“The Artist is no other than he who unlearns what he has learned, in order to know himself.” — E. E. Cummings, Poet
Today, I’m going to demonstrate a pose from a recent high profile animated film (which will remain unnamed) that is problematic. Normally I would not do this publicly. I do not want to embarass or criticize the animator — that is not my intent nor do we know the circumstances the shot was performed under. Every animator makes mistakes and has experienced being told to make choices he/she would otherwise not make; real stories often remain unknown. Therefore, to save everyone from trouble, I’ve decided to trace over the pose — in a very rudimentary manner — and flipped the image so that it is no longer recognizable.
Why do this? Because I wish to challenge the notion that alot of feature animation today is of the highest quality and often deemed as superior than say old 2D animation because it’s more realistic (especially when we take away all the CGI bells and whistles). Furthermore, continued heavy reliance on self-shot video reference reveals graphic choices that I feel a truly creative and skilled artist would not make if he/she didn’t see something they can copy (reference does this to artists). I want to show that the technology is irrelevant and it’s the quality of the craft that counts. Note that I’m not particularly cherry picking a bad frame — this was clearly a Key Pose from the scene — but I also found the acting choices as well as other poses throughout the shot somewhat problematic. But that is not the subject of today’s analysis.
Here is the pose in question:
The pose as stated earlier is one that’s at a held area of focus (i.e. it’s a moving hold). As you can see, without the glorious details (eye candy of 3D modeling/lighting/textures) that computer graphics can provide, that the neither the shapes or direction of the pose are interesting. And without the facial information or dialogue it’s also somewhat vague as to what’s actually happening or what’s being communicated.
Diagram A:
In this image, we can see that the line of action (LOA) of the character is poor and rather stiff. It is generally stronger to align the front LOA of the chest, neck and head whenever possible. Furthermore, adding a twist to the upper half of the pose might create greater torque and interest in the direction of the character’s action/intent. This is shown on the right drawing as a possible alternative (should the acting permit that such a choice).
Diagram B:
In this image, we can see that there’s far too much symmetry going on. Both portions of the hair volume and the arms make near perfect triangles, as does the overall pose. This makes for poor design and general flatn design. The quick drawing made on the right shows what an asymmetrical choice might look like — something a bit more lively and appealing. Remember both positive and negatives shapes are very imporant as to how something reads. If you want something to feel and look natural, symmetry is a no go.
Diagram C:
Here, we can see that the flatness is further exasperated by the compositional choice. The top and bottom frame are far too close to signicant points of interest (head and arms). Also the alignment of the shoulders and elbows fall on the horizontal grid of the picture ruining the the sense of 3D space and form in the character. Note how the screen R hand/lower arm is literally tangental to the base of the screen.
Diagram D:
In this last image, I’m directing your attention to the flow of lines. This is a drawing/design skill that’s often lacking among 3D artists. Sometimes when working with dimensional forms like CGI models, we forget to see lines. In the above case, flow of the exterior lines of the hair align too perfectly with the sides fo the body which turns the pose into a flat unified symbol. Such a shape might be ideal for logo or toy designs but is generally not favourable to animated action. The same problem occurs with the shoulders/arms. Another issue is the placement of the lower R-arm and hand which overlap each other without demonstrating depth. When lines don’t make interesting changes, they not only hurt appeal but can misinform/confuse.