Untitled

Left is better suited for all the small-screen devices kids now watch instead of TV. You can see that it makes a clearer thumbnail.

You can argue that except that the shapes on the bottom of the page indicates that "iconic" here means simplification

Reducing an image to a symbol makes it iconic in that context. You have paraphrased my comment into something both more eloquent and more concise.
Thank you

>"if I have a term for it it makes sense"

Attached: my-llama-face-when.jpg (995x833, 82.12K)

>left
>fucking calarts

Left is all modern US animation, right is old Disney.

>implying one contradicts the other

>not knowing what an icon is
>thinking iconic means good

You're right, they're both pretty 'generic' in their own ways; the right is what was basically the "Calarts style" 3 - 4 decades ago after all.

how the fuck is the right "organic"
it has the same exagerrated proportions, it's just in the real calarts style

In the context of visual design, organic refers to irregular curved geometry often dictated by "flow". This thread is just as much /gd/ as it is Yas Forums.

ITT people who don't know words can have more than one meaning, especially in special contexts.

But the right isn't organic at all: it's heavily stylized and made up of nothing but symbols.

The image on the right is extremely stiff. It isn't organic.

symbols are flat

the right face is made of SHAPES.

>Soulless
>Soul

Do people in this thread not understand language?

This image is referring to iconic as in icons, using simple shapes (icons) to represent complex things. The image on the right however is far less abstract

The right is also nothing but prebaked shapes. It doesn't deform or distort based on things like perspective. The cheeks and mustache are the biggest giveaway here.

im going to push your soft spot inwards until you stop saying dumb shit

>Do people in this thread not understand language?
Yas Forums is full of autistic manchildren. the closest thing they know to art criticism is mr. enter

This is a bad comparison because both are suited for very different things

Right = promo art, high-budget (film) animation,

Left = expedient and suited for rig-based TV/web animation

Animalympics, Brave Little Toaster, Chipmunk Adventure, those 'Spirit' and 'Wild Things' adaptation test reels etc.

All have similar design/animation cliches/styles based on what thing was popular at the time, part/mostly staffed by a similar "clique" of people who hail from the same college/studio and worked on similar looking stuff in the past.

Style is freedom from the "bound" world of nature. Yes, people will hover towards what they're used to (resulting in decades of Milt Kahl shit)- leaving original things like Twice Upon a Time or Heavy Metal left for dead.

In turn these "not-Disney" cartoons are quickly forgotten, but the styles that deviate really tend to linger in people's mind for much longer even if the content is abysmal. Think of any Klasky-Csupo cartoon and you'd probably be able to remember a character or two just by their design. Even something like "Problem Solverz" knew what style truly was.

Attached: threat.jpg (720x480, 81.89K)

iconic take less than half the cost to draw,
guess which one the big money gonna choose.

They're both abstract and simplified, just with different shapes and proportions.

Also the bowtie not having form and actual folds but just some floating lines going into a circle. "Organic" indeed.

Attached: 618Bpxo3b8L._AC_UL1500_.jpg (1500x858, 63.35K)

It really isn’t.

Absolutely no one here draws or has worked in the animation industry and really has no reason to talk beyond throwing out useless shittalking and dribble.

Because it's just a head nibba

Yeah, it's the same fundamentals. They're both symbol drawings, not organic abstractions.

trips checked. that comparison totally misses the point of the conversation. everyone already knows that at one point or another the stylistic zeitgheist was different from what it is now, there was a time when thick 2000s lineart was the standard and nobody would argue against that, still theyd probably agree that it looked nice. disney shit might be generic but that doesnt mean its not organic from a design perspecive, and it certainly looks a hundred times better than steven universe

>organic abstraction
youve lost the plot completely. this thread is about organic shapes and geometric shapes

>Left: I'm getting tired, I want to go home soon, this too is just my art style biggot

> right: the supervisor is an asshole he made me redo the drawing 3 times and keeps telling me what to do

I just don't get the logic that the "organic" one cannot be simplified and still keep its appealing shapes. You don't have to make the mustache look like an actual turd, you can still keep the fun, bouncy Mario shape but get rid of all those extra hair details for budget purposes.

Attached: 12345.png (938x490, 303.98K)

Cal art's isn't Iconic, This artstyle is iconic

Attached: kurzgesagt_nihilism_leafs2.gif (960x540, 2.29M)

Iconic, not geometric.
I know you want to keep the shitposting going, but don't lie. This image is about symbol drawing vs organic lineart.

yeah but imagine actually hiring competent artists instead of paying scraps to amateurs who wasted many years, tons of money and all their parents' respect on art college

anti anti-aliasing gang rise up

this is 'iconic' because it's the dime-a-dozen clickbait after effects infographic style dozens of channels use indiscriminately because there are hundreds of tutorials for it

That's because one can't be animated in Flash and the other one can.

the image wasn't creating a dichotomy, if you actually believe this you're retarded

you dont know what organic abstraction is

Do people not understand the image is just about contrasting styles shape design or what

>durr iconic means mickey mouse and the mcdonalds logo

yes. the infographic made the mistake of using "disney" and "calarts" styles and no

The image demonstrates a big problem with a lot of current-day TV cartoons who almost strictly use the "iconic" art style shapes and language. It's no longer iconic vs organic, it's TV vs. Theatrical. Or 2010's TV vs. 90's TV. Or whatever you want. If you can find me times outside of TV post-2010 where the left is used, please bring my attention to it to throw my entire point out of whack if you want. But I'm 99% sure it doesn't exist. It was something born out of a pipeline by executives and lack of cartooning knowledge by the artists.

We've had art styles born out of simplicity and budget before. Flintstones-era and What-a-Cartoon! era of Hannah-Barbara proves that. Yes, the animation on early HB cartoons is a trainwreck and probably an insult to animators, but the actual designs are really nice to look at. If we're going to make TV cartoons on a budget, why do they HAVE to have ugly, perfect circular eyeballs? Why do they need symmetrical skulls? Why do they refuse to use straights-against-curves? It's those tiny principles that make it apparent whether the people designing these things actually know about appealing design or just think, "Cartoons are simple, and this is simple, therefore this is good".

Attached: 61+hgRqKLEL._AC_SX425_.jpg (425x425, 18.66K)

>If you can find me times outside of TV post-2010 where the left is used, please bring my attention to it to throw my entire point out of whack if you want

Attached: ramjet4-1.jpg (800x453, 235.07K)

>Skull isn't symmetrical
>Eyeballs aren't perfect circles
>Uses straights-against-curves

How is that at all comparable to Gravity Falls characters who are drawn with such static and perfect shapes that it's almost like posing a mannequin.

Attached: images.png (284x177, 6K)

>ITT: people who bitch about cartoons all day but never bothered to learn the most basic bitch shape design terminology
The bottom part literally fucking shows the difference you inbreds.

Man cartoons from the 60s and 70s looked so fucking terrible

They manage to look worse now.

Attached: 1527385134411.png (1425x308, 653.64K)