In the introduction to his1941 The Art of Caricaturing Mitchell Smith says, “The necessary material used in drawing caricatures are few and inexpensive if we compare them to the tools of some of the professions, such as surgery….” We get it. Drawing a caricature isn’t brain surgery.
Caricatures have something in common: They exaggerate a feature, usually in some whimsical way and often for comedic effect. Smith’s book explains the process of drawing caricatures, and gives advice. His chief advice is to study an accomplished artist’s work. You get no guarantee, however, that by reading the book, you will be able to set up an easel in a mall and make a living by drawing the children of busy shoppers.
Smith’s book is filled with typos, but we can still draw something from his insights. He writes about expressions, and two of those expressions exhibit anger and pain. In regard to both he writes, “The eyebrows in Pain are knotted [somewhat] as in anger.” Pain and Anger. They share a common appearance in the eyes of a caricaturist.
Is anger related to pain? Faces seem to show that relationship. What would happen if the pained and angry were to adopt the expressions of smiling and laughter. For those, Smith writes, “Laughter is very similar to smiling. The only difference being, [sic.] the brows are higher…” Is there a lesson in eyebrows? Could we change mood by changing their position, by exaggerating the caricature of happiness?
Of course, getting an angry, pained person to alter the position of “knotted eyebrows” seems impractical in the midst of high emotion. But what if the changing of eyebrow position were a practiced, motor memory? Would that work?
Obviously, the exaggerations of caricatures are simplifications, examples of reductio ad absurdum. But then, maybe an emotion like anger is itself a reductio ad absurdum. Certainly, the results of anger in which an emotion simplifies behavior are often absurd.
Anger is itself a caricaturist. It reduces a person, event, or circumstance to a dominant feature, and then exaggerates it. Just remember that whereas most caricatures are drawn in fun, not all caricaturists are funny, and one portrays pain.
Caricatures have something in common: They exaggerate a feature, usually in some whimsical way and often for comedic effect. Smith’s book explains the process of drawing caricatures, and gives advice. His chief advice is to study an accomplished artist’s work. You get no guarantee, however, that by reading the book, you will be able to set up an easel in a mall and make a living by drawing the children of busy shoppers.
Smith’s book is filled with typos, but we can still draw something from his insights. He writes about expressions, and two of those expressions exhibit anger and pain. In regard to both he writes, “The eyebrows in Pain are knotted [somewhat] as in anger.” Pain and Anger. They share a common appearance in the eyes of a caricaturist.
Is anger related to pain? Faces seem to show that relationship. What would happen if the pained and angry were to adopt the expressions of smiling and laughter. For those, Smith writes, “Laughter is very similar to smiling. The only difference being, [sic.] the brows are higher…” Is there a lesson in eyebrows? Could we change mood by changing their position, by exaggerating the caricature of happiness?
Of course, getting an angry, pained person to alter the position of “knotted eyebrows” seems impractical in the midst of high emotion. But what if the changing of eyebrow position were a practiced, motor memory? Would that work?
Obviously, the exaggerations of caricatures are simplifications, examples of reductio ad absurdum. But then, maybe an emotion like anger is itself a reductio ad absurdum. Certainly, the results of anger in which an emotion simplifies behavior are often absurd.
Anger is itself a caricaturist. It reduces a person, event, or circumstance to a dominant feature, and then exaggerates it. Just remember that whereas most caricatures are drawn in fun, not all caricaturists are funny, and one portrays pain.
RSS Feed