This is possibly one of my biggest pet peeves about many artists today. I'm sorry I couldn't find a better scan of this page (by Jim Lee and Scott Williams, from a Batman comic), but look closely at the guy in the foreground of the last panel. Look at his jacket. Does it seem at all strange to you that the pattern on his jacket is perfectly, geometrically correct? Do you think it's a little odd that the pattern doesn't move and bend with the folds and curvature of his sleeve, you know, like it would in real life (think about it, if the lines are moving downward at his shoulder, wouldn't they bend and come toward you since his arm is bent and the hand is pointed toward you)? Isn't it blatantly clear to you (now that I point it out) that the artist(s) just drew that pattern right over the area of the jacket, without regard--or maybe even blatant disregard--to form or anatomy?
Okay, I'll calm down. My annoyance roots from when I saw this illustration by one of the coolest artists of the 20th century. JC Leyendecker was one of the primary cover artists for Saturday Evening Post (along with, of course, Norman Rockwell). He also had some amazing advertisements for Arrow Shirts and Collars, one of the classiest clothing lines of the time. The reason why I love this picture so much is because of the patterns on the men's jackets and the center man's hat. Those patterns behave with the curvature of the fabric, and it makes the image completely authentic. This is an incredibly minor detail, and an artist has to go way out of their way to do it (and really have to bend their mind around time and space to figure it out, sometimes). But when you compare this illustration to the one in the comic panel above, which one strikes you as more believable?
I'll never claim to be as awesome as Leyendecker. And I'm not too certain that many comic artists could either. But even if the pattern you put on an article of clothing isn't entirely correct, I'd rather that than a digital overlay that is painfully obvious. If you're curious about my drawing, be sure to check in on my friend's webcomic www.fizzlebit.com for when the finished art is put up.
What about when the choice is a stylistic one? I doubt it'd work for a realistic style, but it's kinda cool in a cartoony one.
ReplyDeleteFor something like what Scott McCloud does when he has his 'digital' self in a comic, I think it blends with the rest of the art. But I've seen animations do this, where characters move around and the pattern of their clothing (or whatever) looks to be a large layer which stays motionless behind the animation and that looks even worse than its comic counterpart.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think a pattern drawn to contour just like the any other part of the drawing will always win out. When the pattern is a flat image over a drawing that tries to look in any way 3-D, that 2-D pattern hurts it.