How to Bring Out the Most in Expressions, pt. 1

Over the years, I've had a lot of people compliment me on the expressions I give characters, how "good" they are, how well-pulled off they are, blah blah, more ego-juice. As such, I've been wondering for a long time how one truly draws a "good" expression, or one that convincingly displays a character's emotions, while retaining a certain sense of empathy from the audience.

I realized that, at heart... one needs an understanding of two very important concepts in art, and illustration:

Realism and cartoons.

Let us define both, shall we? Beginning with realism:

Realism, used by artists, is the artist's attempt to best replicate the world around us. Most of us know what realism is, yes? It's what you're taught first in "official" art classes, for most of us, and has been the ruling form of art for several hundreds years now, since Leonardo da Vinci and before.

To sum it up, when you draw a tree using realism, it looks like a tree, dammit. As if somewhere, this you have drawn exists. Hopefully, unless you're terrible with realism as I am. Yes, this is the person teaching you about realism and cartoons right now.

Here's an example of what one might consider, "realism":



This is Zechariah from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel illustrations on mankind's allotted time on earth, from Genesis to Revelations. As you can see, Michelangelo tried very hard to give us the illusion of a man sitting, so as to believe Zechariah was a real person, and is in fact, reading from whatever book he had. And in the proper lighting and garb, this scene could easily be replicated in reality, no? With a seated man in garbs in the proper lighting.

You see what realism in art allows us to do; it helps us to suspend the disbelief that this is some medium, such as oil or chalk or watercolour, on a piece of canvas or paper, and allows us to believe that this is in fact, part of our reality. That we just might be able to reach out and touch whatever is being illustrated, or believe that somewhere, this person is really alive, or lived at some point.

Realism's advantage in illustrations and expressions is the suspense of disbelief, which allows viewers to be able to grow a certain empathy for the subjects portrayed. I will skip the reasons as to why we would want viewer-empathy, but imagine looking at the portrait of the Mona Lisa: most of us have feelings invoked of some kind, yes? Most of us look at her smile/frown, wonder why we can't tell if she's smiling or not, wonder what might have made her smile, but why? Why would we care if she's smiling or not? Why would we care if she's smiling or not? Because for most of us, we can put aside the disbelief that she's only a painting, and imagine her as a real person. If walking down the street, and I saw someone with a Mona Lisa smile, I, for one, would be very inclined to know just why they smile in this manner, and what might be the explanation for this.

And so you can see, by this assumption, illustrators who use realism are trying to gain a sense of empathy from their viewers, and get them to suspend the disbelief that what they've portrayed is merely oil on canvas, or as in the case of digital media, pixels on a screen.

And now, let us define cartoons. They're older than you think, by the way!

Cartoons are more abstract illustrations, not necessarily following all of the rules to realism. Cartoons, at their heart, are methods of communication. The very earliest of what we call "cartoons" are prime examples of this. Take a look at this sweet example I found.



This I believe most of us could call a cartoon, yes? While the meaning would be lost on most folks reading this blog, you know there is some message or idea that is being displayed for us all, even if the image is not necessarily anatomically accurate. Proportions have been morphed, and it is essentially, "the lie that enables us to realize truth," however one wishes to define truth.

Cartoons and abstractions, in relation to expressions, let us see, very easily, what emotion is being conveyed. Take for example, the simplest cartoons we know:



You see, we may not necessarily feel anything for this smiley, but we damn well know that this little smiley mofo is happy, right?

Just as an aside, think about the benefits of having a means of communication, without the empathy attached: in particularly "violent" cartoons, such as early Warner Brothers and recent cartoons such as Ren and Stimpy, gags such as being cut to ribbons or being squashed are made humorous, because we feel no attachment to the characters suffering whatever "humor" is being derived from doing things to them that would normally result in a very gory and traumatizing scene.

As you can see, realism and cartoons needn't necessarily be fighting oppositions, in which one must choose a side; each brings something unique to the table. What all of this has to do with expressions is the fact that those aiming for very "good" expressions are essentially aiming for the perfect blend of the two prior concepts, in their eyes. Enough realism in order to gather a (hopefully) emotional response from the audience, allow the audience to believe that this character is real in a way, and yet convey, communicate the inner emotions of the character to a far greater extent than realism offers. The ratios of reality vs. abstractionism will differ, obviously, from person to person, which is why experimenting is needed, and why a broad knowledge in both categories (realism and cartoons) is essential when bringing forth exceptional expressions and emotions in characters.