Trying to identify the "it" factor in top level sketch cards.

[monkeymcgee]

There's no attribution on the card and I have notified Cryptozoic, although chances are they've already been made aware of it. I am not happy about it, but I don't want to further derail Rian's thread.

[justice41]

If you are going to swipe or homage a piece do established artists and not amateurs. I sold the originals of the a drawing to two people, inks and painting and now Eli has cheapened those drawings. Note he does this quite a bit. I spoke to him about it when it happened.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

There's no attribution on the card and I have notified Cryptozoic, although chances are they've already been made aware of it. I am not happy about it, but I don't want to further derail Rian's thread.

It's okay, and it is part of the intended topic. No worries.

Studying the difference between the original Acar drawing and the swiped drawing on the card is very educational. You can see how pure, unique, and confident the original lines are compared to the copy.

That kind of confidence is almost always evident, and it definitely contributes to the "it" factor.

[eldavojohn]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

One of the most important skills that can add to the "it" factor is the ability to invent original compostions and poses using the traditional characters.

It's funny you should mention that, one of the biggest turn offs for me on your first three sketches you posted here is that they have the half turn with a hand on/near their hip. It's the facebook pose that everyone does that shows off their chest (both guys and girls).

So that totally sets your fourth image apart for me personally. It's more natural, more about being a squirrel. I like it most of all.

[justice41]

The it factor is a shot in the dark. the artwork was not intended to blow anyone away but due to certain aspects of the artwork it just does. Melike has a quasi anime fashion design coolness to her art. It limits her though. The Glebes go for spectacle, it appeals to those who like art that seems dynamic and active. Perna has a solid design style to his stuff, Hetrick's stuff is just very arty. They all appeal to specific people. I don't care for the Glebes work as their anatomy is all over the place. Hetrick to me is the whole package and deserves what she has in the way of followers. Her stuff will grow and expand while all the others will stay or diminish over time.

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

It's okay, and it is part of the intended topic. No worries.

Studying the difference between the original Acar drawing and the swiped drawing on the card is very educational. You can see how pure, unique, and confident the original lines are compared to the copy.

That kind of confidence is almost always evident, and it definitely contributes to the "it" factor.

In that case, I believe I have found the "inspiration" for the first sketch as well:



Here's a slightly more complete view: http://img.dooyoo.co.uk/GB_EN/orig/0/7/0/2/2/702279.jpg

[sdoug76]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

Someone else just PMed that to me as well. Man, that sucks--I really liked that card.

I guess it's a pretty good bet the first one has been copied from something else as well, given how different it is from his normal style.

You know that Bats looks like something from the Batman Arkham video game.
Might have been in the deluxe guide, it came with a bhnch of extra "goodies".

I sold mine, so I cant double check. I could be wrong, just looks so familiar to me

Edit: posted right before me. Knew it looked familiar.

[justice41]

Damn shame.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

In that case, I believe I have found the "inspiration" for the first sketch as well:

Hot DOG!!! You make a first rate detective, great job!

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Hot DOG!!! You make a first rate detective, great job!

Well, I have to credit the Google image search "search by image" feature. My sketch image plus adding "Batman" yielded that cover in the first 50 results.

"Borrowers" out there--beware.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

"Borrowers" out there--beware.

Bleeding Cool actually exposes these people to a very wide audience, if you have an appetite for revenge. They have a Submit a Tip tab on top of their site, and these things belong in the Swipe File.

[justice41]

We were specifically told we could not swipe copy reproduce or homage any artwork from comics or movies so a few artists did do that anyways but cleverly only did small parts of the originals and did not include attribution as that would give them away. Nothing wrong with homages but ya gots to give due credit.

[Zerokruel]

I'm trying to remember the back story, but didn't Benjo Camay swipe a few of Nar's pieces?

[justice41]

That's before my time

[ashelton]

Definitely if consistency is all over the place the most common cause is the use of references. It doesn't have to be as sinister as copying, often people just can't nail down anatomy without a photo stock pose or magazine. Most realism-type artists I've known have a really hard time drawing anything straight from their imagination.

And one of the fastest ways to figure out if an artist knows anatomy, in my experience, is to check the drawing's hands and feet. I know one upper-midrange artist who has no idea how bones go in hands... they all look like water filled rubber gloves with nothing but thumbnails. No one seems to notice, but it drives me nuts.

...Of course, the one that put the junk on backwards when drawing some NSFW dudes was a pretty big clue, too.

[eldavojohn]

...Of course, the one that put the junk on backwards when drawing some NSFW dudes was a pretty big clue, too.

The little man in the boat is at the very bottom near the vajanus, right?

Seriously, I'm a huge Star Wars fan so any help would be appreciated.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by ashelton

And one of the fastest ways to figure out if an artist knows anatomy, in my experience, is to check the drawing's hands and feet.

Proper proportion is usually not important for the "it" factor, in fact there are quite a few of the top artists who take intentional liberties and exaggerate on purpose for style.

My favorite example:

[dd316]

Why on Earth would any artist want to exactly replicate another artist's work? I used to do it... but I was 8.

I use models and photographs for reference, but I try to make the final piece my own. Now in Mars Attacks I replicated some famous artwork and images, but in most cases I used them as parody, like the "Scream" painting or the Ali photo. How do other artists feel about this example?

[Rian Fike]

One part of the "it" factor that we haven't talked about it sexiness. Not neccesarily only the obviously erotic either. I mean the extreme exaggeration and intensity of many of the top artists. I did a little showcase from one collection on the blog today to illustrate this:

Wild Bill Wednesday!!! | The Sketchcard Saloon.

Of course it doesn't work for everyone, but when high level skills combine with racy subject matter it tends to sell pretty well.

[ashelton]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Proper proportion is usually not important for the "it" factor, in fact there are quite a few of the top artists who take intentional liberties and exaggerate on purpose for style.

Knowledge of anatomy and using "proper proportions" are not the same.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by ashelton

Knowledge of anatomy and using "proper proportions" are not the same.

That's true, and neither are neccesary for the "it" factor.

[justice41]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

That's true, and neither are neccesary for the "it" factor.

Obviously just look at the Glebe cards. Total mess.

[monkeymcgee]

Rian: here's an interesting case for you (and doesn't involve any dramatics like last time )



VS

[aggie4ever]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Proper proportion is usually not important for the "it" factor, in fact there are quite a few of the top artists who take intentional liberties and exaggerate on purpose for style.

My favorite example:

This is a good example of why it's hard to define the "it" factor. Personally for me, I'm not a fan of this sketch, and to me it doesn't have the "it" factor. That's not to say I would be dissapointed to pull this sketch; I would be happy that it was a very nice sketch of a popular female character. But without seeing Axebone's signature at the bottom, I wouldn't have known that it was likely one of the top 5-10% of sketches for that set, I would have thought it was only an above average sketch.

In fact, without seeing the signature, I'm not really sure I would have been able to identify it as one of his sketches. His style is usually easy to spot: pretty female with an exaggerated, large boosom in a fairly provocative pose. I know I'm simplifying that quite a bit and leaving out things like coloring, shading, lines, etc. But this sketch is different enough to me from most of his other sketches that I would probably have to ask the experts who it was by. Of course that may be one reason why you like the sketch so much, it is different than his normal work.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by aggie4ever

This is a good example of why it's hard to define the "it" factor. Personally for me, I'm not a fan of this sketch, and to me it doesn't have the "it" factor. That's not to say I would be dissapointed to pull this sketch; I would be happy that it was a very nice sketch of a popular female character. But without seeing Axebone's signature at the bottom, I wouldn't have known that it was likely one of the top 5-10% of sketches for that set, I would have thought it was only an above average sketch.

In fact, without seeing the signature, I'm not really sure I would have been able to identify it as one of his sketches. His style is usually easy to spot: pretty female with an exaggerated, large boosom in a fairly provocative pose. I know I'm simplifying that quite a bit and leaving out things like coloring, shading, lines, etc. But this sketch is different enough to me from most of his other sketches that I would probably have to ask the experts who it was by. Of course that may be one reason why you like the sketch so much, it is different than his normal work.

Indeed, it is different and that is one of the reasons I love it. I could have identified it immediately without the signature, and it shows that some artists have the "it" factor that carries over from card to card even when the individual piece varies from their usual stuff.