15 / 18
Aug 2017

asking if anyone shares my thoughts/has other opinions

personally i have trouble reading comics if the art is too hyperrealistic. it's harder to feel the expressiveness of the characters if theyre drawn and fully rendered to human proportions, but also gives off an uncanny valley look if you try to force cartoonish faces on a full anatomically accurate body. they tend to remind me of photo comics


(x)4

but at the same time the rendering can be very realistic but be more stylized to accomodate like ava's demon22 has done lately

and i feel like theres a fine line between impressively detailed/realistic and uncomfortably realistic. does anyone feel the same or have other thoughts? i feel like comics should have enough of a cartoonish style to accomodate for expression and fluidity.

  • created

    Aug '17
  • last reply

    Aug '17
  • 17

    replies

  • 8.0k

    views

  • 14

    users

  • 7

    likes

  • 3

    links

yes it's called uncanny valley and their a million of 3D model comics that are soo bad cause of this

Yeah, I feel like if something's hyper-realistic it's better suited as stand-alone illustrations for a book or something.
Or if it's straight up photos, why didn't the creator shoot a short video instead? It's not like there isn't a market for that.

I do have a hard time reading if a comic has too much detail in it though, especially if the word bubbles are many and the text has really small leading. Like R. Crumb's work. I cannot for the life of me find any enjoyment reading it.

I don't know, I've seen comics drawn in a cartoonish style which were stiff and lifeless instead of expressive and fluid. Likewise I've seen anatomically correct, realistic art that was bursting with life and expression. I think it's all down to the skill of the artist and the readers personal taste. I don't think you can break down comic art into simple absolutes like that.

no no im aware of that, it's a wide subject matter and i didn't exactly explore all the possibilities of it in my original post but i do recognize that stylized art can still be stiff and realism can be fluid.
my turn off from hyperrealistic comics is mostly because it reminds me of photo comics (which i aesthetically dislike, but it's subjective too!)

Too detailed, definitely. When artists don't assign a visual hierarchy, like giving the focal point more detail while letting the background be more simplified, it can become one big noisy mess.

Your first example, for instance-- besides having WAY too many speech bubbles, the amount of clutter in the backgrounds makes the panels unclear. If this were a drawn comic, it'd make sense to simplify the background and leave out some details.

I wouldn't say I think comic art can be "too detailed." I think it can certainly use or prioritise detail badly, but what's "too much detail" in one style or rendering is going to be a perfect amount for another.

But I do feel that photorealism, specifically, isn't ideal for the medium of comics. I don't mean uncanny valley or stiff art -- I actually started feeling this way when I first saw Alex Ross's work on Superman pages, and no one can say that isn't gorgeous. Nor would I say it's hyperdetailed -- it's stylised and simplified in a way, with really striking rendering. They're freakin beautiful illustrations. My thing is..... they feel like illustrations.

I don't know the right words to describe it, but it evokes something so photo-like in its light placement and rendering that, while it's really incredible work from an illustration perspective, each panel feels.... sort of like a movie still. Which means it doesn't move. Those panels aren't characters moving through space and time -- they're a snapshot of a specific moment. For me, the effect is similar to watching a slideshow of storyboards instead of a cartoon.
I thought back to everything I'd read from Scott McCloud about the weird ways your brain relates to and identifies with the smiley face more than the perfectly rendered portrait, and I have to wonder if that has something to do with it. When a comic's art evokes artful photos, illustrations, even beautifully shot movie stills, you the reader become entirely removed from the scene. It feels to me like you don't participate in it the same way you do when the style is stretched.

I have no idea if others feel this way -- after all, Alex Ross is an extremely well-respected cartoonist -- but I've definitely always felt that this sort of style, while it makes for breathtaking illustrations, just doesn't serve the medium of comics as well as other styles could.

Look up aesthetic distance.
You'll be satisfied with the information you'll find.

This is why I like Manga style of certain artists that do ones like Akira, Elfen Lied, and stuff like that. It's detailed enough to not look completely stupid like Ed, Edd, n Eddy. But it lacks enough detail where you can still relate to it.

Shows like Ed, Edd, n Eddy have the opposite problem. If something looks completely unhuman, or only a vague resemblance to a human being, I just can't relate to it. It feels like I'm interacting with a monster than a person.

Nick, Disney, and Cartoon Network seem to have this problem specifically.

It can only be too realistic when you don't have the time to draw it. I use flat colors for my comic and it comes out just fine, but my friend uses airbrushes to add depth. It all depends on your abilities and style.

scott mccloud said some really good stuff51 abt cartooning vs realism n i was just gonna screenshot that but he said too much good stuff.

but yeah i agree - and i think basically all of the modern art world agrees - that hyperrealism / trying to copy reality is limiting, and its definitely not the right style for comics. the more accurately you draw the surface of a person, the more obscured the internal emotions are that youre trying to communicate. comics need to be exaggerated and at least a lil impressionist so you can feel and hear them, instead of just seeing them. even realistic comics are exaggerating and simplifying at least a bit to give the images life.

The line where it's too realistic is very fine: I sometime gets surprised by comics that can go pretty far in drawing as close as possible to life while remaining expressive ( probably because down the line, despite the realistic style, the expression are exaggerated just right to 'feel' them, like punkarsenic said, but not so much that you notice it ).
It has been one thing that has always put me off with a LOTS of american comic books. For some reasons a lot of them can't seem to draw expressions that express something, even in just inks without a lot of crazy rendering. Like there's the appropriate wrinkles and stuff one the face, but it looks blank, like some photostock expression ? I think you don't need to get that far into rendering to already lose personality and expression in your style. I think it's all about subtle stylisation and mood setting: like some movie moods can 'feel' very realistic, but when you compare it to real life no contrast/colors would be like that. It's more about translating the feeling of expression and mood than drawing exactly how life is, and I think this is where a lot of artists who draws 'realistic' loose expressions/fluidity.
So on the matter of the question, yes, if by 'realistic' you mean 'too close to how reality LOOKS' and not 'FEEL'.

You mean where the art looks like it's all traced from photo refs, or rotoscoped from some 3D program? That leaves me cold too! Oddly, I prefer actual photocomics to that, maybe because of the romance photo strips that used to run in British girls comics. They were usually skillfully done - that example you posted is a nightmare!

I read an interview with Bruce Timm, who said Alex Ross could do amazing stuff if a more animated style (they showed examples to prove it), but Timm couldn't talk him out of taking reference photos of his friends for everything and It all ended up looking like a bunch of cosplayers. So Bruce Timm definitely agrees with you!

theirs this comic drawer right now that traces fotos for his panels... they're porn fotos : |

I feel like the only thing that matters to me in a comic is how well it can tell a story visually and how well the expressions read. Anything outside of that is raspberries.

I think details are fine, and realism to a certain extent along with the flavour of the artist give some really good artwork the effect the artists are wanting to achieve. For example, berserk or vegabond. Berserk is high in detail which makes it more gritty and more graphic when it comes to graphic scenes, and makes things look more then what a simple artwork would have done. and vegabond is very realistic in terms of background which immerses you into the atmosphere really well. Or comics like I am a hero has the uncanny valley effect and uses it well, so when voilent or shocking scenes happen its a lot of horrifying and adds to the creepiness of the scenes.

I think some of it depends on your personal preferences.

The main, non-subjective problem I can see with over realistic art is that "real life" doesn't say anything about the "characters" inside of it. In visual media you can use the mise en scene, framing, colours, shadows to suggest things about what's happening... You could lose some of this if you tried to stick too carefully to realism.

I can't find the clip (boo) but there's an episode of the Simpsons where the geeks preview a sci-fi film to check for accuracy and advise the director to take out the sound of the space shuttle scenes because... you know... but the audience hates it. This is approximately what I'm trying to say.