Planet Krylon

Let's travel far into the outer reaches of the galaxy. Envision a planet much like our own in many way except for the fact that the people of that planet hold dear the belief in free public expression and it would almost never occur to anyone to restrict such expression. This is planet Krylon, where everyone communicates through graffiti. Oh sure the people can talk and sign and write blocks of text, but they find these modes of communication primitive and limited. They feel free to illustrate all their ideas instead. Whereas , here on Earth we communicate primarily by sending sound through ever ubiquitous atmospheric gases, on Krylon they use whatever surface is available to them to spontaneously paint their ideas. And there is always surface availble.

Be warned, young traveller! Such an illustrious world is no dreamland of artists. Where there is art, there is deception. An Earthling would have a tough time navigating Krylon. Besides the intense visual clutter the perpetually surrounds you, there are those that persistently try to confuse other. For example on any corner there might be ten seemingly identical street signs all with different names. The true sign may have the ability to repel any type of surface pigment or obstruction, but there are no laws banning public sculpture of any kind. The residents of course evolved into very discerning folks indeed and can immediately spot the prevelant knockoffs of anything.

But what of professional artists on this planet. If everyone paints and sculpts constantly is there any place for art for art's sake? "Well", an inhabitant might reply (in coloring of course), "don't you have gifted orators, actors, writers, and poets that transcend the normal use you your own common medium?" Truly, not everyone on Krylon is gifted, but everyone does draw. They just don't stop at grade school. On Krylon chiildren are raised to be articulate in all media.

Ok, and that's when i got tired of writing. About halfway through I just started making it up on the fly, as opposed to the first half of the piece, which were ideas bottled up in my head for over an hour waiting to be solidified. Open to suggestions as to how to end this. See any typos? I'm sure it's chock full. Where are my grammar-maniacs!

Graffiti: What’s it for?

I just saw a couple short documentaries on graffiti. In both artists were posed with questions of why they do it and whether it should be/is legal. They almsot uniiversally cited graffiti as a form of expression that benefits themselves and the onlooker (AKA everyone). To the second question almost none of them questioned the illegality of the act. "it should be illegal. I mean we're putting posters on other people's shit [paraphrase]," commented one unidentified artist. While some even reveled in its status for the thrill-factor. Somehow, these two ideas seem incongruous to me.If this public art is so rewarding to the artists and the community then why should it be illegal, and why not do it through legal channels (as none of the artist did for a majority of their work)?

I think the fundamental aspect of graffiti's allure is as a form of protest. By purposefully breaking the law your action becomes a protest of that law. Most people only do things they personally believe should be allowed. Vandalism of corporate advertisements, especially corporate-sponsored graffiti, in a way rejects the notion that public visual space can only be sold to the highest bitter. It's a statement that the public space belongs to the public at large, not just dollar-powered private entities.

Graffiti culture asserts that evolution of the public space in the new millennium shall operate by survival of the most creative rather survival of the richest. Why should we bow to the elite who write anti-graffiti laws to protects the advertising interests? I say that all public visual art should be legal, and that if people don't want the public facades of their property reface should make that surface so visually enjoyable that no one would feel the need to cover it.

More DVNR Horrors

Tex Avery DVNR Disaster
Video sent by tacos4all

Stalker Doodles!

These are some drawing I did of strangers at an airport on my way home from Rome.

That miserable old couple was so cute, i could barely do them justice. The gentleman's' glasses probably ought to have been emphasized more.

This guy looked as if he hated his entire trip.

Seems that I was subconsciously imposing ponderous lower lips on everyone. Perhaps i was ponderous myself.

Look at these clips

http://www.adultswim.com/shows/pilotweek/

and tell me, do they not all feature the same exact character: a reckless slob that acts completely irresponisibly and occasionally gets stranded in a boat at sea or crashes a car through building facades. Whoever green-lighted/"developed" all 5 of these shows secretly wishes that (s)he were sociopathic.

Colbert Plays DVNR'ed Charlie Brown

For a second i thought, that's weird animation effect to wobbly erase the outlines... than i realized exactly how random the line erasures are. Teh culprit is DVNR again!

DVNR_CB
Uploaded by tacos4all

I ought to make a slo mo version later.

Panda! Pa Panda, Kopanda!!

Gene Shallot

Tee Vough my Azzzzz

Need inspiration? And Cheap?

Look no further than the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive at animationarchive.org. You can't visit this site without getting some sort of idea. They have so many of the most skillful and beautiful cartoons, animation, and illustration art that I've never heard of anywhere else. Every time, I visit i find at least one "new" image tha t blows me away. My favorite area at the moment is the Golden Age of Illustration. The work there is so beautiful and blows away so much of the work done since. Moreover, I will probably never have to buy any books on animation and illustration including the original (copyright infringing) version of Preston Blair's seminal Advanced Aniamtion , which has jsut about all the information you would need to learn to animate 1940s style cartoons. A lofty goal for sure!

And of coares there is Chiquita Banana ♥

Just check out my previous post if you don't believe the blog can get you going.

I was looking over some of these Heinrich Kley sketches from a recent ASIFA post and i noticed two things while perusing his sketches:

A) He seems to see the structure of the thing first and then sort of traces or with his actual line. (see above image) That's why he probably can draw his line's so freely and confidently. He knows where they are going already, so it's just a matter of adding flourish to it.

B) Sketches in general seem to contain nonexistent lines. By this i mean lines that are not actually visible in the physical thing you are drawing.


For example, in Kley's leopard here there are are lines whizzing about every which way up and down its tail and spin and around it's legs. The almost seem to indicate internal anatomy or just general line of action for different parts of the body. It's almost as if the artist is drawing path of some sort of metaphysical energy that isn't necessarily visible. Life itself!



I don't know what that circle in the hippo's neck is supposed to be but i sure does look exciting! And it doesn't look "wrong" or "bad".


If one were to make a polished drawing of these sketches These would probably be the first liens to get omitted as "unnecessary" clutter. However a lot of times when i do that with my won sketches (and i see it frequently in others too professionals even) it seems all-of a sudden less alive. "They" say the trick to making a finished drawing is to capture the same vitality of the sketch, but somehow i think it's impossible, because those superfluous lines are illustrations of the life energy itself. So any time you omit that are you necessarily making a less vital drawing? I've always had this saying that the best way to honor a spontaneous moment is not to capture but to create another one. So perhaps the best way to translate final drawing from a draft isn't to faithfully trace it but rather to use it as inspiration and guidance for your final set of lines.