AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I don't agree that it's "still pretty much just a straight, horizontal pose at the end of the day". I reiterate that there is much more movement implied in Josh's drawing. I also suggested you were at least partially excusing Katie from artistic fundamentals because of her style.

I really really should have nothing to add to this arguement, because I'm nowhere close to being a visual artist. But have you ever seen someone punt something? Not only do they bring their leg upwards to kick, but they bring their arms holding the object-to-be-punted swiftly downwards, to add to the force of the kick. It makes perfect sense that in Josh's drawing, Katie's arms are by her side. In fact, it even adds to the momentum when you really think about it.

And Phileas, ignoring artistic fundamentals in favor of personal absurd style is how cartooning has gotten to where it is today. Love it or leave it.

Again, I don't have much to add, just playing devil's advocate.

And on that note, you should watch your run-on sentences, Unge. :awesome:

So geometric characters can't have lines of action, huh?







Note that Josh never said anything about "swooshy" lines in his lectar. A line of action does not have to be super curvy, but it needs to be able to help tell the story and/or joke. The problem with Katie's drawing is that since her pose is so rigid, it makes the kicking of the puppy rather dull-looking, and that can't be because SHE'S KICKING A FREAKIN' PUPPY D:

EDIT: PART TWO OF MY POST



Actually, artistic fundamentals are pretty daisies important in cartooning. Just because a drawing doesn't have realistic rendering or anatomy doesn't mean it's blatantly ignoring the principles of art. Quite the opposite, in fact! Without artistic fundamentals, cartooning would simply be stick figures. The thing that makes cartooning different from what most people would consider 'regular art' is that instead of copying what an artist sees, the artist takes what's there and exaggerates it to varying degrees, depending on the artist's preference. But despite looking different, a cartoon drawing still needs good composition, form, and solid lines (for the most part) to be successful.

Remember, a funny drawing may be highly caricatured and silly, but ultimately it's still a drawing, and thus follows the same basic rules. :awesome:

Half the posts here are following rigidly to the predictions cast by Katie in the second panel.

Good job guys.
Internet thumbs up.

I really can't understand now if everybody followed Katie's plan or if they just don't like her for kicking a puppy.

Well, at least the professional readers are being useful now, right?

ImeanJosh.

Katie needs to keep her comics from being long-winded and draw her poses more organic and silly.

Better than my first post?

Words as sound effects are homestarrunner.com's turf.


Grammar fail? I can't tell

overratedness is homestar runners turf.

obviously doesnt know what he's talking about is scebboaliwiw's turf.

As far as punting goes, your proper punting Technique goes, for the greatest distance, you hold the object up, do not toss up, but simply drop it and bring your kicking foot up (it helps if you take a step or two to increas the strength of your kick) and you should meet the object befoe it's close to the ground, extending your leg, foot pointed, or you'll get t much up and not enough out. Your knee wouldn't be bent like it is in the comic, that would make it a failed punt.

Or that's how we do it in soccer

Katie, Panels are a sugestion, if you need a limb or some hting to stick out for the sake of showing movment, do it I say. Try new things, just once, and if they don't work, they don't work.

A great way to avoid being criticized for your punt drawing and sound effects is to use a cannon instead.

Yeah, but blowing apart a puppy just doesn't give the same satisfaction you get when you connect your foot to it. :\

speak for yourself.

Sorry for the late reply, I had my army physical which kept me busy over the last two days, I made my first reply around 4 am and golly, it shows. I'll try to clarify a lot of the things I meant to say in the first post.


First of, I didn't excuse Katie from any artistic fundamentals, I don't think her pose (and thus, in a wider sense, the whole composition) was too rigid and constrained, you might've missed it as I regarded the composition as a whole.

About Josh's punting pose, the pose itself does not imply motion, the drawn trail of the leg does - the pose itself, though exaggerated, is balanced, symmetric and balanced (the negative shape is what matters here, look at the legs) which is always undesirable if you want to suggest movement or action.

That's one of my griefs with it, Water's post nicely leads me to the other major issue I have with Josh's suggestion:

His pose is exaggerated, but it doesn't add anything to the composition, it's different from Katie's, but not necessarily better. There's another difference - in Josh's drawing Katie looks like she's made of rubber, there's not a hint of angular lines inherit to Katie's style. His solution, apart form being kinda lackadaisical (God I love that word) isn't necessarily applicable to Katie's style.

As for the run-on sentences, 4 am, etc.

I never claimed that, I merely said curved lines of action (as seen on the Tom&Jerry guide page Josh posted, which I explicitly referred to in my initial post) aren't the be-all-end-all solution for all styles.

Yes. Does that make Josh's poses any better? Nope and that was my point, I agree with Josh in theory, I disagree with his execution as I A) don't think his composition is dramatically better B) he advertised stuff drawn in his style that would only work like this in his style as "better", something that goes against the grain for me, no matter who does it.

Puppy punting has a time and a place.

This "Josh" guy's comments are worth taking on board.

Nobody ever stops learning after all.

Unlez yer a re-tard.