Simplicity is the Name of the Game

If anyone has ever seen my drawing style as of late, to most people, its probably pretty unimpressive. I've gotten to the point where I use virtually no detail at all and just do the bare minimum as far as definition of form is concerned. To most, my work would probably be seen as simplistic, childish, and lazy. And while that all may be true, there is a distinct reason as to why I draw the way I do, besides the obvious "I like the way I draw" argument. There is a logical reason for my method, which I will now try to explain.

First of all, lets take a look at this:



Can you tell what it is?

Its an apple, obviously. It took you...what? A second to look at it and figure out what it is, right?

Now, lets take a look at this:



I know haha...but what is also in this picture that was in the previous? An apple. And it took you what? A second to figure out what it was?

Now where am I going with all this? If we look at the 2nd apple, its barely an apple at all right? I mean, from a technical standpoint, its like, a few curved lines. While the first apple is a plethora of line, shape, color, and tonality. Far more intricate.

And yet they're both read as apples, the same basic object.

It was no more difficult for you, as the viewer, do decipher the cartoon as an apple then the realistic rendering as an apple. In fact, it's the exact opposite, as your brain needs more time to take in the extra detail and put it back together as a recognizable shape.

So, if I can draw a few lines and make you see an apple, why bother taking the extra time to make it look more real, when you are still going to get the exact same thing out of it? I mean, sure, the first may look more impressive (though as a cartoonist I'll take b&w lineart over colored pencil any day), but take a look at the second apple in its context. Its not meant to be a gallery piece, its a character in a comic. A story. And in this light, its all it needs to be in order to serve its purpose. Sure the first apple could easily have that caption thrown on it and have the same effect, but then thats a lot of superfluous effort, not to mention the fact that a comically rendered object in a comical situation makes a lot more sense then a photo realistically rendered object in a comical situation.

But the point is, in the first apple, the apple istelf is the star of the show. The whole point of a fine art piece is the look of whatever is being put on canvas. Its an entirely visual experience. So lots of detail is understandable. But theres more to the 2nd apple. Obviously I don't mean more detail. So what do I mean? I mean that the visual element isn't the whole story. Because its a narrative piece. The visual is only part of it. There's a voice, a statement, a purpose. Take away that purpose, and the illustration becomes meaningless. It becomes the gallery piece. The cartoon apple isn't just a drawing. It's a being. A vessel to deliver the true star of the piece. The message. The story. The narrative.

And to me, thats what narrative art should be. If you're working on a story, your main focus as a creator should be on the story. Your art can be extravagant, but pretty pictures aren't going to make up for a weak narrative. I prefer to have simplistic art that is detailed enough to let you know what it is, and then have it blend into the story itself, and let what it's doing drive your interest, not what it look like.

Images from golfiscool.deviantart.com and markstivers.com, respectively.