Drawn

thanks for this link (and the others) :)

thanks for this link (and the others) :)

Whoever’s doing the backgrounds for Samurai Jack is still putting these techniques to good use–Spongebob as well, but Samurai especially. Talk about intent! That is one of the best designed limited animation cartoons out there.

Whoever’s doing the backgrounds for Samurai Jack is still putting these techniques to good use–Spongebob as well, but Samurai especially. Talk about intent! That is one of the best designed limited animation cartoons out there.

I agree Jed. Too bad John K. doesn’t feel the same.

I agree Jed. Too bad John K. doesn’t feel the same.

That was really great. Thanks for posting this kind of stuff.

That was really great. Thanks for posting this kind of stuff.

What a privilege to hear Lozzi speak directly about his work.

What a privilege to hear Lozzi speak directly about his work.

Nice stuff. Thanks for sharing. Hand-done work is always better than photoshop.

Nice stuff. Thanks for sharing. Hand-done work is always better than photoshop.

I’m curious as to what exactly is meant by intent. How might the underlying color theories be affected depending on the cartoon? Sure, the color palette might change, but… clarification, please.

I’m curious as to what exactly is meant by intent. How might the underlying color theories be affected depending on the cartoon? Sure, the color palette might change, but… clarification, please.

When John K. was comparing Art Lozzi’s HB background techniques to that one from Disney, he mentions that the Disney one has less contrast and is “more monotonous… compared to the better designed, better colored and contrasty styled HB BGs.” This is an unfair argument because for one thing, the Disney BG is cropped drastically to prove his point — we have no point of reference as to what that BG was used for. Why were those trees painted with less detail? I’m sure that artists at Disney were equally capable of producing the same quality of work as what Art Lozzi and Co. did for HB, so why were those trees so “monotonous?” There has to be a reason and I’m assuming that they were just filler trees, so less detail was necessary so as not to take attention away from the main characters. The trees in the HB backgrounds were a major part of that particular cartoon, in fact, they are characters themselves, to a certain degree. Get my drift here? Of course Art Lozzi’s trees were more detailed and done with great flair — they were done that way because it was important for that cartoon! The Disney trees were not as important, thus less detail.

Hence the importance of intention. He used a bad example in my humble opinion.

When John K. was comparing Art Lozzi’s HB background techniques to that one from Disney, he mentions that the Disney one has less contrast and is “more monotonous… compared to the better designed, better colored and contrasty styled HB BGs.” This is an unfair argument because for one thing, the Disney BG is cropped drastically to prove his point — we have no point of reference as to what that BG was used for. Why were those trees painted with less detail? I’m sure that artists at Disney were equally capable of producing the same quality of work as what Art Lozzi and Co. did for HB, so why were those trees so “monotonous?” There has to be a reason and I’m assuming that they were just filler trees, so less detail was necessary so as not to take attention away from the main characters. The trees in the HB backgrounds were a major part of that particular cartoon, in fact, they are characters themselves, to a certain degree. Get my drift here? Of course Art Lozzi’s trees were more detailed and done with great flair — they were done that way because it was important for that cartoon! The Disney trees were not as important, thus less detail.

Hence the importance of intention. He used a bad example in my humble opinion.

Ah, I see. It’s a god point. John K.’s blog is always a great read — he definitely has a specific view of what makes a cartoon “great”, but his criticism is always passionate and well-informed. Always educational stuff.

Ah, I see. It’s a god point. John K.’s blog is always a great read — he definitely has a specific view of what makes a cartoon “great”, but his criticism is always passionate and well-informed. Always educational stuff.

What I personally meant by “intent” in relation too the Samurai Jack stuff is just the overall integrity and coherance of design. The Chinese brush influence carried through to even futuristic landscapes, the wonderful contrasting geometric and organic shapes, the continuity in the color palette that both suits the mood of each scene, and the overall palette of the show.

I also like the way the backgrounds compliment the figure designs–I love the way they chose not to use holding lines or outlines in the character designs. This makes the characters seem to belong more in their environment, making the backgrounds seem less like backdrops and more like places.

I’m not sure of the artist’s name, but speaking of Disney, some of my favorite backgrounds (in unfortunately one of my least favorite Disney films of that era) are the ones done for Cinderella. Again, real originality and integrity of design.

I’m not exactly pointing out anything new here, but with the exception of some of the better Jonny Quest episodes, its too bad that the quality of the writing and animation wasn’t up to the same standards as Hanna Barbera’s character designs and backgrounds. Aside from their great character designs and backgrounds and occassionally excellent voice talent, Hanna Barbera’s output was largely disapointing. Hanna Barbera’s contemporary Jay Ward proved that you could write smart stuff for kids despite the limitations of limited animation, which just makes me wonder: wouldn’t it have been cool if The Flintstones had the same quality of writing as Bullwinkle? It might’ve been as good a show as the Simpsons.

What I personally meant by “intent” in relation too the Samurai Jack stuff is just the overall integrity and coherance of design. The Chinese brush influence carried through to even futuristic landscapes, the wonderful contrasting geometric and organic shapes, the continuity in the color palette that both suits the mood of each scene, and the overall palette of the show.

I also like the way the backgrounds compliment the figure designs–I love the way they chose not to use holding lines or outlines in the character designs. This makes the characters seem to belong more in their environment, making the backgrounds seem less like backdrops and more like places.

I’m not sure of the artist’s name, but speaking of Disney, some of my favorite backgrounds (in unfortunately one of my least favorite Disney films of that era) are the ones done for Cinderella. Again, real originality and integrity of design.

I’m not exactly pointing out anything new here, but with the exception of some of the better Jonny Quest episodes, its too bad that the quality of the writing and animation wasn’t up to the same standards as Hanna Barbera’s character designs and backgrounds. Aside from their great character designs and backgrounds and occassionally excellent voice talent, Hanna Barbera’s output was largely disapointing. Hanna Barbera’s contemporary Jay Ward proved that you could write smart stuff for kids despite the limitations of limited animation, which just makes me wonder: wouldn’t it have been cool if The Flintstones had the same quality of writing as Bullwinkle? It might’ve been as good a show as the Simpsons.

hi art,this is marc lozzi felicianos grandson,ive been enjoying your work,and yes the bgagging rights to my friends,that we are indeed related,i appreciate you talking to me a while back,it was great to hear your sucess story.marc lozzi