It's easy to get distracted by Walt Kelly's beautiful linework and crosshatching and not see all the underlying principles that are part of his style.

He has a lot of attributes underneath the lines that are equally impressive: Like cuteness and appeal.He draws very appealing eyes.
He is good at compositions. I love the contrasts in the buildings below. Very tall against very thin.
Strong lines of action.

Opposing poses. The characters look alive, organic and in the moment.
Nice tongue-hatching.
Natural looking asymmetry (the features-eyes,etc.-are not the exact same shape and size on either side of the characters)

http://comicrazys.com/2010/05/10/the-cow-jumped-over-the-mood-the-pogo-stepmother-goose-book-1954-walt-kelly/

You can find lessons on all these concepts at:

http://johnkcurriculum.blogspot.com/2009/12/disney-principles.html

http://johnkcurriculum.blogspot.com/2009/12/composition.html

Oh and thanks to the latest contributors:

http://comicrazys.com/2009/07/19/double-scoop-sunday-with-nuts-pogo-sunday-book-1956-walt-kelly/

When people who don't already have strong drawing skills think of "style", they are usually thinking about the last layer or the surface layer of a drawing - the line, the finish, or some trick of the shape of the character's eye.
I know if you make a nice clean storyboard with bold black lines, it impresses the Hell out of executives - even if the drawings underneath the polished line smell like your cat box.

Young cartoonists are a little more sophisticated than animation executives because they can recognize a stylish looser line, but the same problem exists - just to a slightly lesser degree. The youngsters love their squared off fingers and 'tude faces, thinking that they are somehow symbols of high style or that they are drawing just like Milt Kahl. Modern squared fingers and hands (and faces) are 2 dimensional and only have a few easy-to-draw positions vs Kahl's whose are 3 dimensional. These have a potentially infinite amount of angles and attitudes - a huge difference in skill and quality. (I still find them offensively ugly though)

http://autodaddy.blogspot.com/2008/03/milt-kahl-hands.html

Corners do not make style. Simple surface elements without solid principles underneath are merely excuses for ignorance.

This panel, on the surface looks like Walt Kelly. The loose brush lines on the dog's nose is definitely a Kelly trademark.Spector uses a lot more dynamic angles and compositions than Kelly and also has a very unique style of shapes he uses that distinguish him from Kelly and other animation cartoonists.



If a young cartoonist liked this style, he might think that the secret to it is wobbly lines and shapes.

If you could copy this line style, that wouldn't by itself give you the ability to draw a good composition, perspective, line of action and construction - all of which these drawings have.


You might think the construction is off here because the belly shape doesn't fit 100% on the pussy's form. It definitely doesn't, but I can see that the form is very solidly suggested, but the lines just skirt around on top of the form like a loose glove. The knowledge of construction is completely there though.

Compare to Harvey Eisenberg's lines which fit around the construction like a tight glove.


It's like when a great singer like Sinatra takes the lyrics and melody and just barely avoids delivering it right where it's written in mathematical tempo. Instead he uses and is applauded for his "phrasing" - his slightly loose interpretation of the timing. He starts some words before where you expect them to hit, and some after - and it isn't at random. It's all according to great sensitivity and emotion. He is expertly toying with the listener's expectations. He knows exactly where every note is supposed to land, but varies it on purpose for emotional effects that can't be written in words or in musical notation.

Frank can sing on key, has a wide range, has great rhythm, great control and enunciation - all principles of good singing. The last thing he does after learning his fundamental skills is give you his fantastic moving style.

I like these big pupils but wouldn't assume that if I drew big pupils I would automatically have my own style or could draw just like Irv Spector.

Irv Spector has a unique style - it only superfically looks like Kelly. What actually makes it unique is much harder to define.

It's completely obvious to me though, that he has the same background knowledge and skill that most of the classic animators had. Without that, an animator is crippled. Just like a singer who can't carry a tune.

Listen to Frank and Ollie....starting with "SOLID DRAWING" That's where it all begins - including the journey towards style.


http://allthingsger.blogspot.com/search/label/Irving%20spector

Harvey's compositions are more mathematically careful than Kelly's, but his details in BG elements are more conservative or "realistic" than Kelly's.
Eisenberg's characters are more solidly constructed. Constructed totally out of cartoon forms - pears and spheres.

All the details fit snugly and in their perfect hierarchical place on the larger simpler forms.

Kelly's construction is not so tight. The features on his characters tend to float around.
On the other hand, he mixes in suggestions of actual anatomical forms. The mouse above has a skeleton, not just a line of action supporting him.

The dog below has suggestions of actual dog anatomy: his wrists, his spine



Eisenberg can draw elaborate BGs and in any perspective. His panels tend to be a lot more dynamic than Kelly's. - or anyone else's.Kelly tends to keep his characters staged left to right and is not as comfortable with perspective.

Both cartoonists use lines of action and opposing poses from their animation training, but Kelly's tend to be more subtle, His characters are more straight up and down. The principles are still there, but toned down. This is great if you can do it. Later cartoonists who might have admired Kelly could easily miss this aspect of his work and really eliminate any lines of action and opposing poses completely - as most cartoons and comics today.Subtlety is good, but tends to lead to a next generation of blandness.
The whole cartoon business by the 50s toned down it's earlier dynamic style in favor of characters who merely walk and talk. When the next generation of cartoonists grew up on these cartoons, they assumed that you don't need any poses at all and everything from then on was walking and talking and straight up and down characters.


Kelly is obviously capable of more dynamic posing and when his stories call for it, he does it - as in the page above.
Kelly also dabbles in soft little character scenarios like the page above. This is so Chuck Jones! Little cute bits of business between ignorant animals. Even the design of the characters is very Jones/Cannon early 40s. Right down to the loose construction. I wonder who influenced who.
Eisenberg, schooled by Joe Barbera on Tom and Jerry doesn't get into character so much and so focuses his creativity more on technical aspects of comic layout, dynamics, graphic page flow and strong character posing.

Kelly's characters are cuter - they have bigger eyes and pupils. For some reason, Harvey draws tiny little eyes which takes away some of the cartooniness and fun. McKimson did that too.


Both these cartoonists are top talents and have 90% of their approach in common. The 10% or so where they vary is where their personal styles happen.

On the surface the 2 styles look very different, but a lot of the appeal of both styles is that they have such great drawing skill supporting the individual differences.
A lot of Kelly's style is in his inking. The drawings themselves don't deviate much from standard 40s cartoon style, but the finish really grabs your attention and seals the deal.

A lot of the appeal of any skill is the skill itself. Just the fact that someone can do something technically amazing- that most of humanity can't is entertaining. That's why there is such a big audience for the Olympics of for UFC. Each athlete may have his own own personal style, but if he doesn't win then it didn't do him much good.


This aspect of technical virtuosity is missing from today's popular entertainment, yet I meet plenty of cartoonists who think they have "a style" and want to be judged on their individuality. Usually this style is just a collection of ignorant mistakes or a superficial imitation of the latest decadent trend in executive-pleasing cartoons.

EISENBERG KEPT 40S PRINCIPLES ALIVE EVEN INTO THE 60S

By the 1960s most cartoons had become really stiff. Eisenberg's posing retained the line of action and opposing poses of classic cartoons.
The poses are more subtle in these comics, but still show extreme knowledge and control.