Artsy Fartsy

[Jack]

This is a subject that's been touched on a little before. What does everyone think of the more "abstract" or "sylized" Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies, or even the background and character designs of theatrical cartoons in general? Do you prefer traditional stylings, or the more wildly abstract ones?



Jack :bosko:

[Do-Do]

I like most of them, like "Now Hear This", except some of the "artsy" ones try to hard to be different, like "Nelly's Folly". And even though pretty much everybody hates it, I like "I Was a Teenage Thumb".
(BTW, what the heck is that rabbit on your avatar?)

[Jack]

Originally posted by Do-Do
(BTW, what the heck is that rabbit on your avatar?)
Why, it's Crusader Rabbit! Rags the Tiger and Crusader rabbit fight injustice, and stuff like that there. It was the first made for TV cartoon (in 1948), and was by Jay Ward (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame). It was done in a serialized format, a format Hanna-Barbera's "Ruff and Reddy" show copied.

It featured a lot less animation than Rocky and Bullwinkle. It was also made in B&W (perhaps, because of the great expense, and maybe because color television probably wasn't in the forseeable future at the time). My avatar is taken from a publicity still.


Jack :D

[Matt Yorston]

Well, "artsy" cartoons can be entertaining (and sometimes a nice change of pace from traditional cartoon standards), although some attempts can be a little too over-the-top if not done tactfully. "Martian Through Georgia", for example, is a brilliant cartoon, IMHO, although, as others have mentioned, the backgrounds are a little too much for the eyes in some scenes. I also like "Pizzicato Pussycat" an awful lot with its UPA-style story and abstract backgrounds. Come to think of it, "Pizzicato" is probably my favorite "artsy" WB cartoon.

While we're on this subject, I also like Disney's 1954 cartoon "Pigs is Pigs". It's noteworthy as being one of the rare times Disney actually tried to do something abstract and in the same vein as UPA (It's also probably the only time Disney used limited animation). Also, let's not forget "Bartholomew Versus The Wheel", a cute little story by McKimson about a dog who catches wheels which later gets him in big trouble (the story, BTW, was inspired by James Thurber who was actually dead by the time of the cartoon's release).

And, of course, I probably would be insane if I didn't bother to mention "Now Hear This". This can be considered a good cartoon but it does get really obscure and hard to mentally grasp in parts (like the scene where the Britisher encounters eyes staring at him and the speech balloon, "You're going for a ride", at which the point, the background converts into a car, only the front of which drives off). Pretty far-fetched stuff, there!

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Jack

Why, it's Crusader Rabbit! Rags the Tiger and Crusader rabbit fight injustice, and stuff like that there. It was the first made for TV cartoon (in 1948), and was by Jay Ward (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame). It was done in a serialized format, a format Hanna-Barbera's "Ruff and Reddy" show copied.

It featured a lot less animation than Rocky and Bullwinkle. It was also made in B&W (perhaps, because of the great expense, and maybe because color television probably wasn't in the forseeable future at the time). My avatar is taken from a publicity still.


Jack :D

Yeah, Crusader debuted in 1949, a while before color. It was also the first made-for-TV cartoon, which you can tell by the extremely limited animation that Jack mentioned. I really like your avatar Jack, but I was wondering where you got the color picture from! I figured that it might have been from around the time of the second Crusader series that was done in color in 1957 (but not by Jay Ward)

To get on topic...I guess it depends on the execution. I like Bartholomew Versus The Wheel and the UPA toons but some of the WB toons it doesn't quite work right. Particularly when some objects in the background are stylized when other objects aren't. I think that Bewitched Bunny was one of the cartoons that did this and it struck me kind of oddly.

[chuckamuck43]

Joe, I gotta disagree a bit with you:)!

I think DeGuard and Noble's work on the Witch Hazel cartoons was nothing short of brilliant!

In addition to being stand-alone funny, those weird backgrounds set the tone for the action that takes place in Witch Hazel's cottage. The discrepancies between the fully animated Bugs and Hazel and those spare UPA-lke backgrounds are just the slightest bit disorienting to the viewer - a desired effect in a series of cartoons about a witch!

Now, I don't think Chuck intended to screw with people's heads. I think he and the guys just thought it was funny. Either way, it works for me.

And as for NOW HEAR THIS - yeah, I liked it, but the Master was more profound and artful in any of a dozen other cartoons that were much FUNNIER!

[Jack]

There are two periods of WB cartoons where I really love the more abstract backgrounds. The first was the WWII era. That is really when many studios seemed to experiment with design, and it was when UPA was created (with help from many WB artists). the backgrounds, especially those in jones, McCabe, and Tashlin shorts got very flat, and the black and white cartoons really took advantage of what many would deem a shortcoming. the last B&W Looney Tunes are some of the best looking B&W cartoons. Watch "The Daffy Duckaroo," "Porky Pig's Feat," "Puss N' Booty," etc. The color cartoons also start going a bit more abstract. Look at Jon McGrew's work for the Jones unit. "The Aristo Cat," "Wackiki Wabbit," and "My Favorite Duck" have great background art.

The second period was about 1953-1955 or so, this is when they started using more UPA inspired things, it seems. But more in moderation, not really going all out eccept for one shot cartoons where the characters could be designed to match, like the wonderful "Pizzicado Pussycat." I think this is when Maurice Noble did his best work (I know a lot will disagree, but I don't particularly like a lot of his post John Sutherland stuff).

I also love the more traditional looking stuff. Really any cartoon with the credit "Backgrounds--Paul Julian" appeals to me. Watch "Mutiny On The Bunny," "The Lion's Busy," and "Bugs Bunny Rides Again." The backgrounds are beautiful. Really, they are, those nice earthy colors. I also love Robert Gribbroek's stuff. I think he's my favorite Layout artist, I particularly like the Roadrunner and Pepe Le Pew cartoons he was involved with (and everything he and Peter Alvarado worked on). And John Dedrick Johnson aslo did some very impressive background paintings for Tex Avery.

I've heard Hawley Pratt was more involved with character layout and design, but it's never really been confirmed for me. I always liked most of Freleng's character designs, though.

I never liked how some later cartoons would place very simple looking characters with the major stars, though. It is a little weird to place a 3-d character in a world not drawn the same way.


Jack :D

[Paul Penna]

What's usually overlooked in these discussions is historical context. Cartoons of the past didn't exist in a cultural and aesthetic vacuum, but the way we see them today unavoidably puts them in one. You'll notice that these discussions about "abstract" vs. "realistic" backgrounds in cartoons almost always get around to calling the former "the UPA style," or that other studios were "influenced" by UPA. You know why that happens? Because the only exposure the people expressing those opinions have had to graphic design of that period is from cartoons. Cartoons of the 40s and 50s are still marketable and are therefore familiar today. Can you say that about magazine ads of that period? Record album covers? Book jackets? The truth is that the cartoons of UPA _and_ Warner Brothers _and_ Disney _and_ all the rest reflected the trends then in vogue in illustrative and graphic art. And abstract and stylized art was most definitely in vogue; you saw it everywhere. It was "in" for a long time. These were the days when hip and with-it lasted longer that a few months or a year. This is not to say there was no cross-pollenization within the cartoon field, but to say that UPA "invented" "the style" or that they were the primary influence for other studios adopting it is to be viewing the past via tunnel vision.

BTW, for truly eye-popping examples of this kind of design in cartoons, check out Disney's 1953 short "Melody," or the backgrounds for the jungle scenes in "Peter Pan" (which looks like the work of Mary Blair to me). Gorgeous.

[Jack]

Nobody said UPA created the style. Of course abstract art was popular in magazine ads and such, and probably influenced a lot of the people working in cartoons at the time, but I do think that the popularity of UPA did influence other studios to start doing some more far out things on a normal basis.

And "Melody" is very stunning, excellent color and design. I also love "Toot Whistle Plunk and Boom" and "Pigs Is Pigs."


Jack :D

[Mibbitmaker]

And, of course, UPA was largely influenced by Chuck Jones' early experiments (especially The Dover Boys).

The stylized look was quite evident in animated commercials in the 1950s, mainly as a cost-saving devise I recon. Ironically, some of the most full animation you see on TV these days is in TV advertising, like it's only worth the expense when trying to propagandize products.

I've always felt the stylized backgrounds behind the fully developed characters in the '50s LT/MMs were a bad idea, which I have attributed to a UPA influence(now I see I was only partially correct there). Better to do backgrounds/objects like that if the characters are also stylized IMHO.

One of the more brilliant cartoons done in the style that this thread is about is The Dot and The Line, although I don't get much out of it upon very many viewings. Once in a blue moon is fine for me. My favorites from the 1960s(besides the Pink Panther) are Martian through Georgia and Nelly's Folly. Jones' cartooning chops make for great stylized animation, especially the character design of the martian, plus background characters.

[angilbas]

Irv Wyner and Richard H. Thomas are well worth talking about. The former painted backgrounds for most Freleng cartoons from 1952 through 1956 (not "Pizzicato Pussycat," though--Thomas worked that). Many of Wyner's designs looked relatively flat, but they were always composed with care (he was very skillful with colors). Apart from the eye-catching arid terrain of "Tom Tom Tomcat," Wyner's work seldom distracted the viewer. Thomas was highly versatile over a career of at least 43 years. For the most part during the classic era, Thomas worked with McKimson, occasionally lending his skill to Freleng and Jones. Through the 1970s, he crafted many stylish backdrops for the Pink Panther to cavort against, and only said good night to his career after finishing "Night of the Living Duck" (1988).

Tony

[Jack]

Richard H. Thomas probably painted more backgrounds than any other individual at WB. He had started in the late 30s with Clampett, and it seems he stayed in that unit until McKimson inherited it (working for McCabe and tashlin too).

I like Wyner's use of an almost shocking green in some of his earlier backgrounds. See "Southern Fried Rabbit" or almost any other Freleng film.

Didn't CN do a very brief "tribute" to Wyner and Thomas durring the first (and best) "50 greatest cartoons" marathon? I rembember it showed a brief clip of a few cartoons, the mansion in "Southern Fried Rabbit" being the only one I remember.

...And of course there's Ernie Nordli, who had come from Disney. I like his stuff, "Rocket Bye Baby" and "Baby Buggy Bunny" being my favorites. He returned to Disney, though, and ended up being a layout man for "101 Dalmations" and some other cartoons and features. He then did some Roadrunner cartoons in the 60s.



Jack :D

[Matthew Hunter]

I don't like some of the 'stylized' films...but I like others because their other qualities shine through. I like McKimson's "Bartholomew vs. the Wheel", with its Thurber-inspired design. However, I really don't like "Yankee Doodle Bugs" and "Goo Goo Goliath"...both feature ugly backgrounds and unpleasant colors. I like Maurice Noble's "artsy' environments in Chuck Jones' cartoons much better, because Noble seemed to understand that no matter how much you distort or stylize a background, it must be pleasing to the eye, interesting, and it must work with the film. The color schemes he came up with may be why I like them better...he laid off the hideous forest greens and dull maroons, and didn't just waste space with huge fields of solid color that were ugly. Watch "Hare-Way to the Stars", then watch "Goo Goo Goliath". You will see the difference.
And as an added side note...notice that "Goo Goo Goliath" features the same human couple that appears in "Pizzicato Pussycat." This is another 'artsy' film, but it's a lot more pleasing. It has good characters, good gags, good colors,and good music. In fact, the art style in this one sort of reminds me of 1950's pop art, or pop record covers, you know, I can look at that and say "That's very 1950's".
-Matthew

[Thad Komorowski]

I'd have to say my favorite "artsy" film would be "Pizzicato Pussycat", for the reasons Matthew said, however, I do prefer the traditional backgrounds and designs.




-Thad