everything looking as nice
as your roughs, and one must be careful when working on someone
else's drawings. And if done well, cleaning up can even improve
it in a nutshell, I hope I didn't confuse anyone. Like I said,
I'm not very eloquent when it comes to explaining my approach.
Maybe that's why my post is so long. But all in all, it's very
similar to Gord's approach. So maybe you guys should look at his
explanation so you can better understand mine.
a Printable Version of this Page
to Insight into the Animation Process
to Forum Insights
> Return to the
Digital Media FX Front Page