You guys noticed how many cartoonists nowadays seem to mock the 'Calarts' trend now that it's suddenly socially acceptable to do so? But the thing is- they only mock the most barebones interpretation of what that trend is, that memetic image of the character with the big cheek and the dumb bean mouth... They either don't notice, or aren't allowed to notice and point out, what the "new-Calarts" style really is, what defines is... It's not just 'big-cheek-bean-mouth' it's the very particular way things look, are drawn and animated... The thin lines, samey faces, round and inoffensive shapes and bright colors and a particular type of movement that makes the character appear as if they're on a stage, and all or most of those details are things we as viewers observe.
A lot of these same artists who mock the simplified version of this phenomena, either still draw in it and only mock what they *think* the artstyle is in order to fit in... Or they're scared to actually point out why the artstyle sucks and how it's defined.
Pictures like pic rel are huge psyops popularized by people from within the industry in order to discredit the 'Calarts' argument by setting up this strawman, that "Calarts is always when big cheek and a bean mouth", effectively giving industry shills a neat and easy argument to debonk them- no big cheek and beanmouth? Can't be new-Calarts, even if it fits every other criteria! But also some older stuff like Ghibli movies sometimes gave their characters a beanmouth, therefor "is thaaat Calarts??" even tho those shows had an observable and vastly different look. It's all an intentionally bad faith argument.
In reality anyone who knows a thing or two about art knows that it's so much more than that, and why it's become annoying for people to watch.
I'll take the autism accusations now because I know Cinemaphile doesn't like discussing cartoons
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>calarts style
Boner killer
What artists? I've never seen any industry personality do it?
And some people still get irrationally angry if only you suggest there is such a thing as a "calarts style"
It's been happening recently, industry artists on their social media or within art communities starting making a "haha what if my cartoon was Calarts" doodles, drawing them akin to the iconic Steven Universe picture
>And some people still get irrationally angry if only you suggest there is such a thing as a "calarts style"
Yeah I noticed.... I get not 'seeing' the artstyle or thinking it doesn't exist, fair enough people have their own opinions on the matter and not everyone is versed enough in cartoons to notice such a thing... Although personally I struggle to see how you *wouldn't* notice such a prevalent thing
But I swear anyone who throws a downright tantrum about it must be doing it out of ulterior motives
As for the topic of the thread- let me expand
Most people would not actually consider Gravity Falls or Gu*mball to be new-Calarts, but the stuff in pic rel is absolutely new-Calarts
Notice how even though some of these images or characters within them don't have a big cheek and a bean mouth, you can still tell they're drawn within a style... A human being can notice patterns like this, and what we call the "Calarts style" is simply a colloquial term for what we observe
Some people insist that the term "Calarts style" isn't entirely accurate now, since it used to refer to a somewhat different artstyle. I'd argue the modern term is more popular than the old one was, and if you say it, people still 'get' what you mean, but I'm willing to accept that assertion and for that reason some people began referring to this modern style as "New Calarts", which is ok with me, it still makes the point clear and gets the job done.
>industry artists
Any examples? (nta)
Notice how he wrote a whole essay to deflect the first time he was asked this.
So you asked that question with dishonest intentions? You're not actually here to debate the thread topic, but just to try and gotcha at OP?
I suspect it's a combination of two factors. First, the style has just become so commonplace that it's now the "old thing" that people rebel against. That's just the typical churn in a subculture.
Second, and this is more galaxy-brained, I think it's a form of defense against the advent of AI art. If the CalArts style can be easily replicated thanks to plentiful reference material, that makes artists more vulnerable down the line. So, there's both economic and creative incentive to encourage artists to go for a newer and/or more personalized art style that is harder for AI to replicate. Or at least that, once it is replicable, gets more tied TO YOU specifically.
The only modern style is the "no effort, no budget" style.
Yeah a lot of times this stuff is done as a result of a lack of effort, but not a lack of budget... Many of these shows have a great budget, but money can't buy you creativity, and likewise creativity can make up for a lack of budget
A lot of times this artstyle is just the default "I needed a style for my show and couldn't think of one that would fit in thematically, so I picked whatever was on the shelf."
It's a way of admitting your cartoon doesn't really have it's own identity, since you couldn't afford to build it one in the form of visuals, or at the very least pick a style that is best utilized within the show. The style was an afterthought, you just wanted to make any ol cartoon and figured style was as easy as drawing the way everyone does.
I think in today's industry people greatly underestimate the extent of cartoons and how much can be done with them and that's a result of a lack of imagination. They can't fathom how many layers and facets a cartoon can have, or how the visuals work alongside it, they have limited thinking and see every new show as just an idea stuck into a template, and the style is a part of that template.
A cartoon's artstyle is no longer a way of depicting real things within the show, aka (how do people look in our style?), nor is it about depicting plain visuals (aka these drawings now represent people in the metaphysical sense), but rather it's a lazy step further, into depicting cartoon characters within a cartoon (as in- these collections of features represent drawings)
Style's can be build from the model down- See person, translate his features into a cartoon. Or they can be build from the ground up- Build a cartoon, make it represent a person. New-Calarts does an odd third thing, where it builds the style from scraps of itself- Decide how noses are drawn, decide how arms are drawn, decide how mouths are drawn... Ok now throw all of that in a bowl and toss like a salad.
I do wonder how you would determine what artstyle "fits" a show/property. Obviously using the artstyle of the creator is one (which I guess that's where the CalArts stuff comes in cause they are people from cali).
>I think in today's industry people greatly underestimate the extent of cartoons and how much can be done with them and that's a result of a lack of imagination.
I think it is also risk aversion, you either have to market it as a childrens' show (calarts), adults' show (calarts but edgy), or anime inspired show for 20 somethings (usually ugly).
>Style's can be build from the model down- See person, translate his features into a cartoon. Or they can be build from the ground up- Build a cartoon, make it represent a person.
I will say, the construction/deconstruction take is really interesting and I haven't thought about it before. I've done both from time to time and I've never gotten a "cal arts" feel so I guess you are onto something about the recycling.
More like the “we don’t hire white guys” style
When white guys decided to go work on video games instead, it was over for cartoons.
And now the video game industry wants Japanese men instead now like in the 1980s and 1990s.
holy schizo-post, batman!
I know I shouldn't be surprised, I know it's part for the course, but I can't help but be reminded of how much modern Cinemaphile can't stand talk about cartoons, how much the notion of actually discussing the things their board is dedicated to bored them at best and downright scares them at worst, and how terms that used to mean something, like "schizo", now basically translate to "he notices things and loves things and has feelings and emotions and passions, and isn't a bland robot who just eats what he's given and asks for more!"
thats the way it is, npcs can't handle thought so they call you insane when you're capable of it
Most normalgays already struggle with conceptualizing ideas and having conversations that aren't just repetitions of memetic phrases, but that kinda behavior has especially been incentivized in the modern world where any kinda sincerity or care about anything is viewed as a weakness, it's a result of irony poisoning and suppression of thought teaching people that loving anything is weird and icky, discussing anything is cRaAaAaZy, and caring about anything is totally cringe dude
Even people who wanna have genuine discussions attempt to do so using templatespeak like "What does this mean?" "Do you agree?" "What did they mean by this?" because they're learned that most people around them simply cannot communicate using language to express concepts, but rather they need to use these preapproved stock phrases to sorta shove people towards the general idea of what they wanna talk about and achieve the interpersonal understanding they so crave.
Ironically, this perfectly fits into the topic of the thread, because as mentioned before- New Calarts is a stock artstyle, and it's constant reusing might also be attributed to the similar fear of bringing up ideas and innovation. Nobody can mock you if you never bring anything to the table.
And this style is problematic. The problem is, why force such poor art styles just as "faster for animation"?! Even Hanna-Barbera styles look much better than Cal-Art.
the traditional duck beaks are so much more appealing, holy frick. if they did the normal beaks with round heads i imagine the show would look so much better
Interesting. Anymore takes on proper beak/billwork models for avians? Having trouble finding a good source.
This would be good model.
Thanks, anymore takes just to be sure from different artstyles?
Sure.
I fricking hate that image so much, anyone who's watched any of these shows would know that they're drawn off-model
>expecting Cinemaphile posters not to fall for the most obvious misinformation possible
you fool
>Art I don't like is off-model
You do not watch any of these shows
Dude 3/4 of those shows have an entirely different artstyle from what OPs image shows
what would you guys say is an artstyle that was made for, or worked best with, the show it was in? as opposed to this feeling that some styles are just 'tacked on'
Wander Over Yonder
Robotomy
Hanazuki
Invader Zim
Pig Goat Banana Cricket
even Gumball
frick it you could probably throw in Problem Solverz in there despite that show art style being eye bleeding
>even Gumball
That cartoon stands out from the rest since its background art are from irl places and the shows changes artstyle at times
yeah that was the point, Gumball is known for having a bunch of different clashing styles on purpose so i'll let them get away with the Wattersons being beanmouths
>It's not just 'big-cheek-bean-mouth' it's the very particular way things look, are drawn and animated...
Honestly my favorite thing about calarts toons is how they all seem to have this "character head goes up and down" movement whenever they talk as a crutch for actual animation. It's fricking everywhere
>Honestly my favorite thing about calarts toons is how they all seem to have this "character head goes up and down" movement whenever they talk
Huh, I've never noticed that, that's really specific of them now that you mention it. I guess moving the hands and body as somebody talks isn't something taught then
>I guess moving the hands and body as somebody talks isn't something taught then
It really just depends on which studio is animating it. More often than not companies will send their cartoons to be animated oversea by Korean sweatshops because they're cheap. They don't care about the quality of the animation itself, like
pointed out, the people working on them don't have any clue of what the big picture should look like and that's how we end up with shows that look so samey. I'll allow myself to talk a bit about SVTFOE animation because that show actually used to have nice visuals for a short period. Season 1 should've set the precedent for what the animation on that show should've been like, It was both very expressive and energetic which was a nice parallel to Star's personality (Thanks to Mercury Filmworks). Instead when they had to change animation studios for a second time in S2 they just went for the cheapest option available whereas Craig McCracken actually cared enough about WOY to hand it over to a studio that would make the animation change barely noticeable. I've actually seen people praise Star's S2 animation over the first season because "It was too kiddy, this is more mature". I was genuinely flabbergasted
Does Disney TVA have a habit of changing studios after S1 or is it just a coincidence it happened twice
in the case of Mercury Filmworks I remember it vaguely being about having too many shows under their belt at the time so they had to lay them off.
Hanna Barbera did this all the time.
all of those shows are dead...
Gumball will be back
>It's another case of "anon doesn't read the post and just responds to the pic rel"
Board IQ is bellow zero
"Cal-arts style" is a term invented by John K to refer to the thing he wrote in the essay on it.
People who cannot accurately summarize what he is saying or more likely are not even aware of the connection took the word and created a second defination. The second definition is just a jumble of half-thoughts and sensationalism that lacks corehancy. It's like those dumb words that were invented by your high school group.
You can discuss John K's definition seriously because he can connect it to history and procedure very coherently and is articulate enough to write several essays on the subject. I just treat the common definition like a high schooler coming up to me and using dumb slang. And Cinemaphile is in that camp, they cannot think clearly nor articulate the concepts they make.
What's funny is, John K divided cartoons into two catagories of animation dominant: "Cal Arts" cartoons (Disney, Bluth, Pixar and most feature length cartoons), or Spumco influenced. But Cinemaphile around 2010 would grow to hate 'ugly-looking' postmodern cartoons that were more heavily inspired by Spumco then the whole Disney/Don Bluth aesthetic and would go on to call and redefine the Spumco catagory as CalArts style.
Then sometime in the mid-10's enough beanmouth shows came out that it went from a snarl against ugly avant garde shows with trippy and offensive visuals, to super santized digitally created shows. And now the term CalArts is just a brainrot usage of both John K's catagories or really 'Whatever shit I don't like this week is CalArts.'
Leave it for OP to assume the cal-arts propaganda b***hing is from anyone in the Industry instead of anons and terminally online shitheads repeating memes with no digestion or historicization.
The Cal-Arts critique originally came from resident pedophile John K, obviously OP's image is a strawman. Here are some cartoons John K have come out and diagnosied as "Cal-Arts":
> 'when the wind blows', 'watership down', 'plague dogs', 'waltz with bashir', 'gandahar', 'fantastic planet', 'the masters of time', 'idiots and angels', 'kirikou and the sorcress', 'the triplets of belleville' and 'the illusionist'
Obviously no one should take the term remotely seriously.
90s CalArts isn't 2010s CalArts like 90s Hanna Barbera isn't 70s Hanna Barbera.
John K has talked about what the CalArts style he hates actually IS. It's based on 1960's Disney films, but more angular -- he cite The Iron Giant as a prime example. AT and RS aren't that, so I wouldn't blame CalArts.
Groomer, quit trying to activate "follow what the teacher said" Public School psychology.
The animation community evolves its tradition about the Calarts Style, instead of trying to control natural cultural development just accept the criticism exists
I don't get the gays who act like a term can't evolve over time
You lot did it with the word "gay". It used to just mean happy.
You did it with the rainbow. It used to mostly be a Christian symbol
CalArts means whatever the majority of people using it want it to mean
You did it with the word "lesbian". It used to just mean angry.
You did it with the word "ass". It used to just mean donkey.
You did it with the word "queer". It used to just mean sick.
You did it with the word "troony". It used to just mean transmission.
I have no idea why this style gets attributed to CalArts in general. It's not like they teach courses on beanmouth at the school and many of the creators who are criticized for "CalArts" style didn't even fricking go there.
It's a design trend as much as hard quantized pitches (autotune) was a thing in music for awhile. the idea that there's a "new CalArts style" is kind of ridiculous. Design trends always exist (like the typical "adult animation" look that basically every animated sitcom comedy has these days).
All right animation student - and a character design class for CalArts literally taught beanmouth, so you're hoping nobody will call you on your bullshit
Got to groom the ignorant and young, it's the only way you'll have your job!
>Pictures like pic rel are huge psyops popularized by people from within the industry in order to discredit the 'Calarts' argument by setting up this strawman, that "Calarts is always when big cheek and a bean mouth", effectively giving industry shills a neat and easy argument to debonk them- no big cheek and beanmouth?
you say this like people on Cinemaphile won't sincerely argue that the image is accurate