Meet Bodie and Doyle. Booooadie as pronounced by their Scottish boss man Cowley, is the one on tippy toes and he especially likes the fight scenes, I think, I mean, I get that impression. He's also really good at pouting menacingly, while Doyle is supposed to be the softer character. However, it is my assessment that Bodie is actually soft in the middle. Oh and don't (or do) google these guys or (as) you will find all sorts of slash fiction of them being a couple, which is actually really cute because clearly the whole programme is based on their excellent camaraderie and loyalty slash humour slash girl hunting japes, with an undertone of it really sucks being an intelligence operative because you don't have a life, own your own life or get paid (reasonably) for the trouble, all they have is each other (which makes up for everything, aw). It's a bit like if the whole James Bond dynasty wasn't a total pile of sh*t imagine that! JB! urgh makes me angry just thinking about it - stupid films: stupid aesthetic: the money, the gloss, assumptions about class, him as a sex symbol (!?), killing like sneezing, oh and I'm basically a sociopath - a role model, great. Personally I'd rather go to bed with Inspector Clouseau. Anyway, Ci5 still has plenty of killing and its probably not the best thing to spend your time watching on balance, but I wanted to practice drawing 'action' scenes (running etc). I do wonder if other artists use the TV as a reference or inspiration for practicing new styles or scenarios. I have this horrible voice in my head which tells me I should be able to draw anything from nowhere, which - sorry- not able to do that just yet (if ever). Maybe it's a closely guarded secret how artists (really work) as in where they start from - perhaps its like you'll lose your mystique if you say - hey I have to draw it 5 times in rough, or hey I have to use a reference , or hey I've been drawing transformers for 15 years now and even dream about them (OHKAYTHEN) or perhaps I am just doing it differently - probably not! Eisner used photo references, and that was before you could get ANY PHOTO OF ANY THING EVER from the internet.. I know disney artists would use the people in the office or their wives as models to draw from... But say - someone swinging on a rope, before the internet, would be quite hard to reference, and so back to the are you a good enough artist to draw JUST ANYTHING out of nowhere and it look and feel realistic enough to work? I'd love to get there one day. Vincent Woodcock who taught the short course I did at St Martins in character design, who drew pretty much only Disney style cartoon cartoons, not realistic at all but definitely appealing, could draw anything - but then it would be made of shapes, abstracted, not based on observation. I'd say his style is so stylised you'd always know what you're going to get. My work is not stylised that way... maybe it will be one day, but at the moment, I really like to vary.
It takes a long time to become an artist. I've been drawing all my life and yet I still feel like I haven't quite worked it out. Moebius (probably my favourite artist along with most people's I am sure) said something along the lines that you never stop learning, when people told him he was great he'd have to think ah shadup because if you feel like you've 'arrived' then that's the time to worry! OK, but a little arriving is nice though.
- This isn't the article I was remembering but it's pretty awesome and appropriately the 70's again! - so have a read (the first one esp.) if you share my love of Moebius/Gir/Jean Luc Goddard. Some of the things he says about 'gut instincts' determining what to draw - having meaning or soul be it good/or bad is how I chose what to draw, not always coming out exactly how I want but (nearly) always starting from a place of expression of something strongly felt inside.
shouldn't talk so much