Caricature Art

[Victor Pross]

Caricature Art: Seeking to Capture the Essence and Learning to Appreciate an Underdog Art Form

By Victor Pross

There are many misconceptions about the art of caricature. People love caricature artists pretty much the same way they love baby chimps: they are amusing and not to be taken too seriously. But most people know nothing about caricature art. When it comes to the caricature artist, they pause to marvel, fire off enough questions to confirm that they don’t have much of a clue about art—much less about caricature art. This is no less true when it comes to some caricature artists themselves.

I come across inspired artists who are interested in exploring caricature and who often proceed to capriciously plunge in with little or no understanding of the art form. As a result, one will witness drawing after drawing of enlarged noses, lips, ears, foreheads, eyes, chins and heads—all the variable caricature clichés. Too often I see interchangeable drawings from different artists who bend themselves out of shape in the attempt to bend their subject out of shape, as if caricature was nothing more than enlarging and distorting every extremity. It all becomes so boring.

In this article, I would like to offer some insights—my personal approach--regarding this inspired and underrated art form. It is my intention to increase your pleasure and appreciation of this art form by letting you know of my philosophy to good caricaturing.

First, I would like to say a few words about the caricature genre in general: I hate most of it. There, I said it. There are only a handful of artists who spark my interest to the thousands who are out there. The vast majority are truly horrible as they are boring. However, I clearly believe that caricature art is a legitimate art form which I obviously wish to explore. But I pursue it as a fine-art painter. I loathe the candy-cartoon colors so characteristic of the art form. So I wish to state from the outset that I am not primarily a caricature artist, but rather, an artist who can paint caricatures.

At first, I was a much better artist than I was a caricaturist. I have spent countless hours laboring over a painting obsessing with technique only to discover that the finished caricature work struck me as flat. My paintings were flat because they were generic. They looked like dozens of other caricature artist’s works. The garden-variety caricature’s usual oeuvre is the tired cliché of BIG HEAD ON A LITTLE BODY. There is nothing wrong with this Big-head-Little-body cliché if done sparingly and not as the rule. This mode of caricaturing has fallen into the definite category of “been there and done that.”

After much trial and error, I discovered the main idea is to capture the soul of your subject. This is much more important than merely distorting features or resorting to exhausted formula. Like a shallow aging narcissistic model, too many caricaturists are obsessed with the outside at the expense of the inside. Now when I say “capturing the soul” of the subject, I find that a quote from Leonardo da Vinci very instructive to communicate my meaning:

“Faces display in part the nature of men, their vices and temperaments.”

With this quote in mind, I set out to capture my subject’s nature and temperament. In other words, I seek to capture their souls. There is much more to caricature than capturing features. It’s also about capturing the subtle [or not so subtle] nuances of a person—little highly individual touches that breathe life into the work. Caricature does not begin and end with a face: figure, stance, expression and attitude all add up to recognition. We can spot our friends or family members from strangers [even with their backs turned to us] and sometimes even from a distance. Sometimes you know a person’s walk or body language, even from that great distance. A rich personality tells more stories than a dozen oversized lips and bulbous noses. I strive to give my caricatures character.

When I set out to draw or paint a famous personality I usually know as much about the subject as does the general public, which is nothing more than tabloid personality. Sometimes they are just faces, and this doesn’t tell us much. So research becomes necessary. I approach caricature as a biographer approaches his subject: research, lots of digging. But try to imagine a biographer who couldn’t be bothered with conducting extensive research. What kind of manuscript would result? Of course, the result would be a banal and worthless book. If my subjects are predominately famous people, I find that doing at least some minimal research will spark ideas for a painting that would not have occurred to me otherwise, and the end result will generate a greater emotional response from my viewers.

There are many ways to capture a personality in a caricature painting. Legitimate “kill zones” can include a person’s characteristic facial or body language or political or spiritual allegiances or cultural ties or occupational backgrounds. I find that individualistic idiosyncrasies of the subject also provide fodder. The face is only a beginning. The idea is to find “the truth” of the subject. A keen artist will study the expressions of and nuances of person--mush as would an impersonator would. An outstanding impersonators base their mimicry on a much deeper level than mere speech imitation, and so in this spirit, I try get to the heart of the character while also working diligently to maintain a graphic likeness of a given subject. I consider the total person and not just isolated parts.

Consider the case of impressionist Will Jordan’s take on Ed Sullivan. When Will made the turn and presented you with that incredibly funny face—the Sullivan lantern jaw, the protruding teeth, hands on hips and the neck-brace posture pivoting like a doll at the circus, you saw Ed Sullivan even before he spoke! But when Will started to talk in that harsh, nasal, stammering voice--it was Ed Sullivan himself, body and soul.

Ed Sullivan was a colorless man, but Will Jordan was truly an inspired mimic who went beyond reproducing a voice, reshaping himself into the personality itself. Bizarre as it was, Sullivan gradually acquired all sorts of mannerism, which he didn’t originally have but which Will stuck into his act to make it funnier. Will raised the voice to a more metallic pitch, whistled through teeth, and barred teeth: “Thenk you all virr-ry much, la’ies and gennulmen!” Will Jordan caricatured Sullivan outrageously and it paid off for Will and his audience. And so with great exaggeration, facial expression, body language and voice—the whole package, I too, like Will Jordan, try to think of the “total person” when caricaturing. It is very satisfying as an artist to meet these challenges and the end result is much more rewarding for the viewer. It is about capturing the essence—and seeing it.

**

Edited November 5, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan, if you are out there...I would like your feed-back on this 'caricature philosophy.'

[Jonathan]

Victor,

I think you present a very good case, and I appreciate your seriousness and passion. The art of yours that I've seen is clearly not low-grade amusement park or mall kiosk stuff, where, as you say in your article, the artists work in nothing but generalized formulas and cliched distortions. More importantly to me, the thoughtfulness with which you seem to ponder the concept or theme of what you're bringing to a painting is complemented by a real understanding of serious art essentials - lighting, color modulation, brushwork, etc. I look at your work and recognize that you understand technical things (perhaps even on a level of their long having become second nature by now) that some artists who would look down their noses at all caricaturists will probably never understand.

Actually, now that I think of it, and maybe you've done something like this elsewhere already, it might be interesting to explore the entire spectrum of portraiture/caricature with illustrated examples. At what point does a portrait become caricature or vice versa? Is artist Gary Kelley's work (his Barnes & Noble cafe murals, for example) caricature, or is it a sort of gentle Iowan cubist realism? Was Tamara de Lempicka somewhat of a caricaturist? Were some of Ingres' intentionally distorted and highly stylized figures just barely verging on caricature? Are any of their works less artistically valid because they drastically distorted or altered reality for the purpose of enhancing expression?

J

Edited November 4, 2006 by Jonathan

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan,

Cubism, as I understand it, is the attempt to render three dimensions without using perspective. The fractured geometrical shards that make up cubist paintings belong is in a different category than caricature. Or so I believe. Pablo Picasso’s influence on the history of the 20th century is unquestioned. Caricature, however, as we know it, involving exaggerated likenesses of specific individuals, seems to have gelled very slowly. William Hogarth [1697-1764] many have been the first to bring the Italian word into English as “caricature”—from “caricature”, meaning “loaded picture. But the art of caricature may be older than we know. One sculpture portrait of the Pharaoh Akhenaton [who was famous for rejecting the ideals of classic Egyptian art] combines an unnaturally long face with slanted eyes, long nose, and oversized ears. In fact, throughout history, various cultures in Europe and Asia have mingled human and animal features to represent demons.

Caricature, I submit, is indeed a legitimate art form. It is not cut off from the other factors and skills that a representational painting demands: tone, contour, space, light, color modulation, brushwork, etc. As long as there has been art, artists have felt free to stylize the human image, boiling the face and figure down to graphic essentials—creatively. Creatively is the key word here.

Artists have always understood the possibilities of emphasizing, exaggerating, and rearranging the human face and figure. There are many of history’s “fine art” painters who painted “manically morphed beings” such as Goya, Leonardo Da Vinci and Picasso. Can you imagine an art titan like Leonardo drawing caricatures? Why not?

What I’m arguing for is a full reappraisal—if not a removal—of the lingering opinion that humorous or exaggerated painting cannot be taken as a serious art work. It is ART--an art form that has so much potential, way above the candy-ass cartoonists seen in the mulls. This will be my artistic objective.

Victor

Edited November 5, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan,

Like I said above, artists have always explored the possibilities of emphasizing, exaggerating, and rearranging the human face and figure. There are many of history’s “fine art” painters who painted “manically morphed beings” such as Goya, Leonardo Da Vinci and Picasso, and so on. Today, "serious art" is really the joke. Look at the contemporary gallery scene where the rooms are decorated with inverted urinals and floating basketballs and nothing represents anything more than the aritst's agent who represents an affected misfit.

You said: "I look at your work and recognize that you understand technical things (perhaps even on a level of their long having become second nature by now) that some artists who would look down their noses at all caricaturists will probably never understand."

What I’m arguing for is a full reappraisal—if not a removal—of the lingering opinion that humorous or exaggerated painting cannot be taken as a serious art work. That is my objective.

I was wondering if you have a larger objective in art outside of making a living?

Again, let it be said: Caricature, I submit, is indeed a legitimate art form. It is not cut off from the other factors and skills that a representational painting demands: tone, contour, space, light, color modulation, brushwork, etc. As long as there has been art, artists have felt free to stylize the human image, boiling the face and figure down to graphic essentials—creatively.

**

Edited November 5, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Victor:

Cubism, as I understand it, is the attempt to render three dimensions without using perspective. The fractured geometrical shards that make up cubist paintings belong is in a different category than caricature.

What I was getting at is that a painting style, like Gary Kelley's or Tamara de Lempicka's, which is fairly realistic but has been influenced by cubism, can be just as much an intentional distortion as caricature, and the cubism-like distortion can be employed for the same reasons.

Victor:

What I’m arguing for is a full reappraisal—if not a removal—of the lingering opinion that humorous or exaggerated painting cannot be taken as a serious art work. That is my objective.

As I said, I think you make a good case. And, actually, I think that there are many, many serious fans of visual art who would also agree with you. A good example: I've seen some of Daumier's caricatures displayed at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. No one there seemed to believe that the works in the exhibition were not serious art. I think the only thing tainting the status of caricature as a serious art form is what you've complained about yourself: exhausted formulas, candy-cartoon colors, etc. Someone who is serious about caricature art should do a caricature of such caricaturists. ;-)

Victor:

I was wondering if you have a larger objective in art outside of making a living?

I feel that I may be misinterpreting the question. If you're asking if I create art for a purpose other than making a living, then yes, I have a larger objective. If you're asking if I'm interested in using my art as a sort of aesthetic activism to try to convince the artworld that it should agree with my views on what is or is not art, then no.

J

[Victor Pross]

I think the only thing tainting the status of caricature as a serious art form is what you've complained about yourself: exhausted formulas, candy-cartoon colors, etc. Someone who is serious about caricature art should do a caricature of such caricaturists. ;-)

Hey, I like this idea. Hmmm, I can see that. ;)

By the way, along the same token, I don’t care too much for what is called hyper-photo realism. The sort of painting where you wonder if it is a painting or a photo—if you know what I mean? I’m not necessarily talking about caricatures. I just mean that whole hyper-photo realism deal all together. I like paintings to remain “painterly”—something that conveys something highly stylized and unique. A painter shouldn’t assume the role of a photographer, although many photographers have been inspired by the painting masters of the past. In art school, I tried a few photo-realism paintings, and I shocked my teacher by painting over them and starting again.

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

I've very rarely shared my work in Objectivist forums for a variety of reasons -- one of the primary ones being that Objectivist forums are populated with Objectivists, if you know what I mean. ;-) But I feel more at home on OL. Most people here seem to lack the hyper-zealot-Objecti-Nazi attitude toward art. Perhaps it's because there's a higher percentage of serious creative types here than elsewhere, and a deeper understanding and respect for the complexity of the creative process and the diversity of expressions and tastes.

I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Ah, Shayne... once again I see you've managed to pull into a thread and leave another one of your Victor droppings. Will you ever tire of it? Looks like pretty much everyone else has.

Victor is a fine artist. He's working on a project for me right now, and not only am I pleased with his early renderings, but even more pleased with how pleasant the experience has been-- he is very sensitive to our needs, and is going extra miles right out of the gate.

Really, why can't you keep off the bash Victor bus? What is the positive purpose?

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Ah, Shayne... once again I see you've managed to pull into a thread and leave another one of your Victor droppings. Will you ever tire of it? Looks like pretty much everyone else has.

Victor is a fine artist. He's working on a project for me right now, and not only am I pleased with his early renderings, but even more pleased with how pleasant the experience has been-- he is very sensitive to our needs, and is going extra miles right out of the gate.

Really, why can't you keep off the bash Victor bus? What is the positive purpose?

You object to me stating an evaluation of Victor's art (the art I have seen anyway, that's all I can speak to), and in return make an even more sweeping evaluation of me. Don't be hypocrite. If you don't like it when others judge, then don't judge. You're the Christian, right? Or did I misunderstand. Anyway, you seem to subscribe to the Jesus view of "judge not". So at least be consistent. Judge not. Or is it your view that it's only valid to judge judgers? That the worst evil is to be "intolerant" of evil?

Given your trashy tastes, I don't think it's speaking well to Victor's art that you like it. (For the record, I don't claim that all of Victor's art is bad since I have no idea what the scope of it is. I definitely did not like the Einstein rendering, I thought it was creepy.)

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

No, I'm not a Christian, I've made that abundantly clear, in reams. So that assumption cost you a bit of irrelevant typing, I guess...

I'm making no sweeping evaluation. You simply don't seem to like Victor, and you do what you do. It's really not very subtle or anything!

The tone is always there, you know? Why so angry at him?

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

No, I'm not a Christian, I've made that abundantly clear, in reams. So that assumption cost you a bit of irrelevant typing, I guess...

I'm making no sweeping evaluation. You simply don't seem to like Victor, and you do what you do. It's really not very subtle or anything!

The tone is always there, you know? Why so angry at him?

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne, if the Einstein drawing didn’t grab you, maybe Jean Chrétien is more to your liking? Hee-hee. :rofl:

Seriously, my art has always received mix reviews and I’m speaking outside of Objectivist circles. There is a sharp divide [Art World and public at large] and the battles have been even more ferocious than anything I have ever come across here or SLOP. The admiration and hostility seem pretty equal. As for any enmity, I can handle it, it’s old hat to me. Been there and done that. So the bunny ear around the word “art” doesn’t crush me--if indeed that was your attention. I doubt it was your intention. After all, you are an Objectivist and benevolent universers don’t behave that way.

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Seriously, my art has always received mix reviews and I’m speaking outside of Objectivist circles. There is a sharp divide [Art World and public at large] and the battles have been even more ferocious than anything I have ever come across here or SLOP. The admiration and hostility seem pretty equal. As for any enmity, I can handle it, it’s old hat to me. Been there and done that.

Well good for you.

So the bunny ear around the word “art” doesn’t crush me--if indeed that was your attention. I doubt it was your intention. After all, you are an Objectivist and benevolent universers don’t behave that way.

This is why I usually refrain from interacting with you. I mean, it's trivial to notice that "benevolent universe" does not equal "doesn't ever make negative evaluations of anything." You're not stupid. What alternatives does that leave? You like spewing irrational statements (not unlike your irrational art)? You simply are irrational as a habit and don't notice the illogic? You tell me, that kind of behavior I cannot fathom.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

A small word of comment. I don't find Victor's art irrational at all.

It is a huge mistake to look at caricature and parody art and expect to get the same aesthetic experience one gets from art like Jonathan's paintings (or the works at the Cordair gallery).

This is a premise well worth checking.

Notice that technique-wise, Jonathan has made some very positive remarks about Victor's work.

On the personalities, you guys work it out. I am busy drooling over Jonathan's paintings and chuckling over Victor's.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

On the personalities, you guys work it out. I am busy drooling over Jonathan's paintings and chuckling over Victor's.

Thank you, Michael. I'm thankful for the talent of the production people who manufacture those paint-by-number kits. They help a lot. Hee-hee.

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

A small word of comment. I don't find Victor's art irrational at all.

It is a huge mistake to look at caricature and parody art and expect to get the same aesthetic experience one gets from art like Jonathan's paintings (or the works at the Cordair gallery).

This is a premise well worth checking.

It's a huge mistake to assume that I think caricature and parody art should yield the same aesthetic experience as romantic realism.

Rather than make poor guesses about what I think about art in general, it'd be interesting to see an analysis of, say, the Einstein caricature, of the aesthetic value allegedly offered from that. Someone's brains popping out of their skull with shreds of skin dangling, I really am curious as to what somebody might think is great about that.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

Why on earth would I want to explain an instance of humor to you? Have you ever tried to explain a joke to a hostile person?

You can't. He won't let you. He likes being hostile about it.

I was merely suggesting you check you own premise ("you" in the general sense, not just "you" specifically). But that's your choice.

Michael

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Why on earth would I want to explain an instance of humor to you? Have you ever tried to explain a joke to a hostile person?

I ask you to explain why you're defending something as good and you react by attacking me. That doesn't help your case.

You can't. He won't let you.

Yeah, the minute you try to answer I'm going to tape your fingers so you can't type... Unlike you, who doesn't have the power to ban me or delete my posts.... You're making almost as much sense as Victor.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

How on earth is saying you are hostile to a joke or humorous piece attacking you?

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Shayne,

I welcome your challenge and will meet it with a serious reply. While I agree with Micheal, if you don’t see the humor in any of my work, I’m sorry for that, and it’s true there is no point trying to explain it so as to extort a chuckle. Besides humor, however, there are other reasons why I choose to include “visual clues” or whatever else you may see in a drawing or painting of mine--besides vying for a chortle.

There are many misconceptions about the art of caricature. People love caricature artists pretty much the same way they love baby chimps: they are amusing and not to be taken too seriously. But most people know nothing about caricature art. When it comes to the caricature artist, they pause to marvel, fire off enough questions to confirm that they don’t have much of a clue about art—much less about caricature art. Caricature is much more [or should be much more] than the rendering of enlarged noses, lips, ears, foreheads, eyes, chins and heads—all the variable caricature clichés. Too often I see interchangeable drawings from different artists who bend themselves out of shape in the attempt to bend their subject out of shape, as if caricature was nothing more than enlarging and distorting every extremity. It all becomes so boring. And such is the case with the so-called “fine art” painters. As far as I'm concerned, the world does not need another landscape artist, and nudes should be kept restricted to students—not as a primary esthetic mandate for a mature artist in today’s world.

I would like to offer some insights—my personal approach--regarding this inspired and underrated art form. It is my intention to increase your pleasure and appreciation of this art form by letting you know of my philosophy to good caricaturing.

First, a few words about the caricature genre in general: I hate most of it. There are only a handful of artists who spark my interest to the thousands who are out there. The vast majority are truly horrible--as they are boring. However, I clearly believe that caricature art is a legitimate art form which I obviously wish to explore. But I pursue it as a fine-art painter. I loathe the candy-cartoon colors so characteristic of the art form—colors that look as though they belong on a velvet painting or on the side of a 1970s Van. So I wish to state from the outset that I am not primarily a caricature artist--but rather, an artist who can paint caricatures.

At first, I was a much better artist than I was a caricaturist. I have spent countless hours laboring over a painting obsessing with technique only to discover that the finished caricature work struck me as flat. My paintings were flat because they were generic. They looked like dozens of other caricature artist’s works. The garden-variety caricature’s usual oeuvre is the tired cliché of BIG HEAD ON A LITTLE BODY. There is nothing wrong with this Big-head-Little-body cliché if done sparingly and not as the rule.

Here is where we get to the gist of the Einstein drawing: After much trial and error, I discovered the main idea is to capture the soul of your subject. This is much more important than merely distorting features or resorting to exhausted formula. Like a shallow aging narcissistic model, too many caricaturists are obsessed with the outside at the expense of the inside. There is much more to caricature than capturing features. It’s also about capturing the subtle [or not so subtle] nuances of a person—little highly individual touches that breathe life into the work. Caricature does not begin and end with a face: figure, stance, expression and attitude all add up to recognition. We can spot our friends or family members from strangers [even with their backs turned to us] and sometimes even from a distance. Sometimes you know a person’s walk or body language, even from that great distance. A rich personality tells more stories than a dozen oversized lips and bulbous noses. I strive to give my caricatures character. The end result will generate a greater emotional response from my viewers.

There are many ways to capture a personality in a caricature painting. Legitimate “kill zones” can include a person’s characteristic facial or body language or political or spiritual allegiances or cultural ties or occupational backgrounds. I find that individualistic idiosyncrasies of the subject also provide fodder. The face is only a beginning. The idea is to find “the truth” of the subject.

A keen caricature artist will study the expressions and nuances of person--mush as would an impersonator would. An outstanding impersonators base their mimicry on a much deeper level than mere speech imitation, and so in this spirit, I try get to the heart of the character while also working diligently to maintain a graphic likeness of a given subject. I consider the total person and not just isolated parts.

Now in conclusion, what can be said about Einstein that is essential to the iconography of the man? His wild and unkempt hair? Well, sure. But every other caricature artist has always done that! What else is there to focus on? His brain.

Victor

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Now this is funny! :w00t:

[Brant Gaede]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Victor, my response is "Ugh."

--Brant

[sjw]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

Victor,

I hope you realize two things. First, the fact that someone doesn't like your caricatures doesn't mean they don't understand art. Second, that there's nothing clever about the idea of showing Einstein's brain bursting out of his skull. I mean, that's an obvious gag to think up.

You said a lot of things. But precious little about the Einstein caricature. Actually I wonder if it's fair to ask the artist to explain. It's definitely not your duty to. But I am interested and curious about what you thought you were trying to convey there. If you want to know what I get out of it I'll try to explain.

I don't claim to be expert on the theory of caricature art. But I off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved here from another thread.)

I hope you realize two things. First, the fact that someone doesn't like your caricatures doesn't mean they don't understand art. Second, that there's nothing clever about the idea of showing Einstein's brain bursting out of his skull. I mean, that's an obvious gag to think up.

-Is it? It’s never been done before, as far as I know—but Google and yahoo away! What would you have done?

I don't claim to be expert on the theory of caricature art. But I off the top of my head, the right approach would be along the lines of: amplify those physical characteristics which best underscore the essence of the person being caricatured. If you don't know who someone is, you can't really caricature them right I would imagine. A purely physical caricature (like gratuitously large nose or something) is a far lesser form of art than one that tries to convey something abstract and important about the subject.

-Shayne, you have merely reiterated what I just explained, and I agree with you. Why the echo? Having said what I said, however, I don’t pretend that a two dimensional representational drawing or painting will tell as much as a biography can—or a novel in regards to characters. Painting, in this instance, is limited.