The world of caricature lost one of it’s true giants Tuesday.

David Levine, probably best known for his caricature illustrations for the New York Times Book Review, died on Dec. 29th at New York Presbyterian Hospital from prostate cancer and other ailments. He was 83 years old.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Levine’s work was as influential on caricature in the 20th century as that of Al Hirschfeld, Mort Drucker or any legend of that art form. His distinctive linear crosshatch style is also one of the most imitated by other artists. His caricatures were sharp, biting social and political satire that showed a deep and thoughtful analysis of the world. He rarely pulled any punches, and is regarded by many as one of, if not the most, important political caricaturist of the last century. He was also a very accomplished painter and teacher.

I’d met Mr. Levine on two occasions. The first was at the National Cartoonists Society‘s Reuben weekend in 2000 in New York City, where he did a talk for the attending cartoonists. That Reubens had the highest attendance of any in the last decade, so I didn’t get to talk much with him amid the crowds.

The first time we met was more low key, and I like to tell the story about how David Levine gave me the best career advice on freelance illustration I’ve ever gotten… in a hotel men’s room.

It was later in 2000 and I was then president of the National Caricaturist Network. The American Association of Editorial Cartoonists happened to be having their annual convention in Minneapolis that year, and I organized an NCN mini-con in Minnesota around a panel discussion on caricature that the AAEC was having as part of their convention programming. On the panel: Philip Burke, David Cowles, Bob Staake and David Levine. The panel discussion was great and there were about 20 NCN members in attendance.

After the panel we met the participants in the area outside the meeting rooms, and I got a chance to talk with Mr. Levine. He told me about how he’d gotten started in the business, his process, some of the favorite things he’d done, etc. He asked about my career goals and we had a nice conversation. I actually hit him up to be a main guest speaker at one of our NCN conventions but he said he really hated to travel to do that kind of thing and that the AAEC really had to twist his arm to get him to come to Minneapolis, but if he ever had a convention in New York that he’d be happy to explore the idea.

A short time later I was in the bathroom when Mr. Levine entered and came up to the urinal next to me. We were observing the male ritual of staring straight ahead into the tiles while engaging in small talk as we relieved ourselves, when he told me the single best piece of advice I’ve ever gotten on doing freelance illustration for a living:

“People.” He said. “That’s the key to making a living and being successful as a freelance illustrator. It’s all about people and building relationships with people.” He went on to say that doing good work was what got you your first job, but continuing jobs was about building relationships of trust and respect with art directors, because they invariably moved on to other art director jobs and passed your name on to other ADs, who would give you jobs and then you’d build a relationship with them, eventually creating a large web of contacts and people who know you were a professional who did not only good work but who did it in the professional manner that appreciated. That was some great advice and I have built my career around it.

As we were flushing and zipping up, he commented: “Shithouse wisdom… it’s the best kind.”

So true. Rest in piece, Mr. Levine… and thanks for sharing that wisdom and your art with the world.

This week’s sketch is a bit of a cheat… a rough for another of those workplace posters. This one is about co-workers providing support in the face of another worker’s difficulties.

One of the most common problems I hear about from other caricaturists is that women are harder to draw than men. Many struggle to make their caricatures of women look feminine, and often feel their female subjects look like “drag queens”.

I think it’s a myth that women, particularly beautiful women, are harder to caricature than men. Women have the same sets of features that men have, but the need to differentiate the masculine from the feminine forces the caricaturist to modify his or her approach (in most cases) to the different sexes. That doesn’t mean that it’s more difficult to draw either sex than it is to draw the other, but you do have to keep the masculine/feminine difference in mind if you want to avoid the “drag queen” look that sometimes results in a caricature of a woman.

Superficially there are a lot of facial elements that identify a given subject as male or female. Thick eyelashes, full red lips, soft complexion, high cheekbones, more curved and thinner eyebrows… these are feature descriptions that are distinctly “feminine”.  You may notice these items have one thing in common… they are all features that women traditionally use makeup to accentuate or to create. If women don’t have them in abundance naturally many use makeup to create them or to accentuate what they do possess. Take your cues from what makeup artists do to see what kinds of features say “female” (and conversely what to avoid on a male caricature to prevent them from looking feminine). If I am drawing a man who happens to have thick, long eyelashes (many do) I will play that DOWN in many cases to accentuate the masculine in the drawing.

These are only superficial things, though. The real differences between men and women’s faces lay under the skin… with the bones and the skull. This is the basis of the “drag queen” look… the human eye and brain is able to differentiate between a male and female face based on difference and indicators that are more than surface features. Hence a drawing of a face with lot’s of female makeup level features on the surface but with the structure and other aspects of a typical male face looks like a man wearing makeup.

Skeletal differences between the sexes are well documented. It’s not just the different chromosomes that are behind it, either… the high levels of testosterone at puberty help enlarge the bones of males, while the high levels of progesterone also help develop male characteristics like greater height and a narrower pelvic bone. The differences also extend to the skull, which is actually the second easiest part of the skeleton forensic scientists can use to determine the probable sex of a skeleton, the pelvis being the first (learned that on NCIS!). In fact the mandible (jaw bone) alone gives examiners a 90% accuracy in determining the sex of a skeletal subject.

The female skull is generally smaller and lighter than the male’s. Elements like the brow ridge and mandible are usually less pronounced. The female skull tends to be wider than the male’s which leads to a general softness of features, more prominent cheekbones and a less prominent jawline. The areas above the eye sockets in men tend to be more blunt while the brow itself is more pronounced, but in women that same area is sharper (thus the purpose of “eye shadow”) while the brow protrudes less.

The jaw is actually a key element to the masculine/feminine definition of a subject, and represents the most dynamic differences between the faces of the sexes. The combination of the wider skull, the less developed mandible and the propensity of the female chin (mental protuberance) to be smaller and more pointed as opposed to a man’s wider and more square one makes the female jaw distinct from the male jaw. The upper (top part of the) chin is wider and higher vertically while a female’s is more rounded and shorter. In fact the male chin is generally larger in every dimension. Big, square jaws inevitably read as masculine and small, narrow and pointier ones read as feminine.

Jackie O‘s features are classic feminine

Features themselves are also different, often as a result of the skull variance but sometimes of their own accord. Female noses, for example, are generally less angular and the tip is smaller and softer. They have a tendency to be pointier, narrower and vertically shorter (closer to the eyes) than a man’s nose.

Spencer Grammer has a small, understated nose, small chin and
wide face that says “female”

So, what does all this mean in terms of a caricature? Since caricature is all about exaggeration, it makes sense that if you want a subject to be more feminine you should downplay the things that make a face masculine and play up those things that make it feminine. Sounds like distortion, or the exaggeration of features based not on the what the subject’s features demand but on some other preconceived notion (which I constantly preach against), doesn’t it?

Some rules to drawing faces need to apply in order for the end result to be read as what it is intended to be read as. Drawing kids has certain rules you cannot break (or must break with only the most demanding of reasons) if you expect your caricature to look like a kid and not some weirdly deformed adult. Same thing with women. While it’s true that some women’s faces with bend and even break some of these “rules”, knowing the general rules will allow the observer to look for them and understand their meaning. If you are drawing a women with an enormous square jaw you can hardly ignore it, but you can look for the other typical female attributes you can then play up to balance things… or you can just exaggerate that enormous jaw and know your caricature is going to end up looking like Jessie Ventura in a wig. Hey, if the SUBJECT looks like Jessie Ventura in a wig you can’t do much about that. At least you know WHY the caricature doesn’t look feminine. You break the rules at your own risk, but you do have to break them when the situation calls for it.

Some examples of Breaking the Rules:

In this one of Rihanna I exaggerated her chin,
but the other rules are in place to help compensate.

This Lena Headley looks distinctly masculine… too many harsh angles

While the nose on Scarlett Johansson is not very feminine, the other features
compensate… cheekbones, lips, eyes, eyebrows. Chin is bigger but jaw still small.

So, what are the rules for making a caricature of a woman look feminine? The obvious thing is stay away from making the jaw, brow ridge and chin bigger or more pronounced in a woman’s caricature, and if possible even make these elements a little smaller. When possible play up those features that makeup is meant to enhance, like the sharper areas in the corners of the brows (eyeshadow), higher and more curved eyebrows (shaped eyebows), fuller lips especially the upper lip (lipstick), longer thicker eyelashes (mascara and eyeliner), higher more pronounced cheekbones (blush or rouge), less prominent nose (powder or base that used to avoid highlights that show the edges and draw attention).

Despite the “walleyes” this drawing shows the exaggeration and
understatement of the eyes, nose and mouth to accentuate the
femininity of the subject.

Personally I always strive to make a woman’s face SOFTER than a man’s. I stay away from harsh, angular lines and features in a woman’s caricature and use softer, more rounded lines and forms to define the face. I try to use fewer lines and elements that define edges of features.  With a linear style of drawing, In general the more lines you use in the face the more masculine (and older) the subject looks. If I want my subject to look more feminine, I will seek to define the features with are few lines as possible. It’s an old trick of filmmakers to use softer light and slightly out of focus (or vaseline-smeared lensed) camera on close ups of women to create a dreamy and sultry look to them… it eliminates the hard edges of features.

The ultimate feminine face? This caricature of Marilyn Monroe hardly has
Any lines inside the face. It’s all softness and suggested features.

Caricaturing a subject is, as always, defined by the demands the subject’s features and persona demand of the artist. However that does not mean the caricaturist cannot approach a subject a little differently, and look for specific things they might expect to see, based on things like the age or sex of the subject. Understanding human perceptions and what’s behind them with respect to things like male versus female faces only brings another source of observational power to the artist.

Here are some other examples of caricatures of women:

Kim Basinger has the eyes, brows, smallish nose, lips and chin
of the textbook female type

Fergie has a hard jaw, large brow and wide chin for a woman

Soft curves and understated features dominate this sketch of Lucille Ball

A somewhat hard chin but doe eyes and cheekbones make
this drawing of Winona Ryder look distinctly feminine

Another classic feminine face: Audrey Hepburn

Despite the bulbous nose, the other features of
Hayden Panettiere are soft and feminine

Now playing on Tall Tale Radio, my interview with Tom Racine! I am truly thrilled to have been asked to be a guest on the show. It’s one of the best cartooning resources out there. Check out the show and be sure and bookmark the site and listen to the 60 plus other shows he’s archived. Informative and entertaining stuff.

No, that’s not Robert Downey Jr. lounging in the sitting room of 221b Baker St., it’s me (still in a sling from my rotator cuff surgery) in the famous room’s recreation at the Sherlock Holmes Museum in London.

Of course, I look as much like the literary Holmes as Downey Jr. does… I mean, if director Guy Ritchie can cast a 5’7″ guy with a button nose and weak chin as Holmes, why not a 6′ 235 pound weightlifter cartoonist??

But enough of the snarky complaining. Being an avid Holmes fan and Sherlockian, I had every reason to dislike this film and Ritchie’s very loose interpretation of Holmes, which I felt was focusing far too much on the relatively small aspect of Holmes physical prowess.

However I left the theater having enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

I forgot that anytime something is transferred from the written page to the movie screen, something has to give. Film is such a different medium than writing that invariably the film maker must make decisions that deviate from the books in order to make a better movie… especially if that movie is meant to entertain a wide audience and not cater just to the hardcore fans of the original source material. Peter Jackson‘s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is a perfect example. Jackson captured the essentials of J.R.R. Tolkien‘s fantasy masterpiece, yet changed many key aspects of the plot and some characters to make better movies of the subject. He managed to satisfy most rabid Tolkien fans and the rest of the world as well. I think Ritchie pulls off the same feat.

Ritchie obviously took a page from Jackson’s “Rings” formula to help appeal to the many Holmes fans out there. Like Jackson, he manages to capture the essence of Holmes despite the many departures from the source material. Ritchie’s “action hero” focus and the casting of an actor who in no way resembles Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s literary character is offset by the use of many direct lines straight from the original stories (which by the way singled out all the Sherlockians in the audience, as we were the only ones to show delight at those moments), several references to places and events from the books and more importantly other key aspects of the main characters all specifically aimed to please the Holmes crowd.

Ritchie’s Holmes is an Indiana Jones-like adventurer who is as apt to dive out a third story window into the Thames and take on several thugs at once as get down and crawl about with a magnifying lens looking at minute scratches in the floor boards. Ritchie chose to exaggerate the physical nature of Holmes, who in the Conan Doyle stories was an expert boxer, swordsman, martial artist and singlestick player but who rarely used (or cared to use) those skills. Ritchie also chose to depart from the “gentlemanly” nature of the original character and focus on his more slovenly moments and his use of recreational drugs. In this film Holmes’ Victorian gentlemanly persona is a thin veneer over an eccentric genius and man of action. The key to the film’s successful depiction of Holmes is in the character’s other attributes and in his interaction with Watson.

Here also is Holmes with the brilliant mind, detached in some aspects from the real world, analyzing and deducing at lighting pace in ways that shock those about him. It was particularly clever of Ritchie to combine Holmes’ powers of minute observation with his moments of action, as shown in two fighting scenes where he mentally choreographs the entire fight, how he intends to disable his opponent, what observations he’s basing his strategy on and the effects of each blow in a suspended time flash-forward before he does exactly as he has envisioned in real time. That is a brilliant piece of movie magic that combines the more cerebral Holmes of the books with the film’s apparent brawler, making the physicality of the fights second to his scientific examination and the resulting choreography the main point of the exercise. It’s a nod to Holmes still remaining the brain first and the brawn second as Doyle wrote him. Holmes also does many of the seemingly oddball things he would do in the books to get clues… smelling and licking objects, jumping about and examining things that do not seem related to the events at hand.

The best part of the treatment of Holmes is his interaction with Watson. So many of the Holmes films and treatments over the years have depicted Watson as a buffoon and a comic foil, when anyone who has read the canon (as the original 56 short stories and four novels are known) knows Watson was a true partner, trusted friend and a very smart man in his own right. Jude Law‘s Watson is another man of action, but in this case it’s more accurate as in the books Watson was a former soldier and marksman, often acting as Holmes’ “heavy” and was always along whenever physicality was thought to be called for. There was often a lot of bickering and sniping between the two in the canon, Watson continually becoming fed up with his friend’s egotism and impatience with lesser minds, and Holmes often chiding Watson for is lack of observation and incorrect deductions. If anything, this film’s Watson is given more brains and made a more equal partner than the canon ever credited him for. Forget about the rumors of homosexual overtones… there’s about as much of that as there is with Ernie and Bert in Sesame Street. There is a definite bromance here but clearly Ritchie is not going down the homoerotic road.

Downey Jr. manages to make us forget he’s a short guy with a weak chin. He captures Holmes’ barely contained ego and his almost unconscious dismissal of the lesser minds about him as he goes about his business. The Conan Doyle Holmes had a very dry and sarcastic sense of humor that fits Downey perfectly… in fact I can see what Ritchie saw in the actor to cast him as the Great Detective. Downey seems to give off the feeling that he is smarter, cooler and more sophisticated than everyone around him in a condescending sort of way without being too overtly insulting… exactly as Holmes was often depicted in the canon. Once you learn to ignore the fact that he’s shorter than Watson you can believe him to be a convincing Holmes.

The plot? Sadly it’s a bit convoluted and very much plays second fiddle (forgive the pun, Watson) to the characterizations of the central characters. The main villain, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), returns from the grave following his hanging after being caught by Holmes for a series of ritualistic murders. He embarks on some nefarious and confusing scheme to somehow take over the country, although his new murders and actions seem not ritualistic but revenge motivated. Side stories involving Watson’s impending marriage and his vacating the Baker Street rooms he shared with Holmes, the appearance and involvement of a Holmes’ love interest, a clever criminal named Irene Adler and her employer, the mysterious Professor Moriarty, don’t seem to entirely fit. Adler and Moriarty particularly seemed shoehorned in… like they were characters that needed screen time to establish themselves for a sequel than they were really essential to the storyline… although Rachel McAdams as Adler has some very fun moments with Holmes.

The plot aside this is an enjoyable romp through a very believable Victorian London. We Sherlockians must forgive Ritchie for his changes to the canon’s storylines… like when he has Holmes meeting waton’s fiance Mary Morstan for the first time in a restaurant when they met in the adventure “The Sign of the Four” in the books, or how Irene Adler was not a criminal, a real love interest for Holmes nor even a recurring character after the story “A Scandal in Bohemia”. Ritchie pays us back with many hat tips to the canon and other beloved Holmes adaptations… one particular camera shot during the establishment of the Baker Street area was an obvious homage to the Granada Television Holmes series starring Jeremy Brett, which is much loved by Sherlockians. After all Conan Doyle himself was not above changing the continuity to suit his purposes. Watson’s original war wound was described as a bullet to his shoulder in “A Study in Scarlet”, but later was moved to his leg, and Holmes began his career very much in pursuit of financial security and jealous of the credit for his efforts going to the police but later became more magnanimous and did his work for “the sake of his art” rather than for fame of fortune.

So, if you are a Holmes fan as I am, do not be put off by the much-publicized departures from the ‘traditional’ depiction of the character. Suspend your disbelief and go enjoy the movie for what it is… another enjoyable interpretation of one of the greatest fictional characters ever created.

Q: I have been looking for a platform on the Net to publish my works and, what is more important to me, get a little feedback on what I am doing. I have been considering Flickr, DeviantArt etc., but I am quite confused about the implications of the copyright terms behind them. I also have been thinking about opening an old-fashioned (but always good) blog, whereas building my own website from scratch still sounds premature to me. So I am asking your opinion: what do you think would be a good internet publishing platform for a wishful beginner?

A: As far as the copyrights associated with publishing on some social sites,  I have heard horror stories about relinquishing your copyrights when you post images on Flickr and Facebook, but for the most part I believe that they are not true. The last info I heard about Flickr was that images posted there automatically were marked as copyrighted (All Rights Reserved), which means they cannot be used without the permission of the copyright owner. You can change that manually into several different license arrangements.

There was a brew-ha-ha not so long ago when Facebook changed its terms of use that seemed to say their licenses on “user content” did not expire if the user deleted their account. That turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Many of these these of internet social sites use variations of the Creative Commons licenses agreements. In any case you own the copyrights to any images you create unless you specifically give permission for another party to use them. Of course that hardly prevents people from stealing and using them, but it is against current copyright law to do it.

Copyright issues aside, neither of these two social networks seem like good solutions for your needs: a place to post your work AND to receive feedback and (presumably) critiques.

DeviantART seems a better fit. It seems to be exactly as you describe you need: a place to post your artwork and get feedback from other DeviantArt members. Is is worthwhile? I don’t know as I’ve never used it. I would expect the key is getting your artwork in front of other people who do work in a similar way, either by subject matter, style or some other common denominator… if you do sci-fi fantasy art you’d want to belong to a sci-fi fantasy club or something like that. I don’t know how it works, if you get good feedback or if it’s a gigantic waste of time.

Starting a blog seems like a good thing to do. It’s free (unless you really want to go crazy and self host a custom one) and you can post your art on it as you see fit. The trouble is getting people to see it and have them give you good and honest feedback. Asking for critiques and advice on the internet is a tough thing to do. First you need to get people who’s opinion you would value to look at your work, then get them to spend the time and energy critiquing it. That’s asking a lot of people and their time. You might get some good feedback and you might not. I personally do not critique the work someone posts their artwork on their blog unless they are specifically asking for a critique from readers (and I can find the time, of course). Not everyone who posts art on a personal blog wants critiques… some just want to share it, so be sure you specifically request such when you do.

My suggestion is to search for forums and organizations dedicated to your type of art. Using the Sci-Fi Fantasy example, search out communities dedicated to that type of art, and then post your work there as well as advertise your blog and ask for critiques.

For caricatures, I would heartily recommend the International Society of Caricature Artists. They have a members-only forum where you can post work, ask for critiques and see other artist’s work and works in progress. There is sharing of techniques, advice, etc there. Searching for keywords in the forum archives alone is worth the membership fee of $50 for your first year ($60 thereafter) which also includes their quarterly magazine Exaggerated Features. That’s just one example of a community dedicated to a specific type of art. Another good one (that’s free) is The Drawing Board.org, which is an amalgamation of illustration, cartooning, animation, painting, comics and just plain old drawing. I haven’t been there in a long time, but I understand it’s still chugging along and there are lots of participants.

Thanks to Alessandro Munari for the question. If you have a question you want answered for the mailbag about cartooning, illustration, MAD Magazine, caricature or similar, e-mail me and I’ll try and answer it here!

Nothing says “Christmas” quite as much as traveling to Florida for a few days in the sunshine and visiting the House of Mouse. The Lovely Anna, all four kids and I are off to see some sites, visit with some good friends and otherwise escape what has already been a rough winter in Minnesota (14 inches of snow since Christmas Eve). I leave behind more snow on the way, a broken snowblower and a whole pile of work that will need some serious attention upon our return.

As always, the posts will keep on rolling on The MAD Blog. Thanks for visiting.

All the best for the holiday season from The Richmonds!

The Lovely Anna somehow talked me in to doing some artwork for our 2009 Christmas card… results above.

The Great Art Blowout Sale was an overwhelming success. I listed 61 total pieces of original artwork all done for a particular client for the low, low price of $25.00 each, and sold all but 6 of them. The other people standing in line at the post office were not too happy with me when I lugged over 30 packages up to the counter the other day… 16 of which went to destinations outside the U.S. I heard a few “Bah, Humbugs!… and some other more colorful vernacular. Ah… the %$#@* Holiday Spirit!

All orders have been packaged and mailed, the final three going out today. The majority went out on Monday, so I would expect many of you will get them tomorrow or this weekend.

Thanks to everyone who responded so enthusiastically. Many bought multiple pieces (one person bought five!) and it was interesting to see which ones got the most interest. Several of the ones I considered my favorites were among the last to be ordered… shows what I know.

The purpose of the Great Art Blowout Sale was to a.) generate a little $$ and b.) clear out a little room in my studio flat files. This little firesale cleared out ONE drawer… I still have 11 others that are stuffed full of… stuff. Sometime in 2010 I’ll have “The Son of Great Art Blowout”, and this time there will be a lot of smaller spots from various MAD projects in the mix.

Thanks again to everyone who bought a piece of original art!