Cartoonists who only draw their characters from the waist up

-Fanny pack · Post by **-Fanny pack** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:46 am

Gengar003 wrote:What if all the characters stood on their hands, so their arms became their legs, and their legs their arms, and put jack-o-lanterns between their legs? Then the legs would be very important; they'd take the place of the hands. And they'd have to take off jack-o-lanterns and put new ones on when the facial expressions needed to change!

If I had any drawing skill, I'd make a comic out of that.

Stolle · Post by **Stolle** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:34 am

This thread must be the best one on the NET!

Telecoda · Post by **Telecoda** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:42 pm

is that like drawing someone with hands in their pockets or behind their backs, who would be so downright lazy?

Psiogen · Post by **Psiogen** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:13 pm

chibiartstudios wrote:I don't think I've ever seen the legs of Jon from Garfield. I'd bet that there are tentacles. That would be so cool! And it would explain why he has such a hard time with women!

Everything I've learned from webcomics suggests that being a tentacle monster would only improve Jon's sex life.

KathleenJ · Post by **KathleenJ** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:24 pm

Joel Fagin wrote:It makes sense for the same reason we exaggerate the size of eyes in comics - that's where all the expression is. A conversation playing while the camera is on someone's boots divorces you from it - which can be a useful effect occassionally but is largely undesirable.

However, lots of people leave them out, not because they're hard to draw but putting them in means you're playing with the camera angles and that's more a challenge. It's dull and the genre base of webcomics suffers because of it. The level of comic "camera work" and "direction" is very low and we're stuck with a glut of talking head sitcom comics.

- Joel Fagin

I totally agree with this. It's not a matter of drawing or not drawing legs/hands/heads/whatever, it's a matter of the scope yout want your work to have. You're the director, and while there's no reason you can't choose to never move your camera and do three hundred episodes of talking heads, as directorial choices go it's static as hell.

A comic where nobody's legs are ever visible could very well be entertaining and visually nice - the key is to do it in a way where it feels like a conscious style choice, rather than just a case of lazy artist.

I often see Dinosaur Comics brought up as an example in art versus writing discussions (as TdotOdot2k mentioned it here). Yes, that's a case where very sharp writing makes up for minimal, recycled art - and it manages to find a lot of humor in playing with its own restricted format. Dinosaur Comics is excellent. But I think it's the exception, not the rule. I just don't buy the whole "I don't care about the art - it's just a humor comic" line of thought that I've encountered from time to time in this crazy webcomic world. The art is half the equation. It doesn't have to be realistic or detailed or even technically well drawn. But to keep my attention, you've got to at least convince me you've given it some consideration and made your choices for a reason (and laziness/ignorance do not count!)
Granted, I'm a tougher audience than most of the population. I've grown quite jaded since I started this whole racket.

Psiogen wrote:
chibiartstudios wrote:I don't think I've ever seen the legs of Jon from Garfield. I'd bet that there are tentacles. That would be so cool! And it would explain why he has such a hard time with women!
Everything I've learned from webcomics suggests that being a tentacle monster would only improve Jon's sex life.

PS - For some reason, I once played a fan-created Garfield adventure game in which some kind of tentacle monster was holding Jon hostage in the kitchen. Yup.

Psiogen · Post by **Psiogen** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:36 pm

kathleenJ wrote:PS - For some reason, I once played a fan-created Garfield adventure game in which some kind of tentacle monster was holding Jon hostage in the kitchen. Yup.

...

That's one of those facts that, once learned, can never be unlearned.

Kirb · Post by **Kirb** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:41 pm

I can draw legs fine. I just love them close-ups.

In the earlier Garfield comics (late 80's), you would often see Jon's full figure. As time drew on, they became rarely seen.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:34 pm

A lot of action / drama comickers start out drawing legs, because they aren't used to cropping out part of the person for effect. These are the same people that would never cut off part of someone's face in a closeup. And can't draw kisses.

So really, a comic that Always has the legs has just as many issues as one that has no legs. Unless one is funny and one is dramatic. I think. Wait...

I swear I had a point at some... point.

Legs are good for drama, but not constantly. There you go!

Jaybob81 · Post by **Jaybob81** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:06 pm

I coulddraw legs, but then I'd have to rearrange the static panels/views, and then I couldn't slap together a comic on a whim. It might take some time, and a little of that "effort" thing... but even then I'd just draw all my characters with really baggy pants that cover even their shoes...

... and then I'd have to stop drawing my wife so no one else would get to look at her ass.

VileTerror · Post by **VileTerror** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:23 pm

Here's a new challenge: make an emotionally expressive comic featuring characters' waists only. Nothing below. Nothing above.

Leko · Post by **Leko** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:37 pm

I generally don't draw below the waist because there isn't room. Maybe if I felt like drawing all the panels super huge, then scanning them down to the right size, then pasting them all together into one image, then maybe I would draw legs.

But i'm much too lazy for that. Another obstacle is that whenever I try to draw really detailed stuff, like making the characters small enough to fit in their boxes with their feet showing, it ends up getting screwed by my not-very-thin ballpoint pen. However, I often draw my characters in pinup shots that do show their entire physiques, but I don't post them as comics.

So it's half laziness and half space issues. I've never really had any trouble drawing legs, though, so I don't see it as a problem.

The Chill Clan · Post by **The Chill Clan** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:37 am

If you don't need 'em fine. If your hacking off body parts at the border just cause you're lazy or inept, then burn in the abyss and have a nice day.

Nking79 · Post by **Nking79** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:58 am

Assuming there is nobody directing what you draw, it's all up to you. You are the artist - it's your descision if you want to learn that or if you don't want to draw it.

As a graphic designer, I never had a full time job a graphic designer - I just went and started by own business after graduating. Does that mean that I couldn't get a job as a graphic designer or that I didn't want to work for anyone else?

Dutch! · Post by **Dutch!** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:06 pm

Most of my characters are kids...and they get into all sorts of physical poses...legs are a must in this case...how else can you hang upside down from the monkey bars?

Luprand · Post by **Luprand** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:11 pm

My comic involved a good bit of physical comedy and the like, and legs are good to use then. But if I'm just making a quick bit of wordplay, then there's no real need to include the legs - the facial expression is much more important and should be given priority.

--Sij

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:15 pm

Never avoid drawing things because you think you suck at it. If you never try new things, you'll never get any better.

I myself actually keep my hands in my coat pockets all the time. Never in my pants though.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:30 pm

I'd keep my hands out of your pants, I mean my pants, but I'm not wearing a coat. Or pants. Your pants.

Joel Fagin · Post by **Joel Fagin** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:09 pm

PeppermintAfterlife wrote:Never avoid drawing things because you think you suck at it.

Conversely, never draw things just because you suck at it. I've been doing full-body shots for a combat in my comic's climax because my first instinct was that cutting bits out would be cheating. Many of them don't need that, though.

Need to practice hands and the hand happens to be off the frame? Leave it.

- Joel Fagin

Toxic · Post by **Toxic** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:00 pm

PeppermintAfterlife wrote:I myself actually keep my hands in my coat pockets all the time. Never in my pants though.

*Sounds the double entendre alarm*

Keffria · Post by **Keffria** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:37 pm

Ehh, I'm more comfortable with my hands in my coat pockets. It sounds strange, but I don't really know what to do with them when I'm walking, so it's easier to stuff them into my pockets... I'm sure that can be turned into a naughty joke very easily.

Anyway...

My comic features edible feet. [/really obscure joke]

I'm not terribly good at anatomy (which has been pointed out to me on numerous occasions), but I do practice whenever a panel warrants it. But... even when they might look good with a head-to-toes shot, I find myself cropping the images in order to make the panels fit together better.

Comic Genesis Forums

Cartoonists who only draw their characters from the waist up

Right.