>can't draw a single image properly
>is considered one of the greatest children illustrators ever
What the fuck am I missing about this?
>>2522728
What do you mean by "properly"? Most children book illustrations look kinda wonky and extremely simplified, that's part of the charme. I don't think most little children would respond well to illustrations that looked like they came straight out of a Loomis anatomy book.
>>2522751
Well, look at the line-work on the girl's left arm, for example. It's a damn scribble. Her shoes look like fishing hooks. The boys bent leg looks like he's broken his shin.
it's pleasing to look at, he's creative, and he got really lucky with roald dahl.
>>2522757
Not all artwork needs to be done the same way. What one person considers bad linework or structure can be someone else's deliberate choice. As that other anon mentioned, it has a charm to it. You're looking at it from a lens of what you consider to be the right way to do things. It's the same as if you were to look at a painting by Monet and complain that the brushstrokes are visible and the colours aren't blended and that it should be a smooth glass finish like Gerome. Or to complain that Mario is bad because he isn't 8 heads tall like Loomis told you he should be.
>>2522786
So then all illustrations are good, even if they look shitty? Take this pic. It's clearly shit, but I've seen people singing its praises because it's a 'style'.
Charm is something you can't learn from being an autist who focuses on technique above all.
You will never create a single piece worth a damn with that mindset.
>>2522806
do you not understand art at all? This isnt mathematics you fucking asshole just admit you dont like it then move on what the fuck
>Quentin Blake is still alive
>>2522728
>What the fuck am I missing about this?
The kids like it you don't have to
>>2522806
What was the file?
>>2522786
I agree with what you are saying, but I know what OP, is on about.
I've never liked Quentin Blake, I never understood his appeal even as a kid. I also reckon I like more stylised work than the norm on /ic/.
His figures seem stiff and barely thought out and when he does add movement or motion it seems unnaturally inflexible.
The boy in OP's pic, his body is an awkwardly straight box, while that leg is bending in a way like his shin has been snapped backwards.
I know there can be good stylisation of body proportions, if done well can be interesting but I feel for it to work it still needs to work into the physics of the body, I'm having a hard time believing that his knee is that far down his leg or his ankle that far up.
Just reads to me as bad character design coupled with lack of anatomical understanding.
I also think his penmanship is messy, and I do like messy ink lines from artists such as Ronald Searle or Ralph Steadman, but they compliment it with interesting shape designs as well as confident lines that suggest wieght.
Another problem is the way he uses contrast and values, such as in the picture on the right. It's unappealing to me and I'm not sure what it is suppose to represent, a spotlight, a damp wall, an abstract manifestation of his emotions?
We can never be sure.
fucking hell /ic/ is full of autists
>>2522943
If you watch the movie you'll see the real art is much more polished. This is just preliminary design work (and it's still better than Quentin Blake's drawings).
>>2522868
>Autism in its purest form.
>>2523005
>Thinking about why you like or don't like something
>Autism
technical ability<appeal
i love that 99% of /ic/ will never draw anything with as much appeal as quentin blake.
>>2523076
>99% of /ic/ will never draw anything with as much appeal as quentin blake
no one likes drawing to have an appeal of a toaster.
and thankfully you're the 1% :^)
>>2522806
you just havent reached a level where you get why they are good yet. I'm being 100% serious and this is not meant as an attack.
>>2523146
i don't often agree with nose bro, but i do on this
>>2523233
>confirmed not at the level that you can appreciate based quentin blake
it's true though, theres a lot of art i didn't see any value in before that i can now. once you understand basics of what makes shapes appealing, colours and lines, you see just how great this stuff is. and its not that he's an 'artist's artist' , it's that he can so naturally capture appeal in a way that is so simplified.
>>2522728
People will always defend this. No one is against stylization, many children's book illustrations are very cute and lovely. They're well made, but simplified. However, there are also many that are just plain shit and that's ok because "they're just for kids"
>>2523357
i remember reading that jamie hewlett wouldn't let his kids read mr. men because the art was garbage
>>2523146
>"I'm such a high level of snob that even shit looks good to me"
You went full retard.
>>2523357
Marc Simont is part of my sweet childhood
Maybe the appeal is that he draws as a child would? I personally dislike it but we're not exactly the target audience.
>>2523146
this guy sounds pretentious but hes 100% right.
the op image has really strong silhouette, the uneven paint sets a mood, and the shape value is quietly pleasing. you don't notice it because it's not flashy, but his drawings work and communicate very well.
>>2522728
Being a cartoonist is solid. Fuck everyone.
How do I draw like him?
>>2522728
OP is autistic
>>2527243
No child draws as him, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Only someone completely clueless about drawing would make the statement you just did. I bet you're one of those people who think drawing manga is for kids, too?
