Like Magic

A week ago today I had a wonderful experience as I was invited by a friend who is doing her practicum in teaching to talk about cartooning and animation to her pupils.  Through the years, I have done this once in blue moon but this class was especially enthusiastic. It was career week (what-do-you-want-to-be-when-you-grow-up week) and they had previously read a comprehension article about the animation process and I guess I was the real live guest artist. I arrived a few minutes later than I wanted and there was murmuring and restlessness as I set up my easel. I think many of them never saw one before. My friend, to keep things alive as we set up, told the kids that the easel was where I would do animation so I had to clarify. I talked briefly of animation's history, passed around a flipbook and showed demos of my work. I wish employers were that receptive! When I talked about the process of drawing I talked about how I loosen up and draw with my arm circles and strokes I realized that some kids were doing it along with me.  Ms. Mackenzie got them all to follow along.

One of the first things I do is draw four circles on a page and ask for expressions and I use simple "happy face" lines and dots. They were all rather non-plussed until I filled in the details; googley eyes, funny noses, teeth and hair. This is a simple way to demonstrate construction; drawing from the inside out. You would think I was pulling a rabbit out of a hat and was applauded.

When ever I cartoon for kids it is my hope that I turn them on to drawing, not necessarily cartooning, which is a little like putting the cart before the horse, but I liken it to turning kids on to music if the watch jazz or classical music performers.

I talked about the line of action, drew different characters from different shapes, and did my trick of making drawings from the letters in their names.

I know it is perhaps a selfish point of view but it was very edifying and almost reaffirming of my purpose in this world to have them gasp with amazement and applaud a talent that I  and peers take for granted.

As Ms. Mackenzie helped me carry my stuff out to the car she said that tomorrow the kids were to come dressed as an occupation they'd want to be. Oh great, I thought, they want to be animators now and will dress as bums. That would explain the teacher telling a kid in the hall as I signed in that day," No, you can't dress as a sniper. It has to be a legal occupation!".

Above is a Spongebob one young fellow made for me (beside it is my explanation of structure...before I knew it was to be a gift). I am very touched by the whole experience. It's been awhile since someone drew something for me.

Thank you for the experience, Ms. Mackenzie. Anytime.

Dog Gag.

Last week my dog had a hot-spot so we tried the cone thing on his head. I wondered what must he think.

"I can't reach my scrotum but my hearing's improved!"

From Father to Daughter:

Always remember that I said "I love you.".

If you don't believe me now

maybe one day you will.

rough drawing by Gerard  de Souza  for an Ecard to a daughter

dedicated to MHJ

Naked Pitchers

I haven't done it for a couple of years but I love life drawing. At various times in my adult life (I hate to say "career" because it has hardly been one) I have signed up for sessions at a gallery or through the city's parks & recreation department. A good session of life drawing is the mental equivalent of a good physical workout like I used to do in the old days; the cob webs are cleared, synapses are firing on all cylinders and I feel great! So as well as the obvious benefit of getting into artistic shape, the focus it provides for me is almost meditative.

One day, almost a decade ago, I was kneeling on the floor of that extra bedroom that we called the office-slash-studio, flipping through my big 18 x 24 plus portfolio.

"What are those?", I heard coming from over my shoulder. It was my six-year-old inquiring about the nudes. Oh my gosh, I realized, he's probably never seen anything like this before. For about a fraction of a second I felt the same way I would have as a boy being caught with a     girlie magazine... and then I snapped out of it. This is nothing to be awkward about...even to a child. This is art. So I explained:

"As an animator I have to know how to draw the human body so I can caricature it. I have to know the rules to break them. Also it is very helpful to be familiar with the human body so I can draw one , even cartoony, because I can't always have a reference in front of me. Clothing is important too but I must know what dynamics exist under the drapery of clothing. The human body is one of the most complex things..even hands and feet are complex bodies unto themselves. The more one draws the body the more one becomes familiar with how the muscles work. 'The more you see the more you know, the more you know the more you see.' Yes, I draw from real live models in a class with other artists.  Do you see these? 

These are gestures. These quick and scribbly drawings help me loosen up in my overall drawing. The focus here is not draw what the model looks like but what he or she is doing. Sometimes the artist can just focus on part or all of the model, like hands, if they want to learn better how to draw something. It is very important to do if one wants to be even a serious commercial or fine artist. All the great artists through the ages have studied life drawing and the human body. Do you understand?"

There was a pregnant pause and then my son asks,

True story.

I am not a writer....

..but I play one on my blog.
Stay tuned for more stupid things that pop into my head including a tale involving nudity!

Not to bury Schulz but to praise him.

I've just finished reading David Michaelis' biography of artist Charles M. Schulz. If I had never read his family members' objections several months ago (October 2007, Cartoon brew dot com) I would not be aware that it is supposed to be controversial. While the surviving family members are truly the only ones on this earth to really know this wonderful man and be experts on the numerous trivial mistakes in the book, I found the biography not at all sensational. Believe me, I've read "sensational", I own a paperback copy of Marc Eliot's Walt Disney, Hollywood's Dark Prince. Unlike Eliot's total raping of Uncle Walt's image, Michaelis doesn't have an agenda but more of thesis; Charles Schulz was a red blooded human being with ups and downs and frailties as the rest of us mere mortals; multi-faceted more than the warm puppy we believe we knew. Through resources of those who knew Mr. Schulz, Michaelis tries to piece together the Schulz that the public did not know. I like to think I am a critical thinker and not likely to parrot any biography as gospel. When I read a biography I ask myself if the author personally knew the subject. There is no right or wrong answer but the answer will temper my perspective. If the author did not know the subject I realize it will involve a great deal of subjectivity. But if we disqualify an author because he or she did not know the subject, how would we ever have historical books? Essentially beginning his research after Schulz's passing, Michaelis was researching the history of this man.

Conversely, if a biographer knows the subject personally I would have to ask myself how "imbedded" was the author with the subject? Is he or she so close they cannot be objective or fear reprisal for revealing negative personality aspects.

As when I amuse myself when I add the phrase "in bed" while reading a fortune cookie, I critically preface any associate's quote about the subject with "In my opinion". I found much of Michaelis' assertions about Schulz are not so much to support an agenda but are rather a formed opinion based on his research and interviews, however accurate the conclusion may prove. He generally states his sources so the discerning reader may conclude some points are reported, not simply concluded as fact. My reading is also tempered with the knowledge that the sincerity on part of an author does not necessarily equal truth, however the truth should be strived toward.

So I went into this book objective, already knowing what a wonderful man Schulz was. We know that. There are tons of articles that support and perpetuated that legend. Learning of his so-called darker side did not turn me but made me love him even more, identifying, empathizing and sympathizing.

What I found ironic this past October reading the Cartoon Brew posts is that while many disqualified the author for not knowing Schulz, many posters hadn't even read the book choosing to sycophant with the Schulz friends and family posters, proverbially wanting to storm Michaelis' residence with pitchforks and torches, verbally skewering any positive reviewer including the genius of Bill Watterson for a balanced objective academically critical review of the book. I choose not to judge films based on trailers as is common in cyber- nerddom; I chose not to discuss a book which I haven't yet read.

The contention seems to be that the mention of any inner struggle Schulz may've had puts him in a league of a bad person. Never did I get that impression that was the intention of the book.

As an individual with my own struggles against anxieties and depression I know it doesn't make me a bad person. Perhaps the reaction of Schulz's friends and family are well-founded in feeling the author's emphasis on this is over-stated. Or maybe their reaction is a statement to how much stigma mental health issues carry in our society. Whatever, common sense would dictate to the reader that he certainly wasn't so emotionally debilitated that he couldn't create his charming creations and make the public appearances he did make, which are a matter of public record. The assertion was he battled the blues throughout his life and that was that, not that it made him Charles M. Vader.

The next stumbling block seemed to be the theme that he wasn't a huggy guy, but never did I as a reader interpret this to mean that he was unloving. In fact, there are several places in the book in which his love is demonstrated to his children from the painting of nursery murals to a quote of his daughter equating the way he called her pet name was his way of saying I love you.

This stoicism described I find very much in keeping with not only men of his generation but of white European background. Yes, once again only his family knows the real man but is such a statement that he wasn't a physically affectionate guy really so derogatory?

I'll reserve comments on the portions of the book that deal with his marriages and relationships with women; friends, lovers and family, save to say I find the dynamics described as believable.

As well there is an overtly positive thread of Charles Schulz throughout the book; a war hero; athletic; a sensitive driven principled boy and man of strong work ethic and generosity.

I did find it laughable as if to support the argument of the decline of the strip's content the author shows some latter day mellower Lucy strips. "Damn.", I said to myself,"I wish I could be that 'not-funny'." The author as with many fans seems to be saying Peanuts wasn't what it once was.

In reading my spotty Peanuts collection, Peanuts never was what it once was, always evolving, maybe mellowing but never ever stale. Yes, Michaelis sometimes plays amateur psychologist. I have not read a biography in which the author didn't. It doesn't justify it; I'm stating it is common.

The recounting of his last days had me choked up. I believe I know of Charles Schulz better from reading this book. There are many things of public record that I didn't know and I feel richer for it.

To anyone who has prejudicially not read this book, I encourage them to go to the public library as I did and read this book. I plan to buy it when I find it in the bargain bin. Dare I say some of the most vocal opponents strike me as perhaps skimming the book but never reading it.

I would love to see a biography from the Schulz family to balance whatever inaccuracies they find but as I said, we have no doubt Charles M. Schulz was a wonderful man. But that, however true, is trite. Struggles with human frailties did not change him from being wonderful. I believe sometimes our unconditional love can keep us bias. If the Schulz family can pull off a biography without it turning it into a book with all the objectivity of a Christmas newsletter I would love to read it. I am already the owner of two light Schulz autobiographies, Peanuts Jubilee & You Don't Look 35 , Charlie Brown. I wanted to know this man better, deeper, albeit however in a one-way fan relationship.

Funny thing about bios: even autobiographies can be historically inaccurate as Chuck Jones wrote in preface to one of his; our memories blurring events and times and details, yet in a sincere bio the essence of their life remains. I once read Charlie Chaplin's autobiography and then I read a biography in which the author attempted to be more accurate about Chaplin's life. What I do remember is that Chaplin's was more entertaining, the biography however factual still said the same things and the point was the same. More accurate details but the overall texture for both was the same. Whether Chaplin grew up on Kensington Rd. or Kennington Rd. was not the point for me. Likewise the price of The Schulz arena and when the family maid was employed. I look at it this way when it comes to writing about a subject's life: even Matthew, Mark, Luke and John disagreed on the small details. When I read a biography there is no presupposition that what I am about to read is 100% guaranteed historically factual but an impression of the author.

It is a pity this book will indeed be parroted as in a game of broken telephone by those (especially professional media gossips) who have not read it, creating rumors and exaggerating assertions that were never stated in the book. Likewise it is a pity to parrot criticisms without thoroughly and personally reading a book. One thing I have learned in casual correspondence with friends and family is that individuals will read a letter much in the same way they listen. A person who is a good listener is generally a discerning reader, reading the entire manuscript before judgement, quoting in context and always qualifying the source; " According to David Michaelis' book....". Bad listeners are bad readers; looking for a juicy word out of context to expand upon, repeating their conclusion, not necessarily the author's, as fact.

On the off-chance that anyone reads this post, I only ask that if you wish to leave a comment that you have actually read the book. I too loved Charles Schulz as a fan and wouldn't stand for slander.

Passion, creativity, anxiety, depression, familial dysfunction, rebelling teens, affairs and remarriage. In one way or another, it sounds like every family I know. I believe David Michaelis' book, Schulz and Peanuts, does not demonize nor vilify but humanizes Charles Schulz.

The Bravest Disciple.

I had to do something to acknowledge Easter but did not wish to be corny or cutsie.

The above sketches are from a time when I had one of the coolest jobs illustrating for a local packager/publisher. I can't remember for what these poses were intended, except that some where cleaned-up on model sheets.....however we weren't doing animation. I don't think I ever illustrated Mary. Maybe to pitch to the publisher the potential of an animation property? This was before Prince of Egypt ever came out.

Anyways they are sketches of Mary Magdalene. The women disciples (as opposed to the main 12) were the bravest. The clean-up on the left is her carrying something to annoint the dead body. The middle one is a pose when the remaining men in hiding tell her she's nuts after seeing Christ alive. The one on the right is her seeing The Christ risen, hugging him. I was told not to clean-up that pose. Apparently whenever they showed hugging in Christian kids' books, or members of the opposite sex standing close, they get complaints. Crazy. Dirty minds, I guess. It's a wonder how we Christians can propogate.

This Jesus is rather bland European looking. I was told to look at John Smith from Pochahontas as an example, no kidding. I would prefer a totally mid-eastern Jewish Jesus. Jesus is telling Mary not to hold him as he has not ascended to his Father yet. Never really understood that. Would he be physically defiled or would he take Mary up with him if he ascended?

Women I looked at for inspiration for Mary's look? Cher and Bhutto.