Q: I was wondering what you could share on the importance of style in caricatures. Your work for MAD, differs greatly from say, Stephen Silver’s more cartoony style, David Cowles’ more abstract work, and Jason Seiler’s paintings. Are all styles equally in demand in publishing? Is having a unique style that sets you apart, key in getting work? Is the likeness/exaggeration often an area of contention between the artist and client?

A: One of the great things about caricature is that as an artform it can include virtually any style of drawings or rendering and still be instantly recognizable as a caricature. Whether a caricature is done by the cartoony linework of a Mort Drucker, the lavish painting of a Sebastian Kruger, the elegant lines of a Al Hirschfeld, the graphic design and color of a David Cowles or by any one of an infinite number of other techniques, the end result is still unmistakably a caricature (If you haven’t checked out my “Me Gallery“before please do, it is a great example of hundreds of different styles (and different levels of success) applied to the same subject, including all four of the luminaries I just mentioned above).

“Style”, in my definition anyway, is a combination of two things: an artist’ natural sensibilities and the technique they use to actually accomplish the finished art. The latter is basically mechanical, and within the intellectual control of the artist. It’s not too terribly hard to develop new techniques and use new mediums to come up with a replacement or secondary method of working that might appeal to a different set of clients, but to change the fundamental way in which you draw and see the world is a lot harder to do. Therefore in some ways an artist’s style is within their control, and in some ways it is not.

Artistically speaking the success or lack thereof of a given caricature is independent of style. Whether the caricature is painted, drawn, inked, wildly or mildly exaggerated, sculpted, frescoed on the ceiling of a renaissance cathedral or scrawled on a cave wall with crushed berry paste by torchlight… it’s either a good caricature or it isn’t. The style of the artist doesn’t matter a bit in that respect. Your question is mainly concerned with the commercial applications of style, and in that respect it can matter a lot.

There is certainly no one style that is commercially applicable above all others. There are obviously many illustrators that are known for their caricatures and they work in many different styles. Today the work of C.F. Payne, David Cowles and Steve Brodner are probably the most often seen and commercially successful, and their styles are all diametrically opposed. Many other illustrators are likewise successful and visible but who’s styles differ wildly. Are all styles equally in demand in publishing? Certainly not, or many more artists would be working doing many more styles of work. However, there is room for a great many styles of caricature in publishing and advertising. In fact, it could be argued that there is room for ALL styles of caricature commercially… it’s just that it’ a lot harder to find commercial applications for some styles over others.

Commercially, the appeal/viability of a given style hinges on a number of factors:

1. The final result or effect the art director is looking for- Each project is a little different, and what the art director might need or envision on a given job will dictate the style of art he/she is looking for. A smart AD will then look for an artist who’s style fits the look they are seeking. If they want a crazy exaggerated style they’ll call artists who fit the bill.
2. The demographic and tastes of the overall target audience- This falls somewhat under the umbrella of the first factor but with a much broader context. When it comes to publications, each has a certain visual “identity” or feel to them and they won’t stray far from that identity regardless of the needs of a given project. Some magazines won’t use cartoony or whimsical artwork, but like the illustrations to be more artsy and avant garde. Others prefer a more realistic approach to their illustrations, etc. Obviously who the publication is meant to appeal to and the subject matter they cover dictate some of that visual identity… a magazine for kids will use cartoon artwork and zany, energetic styles while one for the film industry might want something more daring or cutting edge. However I have found over the years that it’s the preferences of the current art directors of a publication that define its look. I have been given jobs for magazines that I would never have thought would be interested in my cartoony style, and likewise I have seen magazines that used to use a lot of a certain style of art suddenly drop those illustrators with the hiring of a new AD, even though that new hire did nothing to change their target audience or subject matter.
3. What is “hot” at the moment- There are certain trends to illustration, and styles that are greatly in demand for a few years might find themselves suddenly out in the cold as “passé” at a later time. Some styles are timeless, but some are subject to the fickleness of current trends. For a long time many of the big entertainment magazines were using these weird scraggly line and blocky color wash style spot caricatures for their sidebars and short pieces… that caricature style has all but disappeared from the major entertainment publications. The graphic, design-like look of Cowles’ work was huge for a while but has cooled off quite a bit in the last few years. What happens when a style is “hot” is that while an artist like Cowles and maybe one or two others will define the style the saturation of it will get work for a lot of knock-off or similar but lesser known illustrators. Then when the popularity of the style cools all the ancilliary artists will stop getting that type of work and the defining artists will be given all that is left. In that way a few artists can always make a living doing a certain style independent of current trends, while those who were riding the popularity wave would struggle to find work in that same style once that wave washes out.

Some styles are timeless and just will never go away. Having a unique style is important to establish an identity as an illustrator, but unless your style is one of those timeless ones, or it appeals to a large enough base of potential clients that you will find continuous work with it, it’s hard to make a long term living as an illustrator. I know many illustrators who have developed secondary or alternate styles in order to pursue work from a different set of clients.  I have done a similar thing with my colored like technique, which I am still developing to try and break into different markets. I’ve often said here that it’s important to have a consistent and identifiable style as an illustrator so your clients know what to expect and come to you to get it, but there is nothing wrong with applying different techniques of rendering and execution to your natural way of drawing and expressing your views of the world that might appeal to other potential clients. I’ve know some illustrators who develop a radically different style of illustration and actually market themselves under a different name with that look.

The final part of your question: “is exaggeration/likeness often an area of contention between the artist and a client?” It absolutely should not be once the artist and client relationship begins. A client should understand the style of the artist they have engaged, and not be surprised by what they get nor expect them to do something that is not what they do. I’ve had a more than a few projects where the client tells me they love my work but then proceed to instruct me to do something completely different from what it is I do. That’s like hiring an Italian chef to cook a Chinese meal. If a client wants an exaggerated caricature, they need to call an artist who does that kind of work. That is why how an artist represents his work is so important… illustrators must communicate to potential clients what they and their work are all about, so the calls they get are ones looking for exactly what they offer.

Thanks to Derek Edwards 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!

Q: I’ve been following your blog for quite some time and on the last few months I can see that you’re trying to use more and more your new “no black lines” style, it looks pretty cool by the way. My question is related to “style”, how do you feel about the need for an commercial artist to establish a style and stick to it for years and years? Isn’t it something that ends up slowing the artist progress as he ends up stuck in a “comfort zone”?

A: This is a concept that does see a fair amount of debate: whether or not a freelance illustrator should stick to a single style and/or specialty or develop several styles and areas of subject matter to become a kind of “Jack of All Trades”. I’ve gotten advice from both sides of that argument at times from illustrators I admire. Each side has some compelling arguments, and I think it all depends on where one wants to go with their freelance careers as to which one makes the most sense for a given illustrator.

The first professional cartoonist I ever met emphatically supported the “multiple styles” approach. I was a college student in 1987 at what is now the College of Visual Arts in St. Paul, MN. Our illustration class took a field trip to visit a local “illustration studio”. Illustration studios are scarce if not completely a thing of the past these days, but they used to be a kind of collective of illustrators in a single space of offices that operated like an advertising agency. The studio had a rep or several reps that would run down work for it’s stable of artists, and they would have a selection of different styles and techniques among their group of artists to make them a kind of “one stop shop” for the art needs of clients. Sometimes the artists were paid by the job and sometimes they were salaried, but it was more of a social community and office environment. Today individual reps have stables of artists but it works on commission and the artists are spread out all over the place, working on their own. Most studios had a resident cartoonist, and this studio had a cartoonist named George Karn.

Karn was a big bear of a man sitting behind and enormous drafting table with jars, glasses, mugs, coffee cans and all manner of containers surrounding him stuffed with every conceivable pen or marker known to man with no discernible method of organization. You might not be familiar with his name, but I can almost guarantee you’ve seen his work. Karn was a commercial illustrator/cartoonist for decades and did thousands of pieces for ads, products and publications everyone has seen. He was the the artist who created the characters for Trix and Count Chocula cereals for General Mills. He passed away a few years ago.

With the entire class squeezed into his work area, Karn answered a number of questions, one of which was the old “If you had one piece of advice to give…”. His answer was not to get pigeonholed into a single style, look or subject matter lest you greatly restrict the work you would be considered for. He showed us a promo piece he had done that had a dozen samples of different cartooning styles from comic bookish figures to animation-like characters to caricatures. He explained that, since he could do it all, he was up for consideration for a lot more work than if he just did one thing. He also said it kept him from being tied to a style that might become dated or fall out of favor with art directors. Meeting Karn was very interesting… here was a guy who made a living doing humorous illustration… exactly what I wanted to do. I’ve heard that same philosophy from a few other artists, especially the part about a style becoming dated. That’s a little bit of a different animal from the active peddling of multiple styles simultaneously, however. Artists who have long enough careers will almost always have to allow their styles to evolve either a little or a lot to accommodate the changing times and tastes.

While the multiple styles approach is occasionally supported, I’ve found it’s more common for the opposite concept to be recommended by pro illustrators. Artists like Jack Davis, C.F. Payne, and others have told me to establish an identity, both visual and professional, and stick to it. I got that same advice from one artist I greatly admire, and who has been a great mentor for me over the years… longtime MAD artist and current art director Sam Viviano. Sam has told me repeatedly that it is far better to be have that solid, recognizable identity than to try and be too many things at once. He told me that art directors need to know what to expect from an illustrator, and that is best accomplished by presenting an identifiable style as opposed to the confusion of multiple personalities/styles. Art directors don’t like surprises, and if they hire an illustrator they need to have a pretty good idea of what they are getting before the make the call. I can tell a quick story to illustrate that. I had an artist working for me at Valleyfair many years ago, and he took his portfolio to a local publisher to try and get publication work. He had all manner of styles in is book, from park-like caricatures to some David Levine-ish crosshatch caricatures. These latter they liked, and he got a call to work up a caricature of then Minnesota Viking’s coach Dennis Green. He worked hard on the piece, and then brought it to me to show before turning it in. What he showed me was a park style airbrush caricature, not the crosshatch style. I told him they would not like it, and that he should have done it in the style they responded best to. He disagreed. As I expected, the piece was rejected and he got a kill fee, plus he never got another call from that publisher.

Another issue with presenting multiple styles is the “jack of all trades, master of none” theory. Maybe the diverse illustrator does a good job with all the different types of art they present, but that doesn’t mean an art director will give them a call. If an AD wants a caricature of president Bush for an article, is he/she likely to call and artist who has a few caricatures among several radically different styles on their promo sheets, or an illustrator that does nothing but caricatures? The same could be said with sports illustrations, funny animal cartoons, etc. Maybe the multiple personality thing would get an illustrator considered for more work, but actually getting the work is another thing. Some ADs like to work with just a few illustrators, but many are not afraid to search for the style they are looking for outside their regular contacts. Specializing results in work within that specialty… the trick is not to specialize in something so obscure or seldom needed as to limit your potential jobs. Caricatures, for example, are used widely for entertainment, editorial, political and sports related features… a very good thing to be known for. Drawing really good sloths? Not so much.

Finally, I’ve been told trying to be a do-it-all go-to illustrator will limit how far you go in the world of illustration. Maybe most of us will never become regulars in Time, Sports Illustrated or Entertainment Weekly, but those who do reach that level are never “jack of all trade” types. The C.F. Paynes, Steve Brodners, John Kaschts, Mark Fredricksons and other heavy hitters have that instantly recognizable style that is unmistakable. We’d all like to think that level is attainable, and it’s hard to argue with success. George Karn may have done a lot of work we’ve all seen, but he was not in the same league as guys like Payne and Brodner. In all honesty, I was a little put off by Karn’s promo sheet, as I felt it did not jut present multiple styles, but other artist’s styles. He could see blatant ripoffs of artist like Davis, Jeff MacNelly an several more. That’s a little different than having several of your own styles to present.

Personally I believe that it’s better to have that recognizable identity than being a multi-personalty do it all. Maybe it means I won’t get any jobs drawing lawn mowers one day and cute little bunnies the next, but as long as I keep fairly busy doing what I do best it’s all good. I know some may disagree, and if that works for them then more power to ‘em.

Now, EVOLUTION of one’s style is another matter. Most artist’s styles will naturally evolve over time. Remaking one’s style consciously is something some illustrators have tried to do, and some have been successful while others have not. The ones for which that has worked seemed to have a style that was dated… meaning it was a “hot” style for a certain period of time and them became passé and they stopped getting work. The only reason I could see to radically change one’s style would be because the work dried up.

You mentioned my “no black line” style of illustration, as shown here:

Well, I also have a more fully painted method as well:

I think it’s wrong to label these different approaches as “style”. Both these and my line and color illustrations are all still my “style” and recognizable as my art… they are just using different methods of rendering. I’d call them different techniques of the same style. As long as the art director I am working with is clear as to which look he or she wants, there is absolutely no confusion.

Thanks to Shiva Souza 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!

Q: Upon viewing the Phelps drawing it prompts the question, how much of your style is based on comic book drawing?  I kind of get the impression that what sets your work apart from others is that you draw caricatures the way a Marvel or DC artist would.

A: In my opinion not much of my style of drawing or caricature is based on comic book work, and none of it is intentionally.

My main style of caricature was developed from doing live caricature work at theme parks, and my experience with comic book style illustration is rather limited. It’s hard to pin down where a style comes from. You see influences in it, but essentially anyone’s style is just an extension of how they think, see and interpret their environment. I think your observations may be coming from my treatment of the figure… particularly the athlete or muscular type forms. “Comic book anatomy” has a certain look to it. In exaggerating the human form it often looks comic bookish, as comics artists also exaggerate to give their more-than-human characters greater dynamics and visual energy. Certainly I exaggerate the figure as much as the faces when I can… the Phelps drawing is a perfect example of that.

I never did comic book work in the “cape-and-tights” pure sense. The “Married… with Children” and “Coneheads” issues I did were much more MAD Magazine than mainstream comic-like. Of course there is a large amount of crossover there, particularly in the storytelling and layout end of things. Humorous comics may not be given the same kind of attention that superhero comics get, but they have always been a part of the comics world, and often a large part of it. Some of the greatest comic book artists were equally as adept at drawing funny as they were are drawing dramatic.

When I was a kid I drew my own comics during every spare minute I could find. I had hundreds of pages of superhero and sci-fi stories I’d written and drawn on everything from notebooks to old mimeograph paper to computer print log sheets. I devoured comics like Batman, Star Wars, The Hulk, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel… you name it. You can certainly trace whatever storytelling/layout skills I have back to a love of comic books. Perhaps you see that glimmering through somehow.

Thanks to Mark Grant 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! I’m running low!