Jennifer Garner - February 2005

[WATCHTHEBIRDY]

Now, this is a bird that is hard to identify;
The Jennifer Garner Bird, Electria aliasata[/color]

[vidal1951]

Very good, but the eyes are more oriental, according to the picture.

vidal
www.vidal1951.ec.nu

[WATCHTHEBIRDY]

And the beak a little smaller?

[vidal1951]

In a woman, the exaggeration it is smaller than in a man. The elements that more they communicate they are the eyes and the mouth.

I believe that the pick should be smaller and the ears should be of smaller size.

Do you agree?

vidal
www.vidal1951.ec.nu

[WATCHTHEBIRDY]

I think you are right about the eyes but, come on, she has really HUGE ears.

[toonMom]

She does have huge ears! I think you did a pretty good job on this one Birdy.

[dave]

She could hang-glide with those ears!

[ScottG]

[Larry]

Good one Scott. Good likeness, I thinks it's one of your best so far.

[tooned]

Scott bottom lips looks a bit off.But wow have you improved.well done.

[donpinsent]

i'd like to take this opportunity to go on record (as i probably have done before on here) as saying that i think the notion that caricaturists should put less exaggeration into a drawing of a woman than into a drawing of a man is ridiculous. why should there be different treatment? the women's rights movement has been fighting for years for equality! the word "equality" does not in my mind imply "in certain areas, but not in others".
okay, i'm done my soapboxing.

[dmcaricature]

Don - You are Canadian!
If I may jump in. Obviously there are no rules to this kind of work. However, there is the idea of a likeness in what we do. I think what Vidal meant was the diminishing of some female features in caricature would bring about a better likeness. Someone like Courtney Love would be an example of the creation of a caricature - exgeration plus!
I think females can be tricky in that the more distortion the less it can bring about a likeness. In some cases accenting the beauty keeps the likeness, if that is the goal

[vidal1951]

Don, DMK if a cartoon loses likeness or resemblance with the pattern, she/he stops to be a cartoon, it is a drawing of somebody...
The exaggeration or rather the characterization of one or more razgos should be justified and fused with the character's soul. If she/he is laughing, the main characteristic will be its smile, without losing its physical likeness with the pattern. If it is angry, they will be their eyes, but without arriving to an exaggeration without control, that which would be a deformation and therefore their disproportion would lose its resemblance and its " filling ".
Many famous caricaturists as Jean Mulatier say that it is possible to exaggerate the beauty...
Their own words in an interview.
That it is, for the great MULATIER, the cartoon?
The cartoon is an exaggerated vision of that that one wants to represent making it but resemblance of what is in fact; to even make it but perceptible. It is an exaggeration dedicated to give an image of that that one draws. To make it but similar even that the reality, if it is possible. In any event, but perceptible, but recognizable for the reader.

For that reason I prefer to begin, saying you that the cartoon doesn't only concern, contrarily to what one can believe, to the faces of the political men but also to the faces of artists, the faces of anonymous and not only the faces, also the body. One can everything to caricature, the animals, the objects, the cars, the decorations but I will go something
but far, there are not any great designer or great painter in the history of the art -and pardon if parezcocompararme to them, I don't make it, I simply say that the cartoon, in positive sense that her not this to make ugly but to exaggerate the essential characteristics of a character. The cartoon is that she/he makes, in a natural way, all artist. A painter as Gogh Goes had caricatured. In the good sense of the word, the one has exaggerated the beauty of the light, the beauty of the color, beauty in the way of you hoist them, etc. He has not reproduced everything realistically it neither photographically and same a painter as Ingres or all other great painter hiper-realist of the history of the art has exaggerated what you/they have wanted to represent. For example, the but it celebrates canvas of Ingres The Odalisque that is that spread woman, seen of back sustaining a beautiful plumario that is in the Louvre that seems a very realistic square and that it seems to not be different if this painter had used a photographic apparatus.
If the one had photographed their model, the painting it had shone less beautiful of that than the I paint it in realidad.Los especialistes that have studied the painting scientifically, the painter she/he has added the long thing from three supplementary vertebras to the back of their Odalisque to accentuate their feminine grace. It is possible to exaggerate the beauty. It is what has wanted to make Modigliani and here it is but evident because the one to exaggerated the fineness, the elegance, the woman's grace. Equally Miguel Angel not made it with the beauty solely feminine, mainly with the masculine beauty pronouncing the muscles, the force, etc. He has painted a God culturista for example. In it celebrates it Capilla Sixtina, the famous cool air of the index finger of God and that of the man. If your you see Adam, also that it represents the man that is born, the one have been paint at least as a she/he drinks or in any event as a youth or as an adolecente but not, the she/he made it muscular; it is an Adam culturista and a God since culturista Miguel Angel has emphasized on the characteristic of the manliness, of the humanity, physically in any event, that is to say the musculature and also the expression force.
That doesn't mean that it is necessary to be ' cruel'. Our world this fact of a lot ' punch in the hocico', je understands him that they mean. But I would have tendency but well to say The humor it is a blow in the heart", same the word ' golpe' is very aggressive, it is necessary to say better ' a since despertar' certainly is something aggressive. Our world this fed up with so much aggression, of so much negatividad. For that reason, to wake up, we need to project a force through the humor, of the love -no it is for chance that these two words look like each other so much (in French as in Spanish) Humour and Amour / Humor and Love -. There is a proverb that she/he says: ' if your lances the arrow of the truth, soaks its tip inside the miel'. I tell You without ties what is the cartoon. If one explains retenidamente what is the cartoon, that it would seem a contradiction, because the cartoon seems to be the opposite of the retention. The cartoon is a we GO!, let us Hurry and almost without it limits!. undoubtedly there is an it limits everything and same the exaggeration is to know it to moderate. The cartoon -escuchame well this Pepe - it is the art of daring and of dosar their exaggerations, it is the art of the wisdom in the audacity. All art is the art of the balance. In cartoon, if my nose is big will we even make it but big of agreement, but won't we make it neither very enormous, because otherwise we won't be able to see that that this behind and won't they recognize me... not this wrong that that I not say? (laughs). Then it is necessary to find the fair exaggeration: neither very little neither too much.

I have many interviews of famous caricaturists. If they want to know them, I can send them and I invite them to be part of ELCAN, the best portal in the world of the cartoon.

Their web is
www.portalelcan.net/secure2/index.php


vidal
www.vidal1951.ec.nu

[nelsonsantos]

wHAT ABOUT THIS! aND I THOUGHT CARICATURE WAS DISTORTION, GROTESQUE, EXAGERATION. iF YOU DONT DO ANY OF THIS IS THAT A CARICATURE OR A PORTRAIT OF A PERSON?

[vidal1951]

Exaggeration, yes, but with control for not losing the likeness with the pattern. If you can not recognize the person, it is not cartoon. Many and big caricaturists say it...
I remit myself to them.
Personally, I think that it can transform or to exaggerate to the maximum, but to achieve the likeness with the pattern, that it is the challenge... It is necessary to be truly good.

vidal
www.vidal1951.ec.nu