The Rabbit And The Moon

This is a short story based on a fairy tale I heard in Japan when I was a little kid. The original is called THE OLD MAN IN THE MOON and is about an old man ... in the moon ... who decides to dress poorly and visit three animals - a fox, a rabbit, and a monkey - to see who would be generous enough to feed him. The monkey and the fox offered him some of their food. But the rabbit, not having any food, offered himself as a soup. The old man thought this was the kindest gesture and took the rabbit to live with him in the moon. And that's where we get the image of a rabbit on the moon's surface.

That ... and astroids. But, I hope you enjoy MY version.

Stuff.

One's an image of me fighting zombies. A promo/maybe cover for my 24hr comic. About me fighting zombies. I'm a horrible writer, so yes, I cheat and come up with a plot beforehand. It's also based on a Frank Frazetta painting. He's not acknowledged in the drawing because my drawing is insulting to him enough.

The other image is just an illo of Frankenstein's monster done for fun to test out some new paper and break in a new brush. The monster isn't SUPPOSED to look like Robert DeNiro, but it came out that way anyways because that movie was awful.

I hate both images. I'll let you decide which is worse.

Coloring In Comcs.

I feel that coloring is pointless in comics unless it's used as a means to serve the story. It needs a purpose other than telling me Odie is yellow. Hobbes is orange, Spider-man's jimjams are red/blue (or black, depending on if the artist is on model or not)

I don't need to know that stuff. I know tigers are orange, so I can assume Hobbes is orange. It's not important at all to see Spider-man's costume is red/blue because his design, with the webbing and spider insignia, perfectly conveys he's trying to get a spider-y look. (what red/blue has to do with spiders, and why his costume IS red/blue is beyond anyone) One of the great things that makes Batman so visually appealing is because his costume is just DARK and scary in black & white.

If it's not used for a story purpose then it just seems like a wasted process.

Frank MIller's THAT YELLOW BASTARD is a perfet example. The character's skin condition is part of the story so he needs to be yellow. And since he's the only thing colored in the book, it adds impact to the character being an obviously noticable "freak." Because I can assume everyone else is of regular black, white, asian skin tones. But THIS guy, he stands out even when he wants to be subtle.

Well, that's just my opinion on it. When I look at a colored comic and color isn't part of the story, I just think the creator wasted their time conducting a process that adds nothnig, and is there because it's ingrained in American comics minds that color is better.

Pretentious Whiney Artist Time.

Lately, I feel like I'm conciously stifling my growth as an artist, and the direction my art wants to go.

As my style becomes more and more exaggrated in motion of character and expression of line, I find myself being drawn more and more towards wanting to draw "bigfoot style" - I keep wondering if I should embrace this.

The bigfoot style is still used in some European books, which is becoming a major influence on my work as far as storytelling and expression.

With my journal comics, and sometimes 1pg random comics, I tend to draw in a more cartoonish, and exxagerated style. I generally like to play with shapes of people's faces, bodies, etc. I'm more comfortable drawing my cartoonish and exxagerated forms than I am drawing for believability.

Even currently, I tend to lean more towards an open line figure and detailled backgrounds.

Many Franco-Belgium cartoonist, like Peyo, use a similar style and his stories for THE SMURFS or JOHAN & PERLOUIT weren't "dated" or outside the realm of believability despite having cartoony figures. Same for Didier Conrad, Andre Franquin. Even Bill Watterson, probably my biggest influence, used a slightly more toned down bigfoot style in CALVIN & HOBBES and those strips are pretty powerful and meaningful when you look at the subtext.

Even R. Crumb maintained his bigfoot style for his serious adaptation of GENESIS.

MAUS was draw with anthropomorphic cartoon characters and the emotional impact of the story still hits you in the heart like a jackhammer hits butter. It won a pulitzer. And I can't help but think it wouldn't HAVE that same impact if he'd done realistic figures.

I think maybe it's because I grew up on American comics, and the American medium has that mentality that it needs to be realistic and believable, even when it's exaggerated, or it's just a "silly" cartoon.

I guess I'll just let it go, and see where the wind takes me.

THE BOSTON STRONGBOY

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=203826&id=537436722&l=9f410b330f

That's a link to THE BOSTON STRONGBOY, the first 24hr comic I ever drew. Like HELIO, I liked the story enough to want to re-draw it in a more finished line than 24hr comic day allows. I've noticed that for my mini-comics, and 24hr comics I prefer to tell the story in a more childlike manner. That is, I like them to read like children's books without sounding condescending.

I hope that was accomplished.

HELIO

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/album.php?aid=201655&id=537436722&fbid=418088091722

That's a link to my facebook page, where I've uploaded the pages to my 24pg mini-comic HELIO. It's a mini-bio-comic about Brazillian Jiu-jitsu founder Helio Gracie. The intention was to make it seem like a children's book, and hopefully somewhat inspirational.

It's not something I'm going to publish for many, many reasons. It was done for fun. Originally as a 24hr comic last year, but when I finished, I liked the story so much I wanted to re-draw it in a more finished look than 24hr Comic Day will allow. I also used it as an opportunity to experiment with a few things, so it's a bit rough in places.

Anyway, enjoy.

I'll be posting BOSTON STRONGBOY soon.

Background. Check.

One thing I need to overcome in my art is the horrible American mindset that backgrounds aren't important, or necessary. Most "professional" American comics will use a background to establish setting, then, if the artist can get away with not drawing it, they don't draw it. Sometimes for 4-5 pages.

I just read a preview of a "professional comic" where the first page, a splash page, established the setting, then the next 4 pages were fighting in blank, or wonderfully colored panels. A hint of surrundings would make it into the panel if one of the baddies had to get punched into a crate, or pick up an object. That's like watching THERE WILL BE BLOOD and the entire movie was played out in front of a blue screen, and the only time you saw a background was in a pulled back establishing shot or if a character picked up something/touched an object.

I'm not saying every panel needs to be filled with richly detailled backgrounds, but it should serve the story if there isn't going to be a visible setting. Lack of background can create mood, atmosphere, emotion. Like color, it can be used as a weapon in the arsenal of storytelling.