MONSTERWORK SHOP - FINAL VERSION DUE TONIGHT (MONDAY)

[Misj']

I guess you could call the sun the antagonist in that scene, but that's getting a little abstract for my taste)

That's exactly what I would call it (was thinking about a monster breaking down a door, but the sun with a troll would work as well). And there is nothing abstract there. If story is conflict (as some say), then the antagonist (opponent) - whether sentient or not - creates that story/conflict.

As for the other examples: I'm the one who drew a monster showering; she's cute and positive and still (clearly) a monster. Anyway, for my sketch I needed humans since they were part of the story I was telling (which was actually a love story); had it been another story, then there would probably be another source of conflict (opponent/antagonist) that was decidedly less human.

That being said: I applaud every advice that urges people to think/draw beyond the obvious.

[waheela]

I usually like making progress .gifs of my piece after I'm done (since I'm OCD about saving multiple drafts), and Selmiak posted his too, so I thought I'd share...

[ThreeOhFour]

I don't want to debate too heavily on this, but my pic keeps getting mentioned, so here's my 2c:

I understand the idea that a picture should tell a story, but if we all drew a person standing there battling a monster or fleeing from a monster then every single piece in this activity would be "Man vs beast". I'm not saying this is a valid story to tell with a picture, but it's a very common story to tell, and if you look at the majority of entries in this you can see that this is the story they tell.

It doesn't really interest me to draw such an often drawn image, quite frankly. I believe an image can be far subtler and still tell a story. Perhaps mine doesn't convey much of a story - that's fine. But championing the idea that every picture needs a human element in order to tell a tale? I disagree wholeheartedly.

I do like Waheela's design a lot - it's creative, a unique perspective and a unique tale. The other images with monsters vs humans are all beautiful, but when I look at them I instantly think "Man vs beast". For me, a picture like cat's is just as visually interesting, because it's not trying to show a scenario I've already witnessed in thousands of other images. Frazetta is not the *only* source of inspiration.

[cat]

What I like about Ben's entry and also miguel's is that they show emotion. The other pictures (including mine) show an attacking or passive aggressive monster while theirs shows pain and sorrow, most likely inflicted by humans (either by summoning them or chaining). They are both encouraging to think of a story of your own.

[Misj']

But championing the idea that every picture needs a human element in order to tell a tale? I disagree wholeheartedly.

As do I.

But I also wholeheartedly disagree that the human element should be removed if it's relevant to the story; which is Snarky's - if I exaggerate it a bit - statement when he said: "As a general comment, I think in almost all cases, introducing people into the picture has detracted from the impact of the monster." - I defended conflict and context (for the monster's behaviour) and indicated that an antagonist (in any way, shape, or form) is what defines a monster (a fire-element will react differently in a forest or near an ocean than in a volcano).

That brought me to your piece. I have no intention of putting it down, because it's a great piece on many levels, and I very nearly gave it my vote. But the reasons I choose not to, was because it lacked the contrast/context/story that I usually find in your work. The way I wanted to interpret this image was, that he used the portal to go home (in a post-apocalyptic world), and have a relaxing evening with a glass of wine (the conflict being the contrast between the monster and the very human-like behaviour); but I still don't know if that's anywhere near the story you wanted to tell.

[ThreeOhFour]

I agree that a monster is defined in contrast to something else - indeed, nothing can be described until compared against something else - but I like to think we can work with preconceptions already in the viewer's mind as a reference point from which we can derive our "monstrous" definition from. Having to show things explicitly is something I find dull - you may as well label your image with "This is a monster, he's the bad guy because he is doing this." Even though with your concept you had a skewed perspective as to the protagonist/antagonist relationship, it's still made very black and white that there's a conflict.

Maybe it's just me, but I like a picture that leaves room for the viewer's imagination. I find it quite daring, personally - perhaps because my art teacher used to sit me in the corner with a book of Dali paintings out of frustration for my unwillingness to constantly draw cubes for hours, and thus I learned to love images which let you invent your own story (and also therefore failed the class).

[Andail]

Maybe we can finish this debate now, especially the part where we make sweeping judgments about how paintings should be. People chose different approaches and that's cool. Some focused almost entirely on monster design - which I guess adheres better to the workshop premises, and some painted a whole scene, where the monster wasn't even the centerpiece (like me, which is probably why I won't get any votes, hehe), but I think that's fine.

The important thing is that a lot of people participated and felt like they accomplished something. I'd happily run/partake in a new workshop any time, because I think it's an awesome educational tool.

[ThreeOhFour]

Aw, I didn't mean to get drawn into debate, and I had fun too. I just get a little passionate sometimes

I'd like to do another workshop too, really. I draw all the time anyway, but it's very cute and nice to be doing it alongside a group of peers.

[Snarky]

(Wrote this before the last two replies)

Misj', I disagree with you on two counts.

First, your suggestion that "an antagonist is what defines a monster." To me, a monster is something abnormal or alien, something outside our ken. It challenges our assumptions about what ought to exist, makes us go "what the hell?" That could be anything from an incredibly big dog to some Lovecraftian abomination, and it doesn't need to be antagonistic. A monster is a monster even if it's friendly (like Totoro), sleeping (like Smaug in its cave), or dead (like the carcass of an eight-trunked mammoth).

I'm not saying this is the one true definition of a monster, but I think it's at least as valid as yours, and does away with the need for an antagonist.

Second, I don't think antagonists are necessary to create an interesting picture that tells a story (monster-focused or not), or that any kind of drama or tension is best understood as a form of antagonism or conflict:

-E.T. reaching out his finger to touch Elliot's
-a mutant gazing up at the Lincoln memorial, with the post-apocalyptic ruins of D.C. as a backdrop
-Frankenstein's monster overseeing the assembly of his bride
-a winged bear licking her pups cubs clean
-the funeral pyre of an orc patriarch, mourned by his sons
-a gollum-creature fawning over his beautiful gem, his twisted features reflected in every facet
-a centaur playfully stalking his coy lover through a grove
-an ancient squid-creature passing on its wisdom to an awestruck pilgrim
-etc.

Even if you could frame these as conflicts against (extremely abstract) antagonists, I think it's reductive and tends to distort their point. By thinking of everything in terms of conflict, we're collapsing a wide range of distinct emotions and relationships together, thus limiting our range of thinking about what situations are interesting and worth portraying.

[Misj']

(Wrote this before the last two replies)

Misj', I disagree with you on two counts.

I'll continue this in the PM's, because I'm having too much fun.

But in short, the first disagreement depends on the definition of monster. To me it's behaviour not shape; which might be a bit weird considering that I created a 'monster' who's behaviour was good but who's shape was that of a monster. Others have commented that my monster was not really a monster, but the hero. So putting my words arguments as pure black-and-white rules would mean that I myself would have broken my own rules...which would make little sense

[miguel]

What I like about Ben's entry and also miguel's is that they show emotion.

, by Cat

My idea of monster is pretty simple. And I'm not going into "Staline was a monster" thing here. We are drawing fantastic non-existent creatures after all.
Monster = animal features and behaviours because they are different from humans. If there were no humans there would be no monsters.
A monster is a creature that does not fit. To us, humans, we feel repulse from their physical appearance. Repulse and fear. I think that, like any animal that senses fear, those monster will react and become dangerous.
I wanted to portray a illusion of despair in my monster face. Something that Ilych spotted straight away, maybe helped by the quotes I was revealing from S.Morrissey.
We, as the human eye (antagonists after all) are looking at a face in a monster body and feel different emotions. Maybe the first ones are of repulse but because we are allowed to stare we can find new dimensions to the monster's mind.

Ben's work has this same weirdness of effect. To me, in his piece, time has somehow stood still allowing us to take a closer look at the monster. I have the feeling, not feeling, fear! that in the very next minute something brutal may occur.

[Ilyich]

First we had 3 weeks of awesome artwork being made, and now we're having a short debate about what makes a monster, and the role of conflict in illustration? All in all, I think this went rather well!

Hats off to all the participants, it's been great to watch you all [in a creepy, silent way] make progress. I was especially impressed by Cerno's and selmiak's improvement at the final stretch - great job, but everyone did really well in the end and I think we all learned quite a bit from this workshop. We should do it again sometime, methinks! Cheers!

[Kasander]

Sorry, I'm late but felt a need to respond.

But championing the idea that every picture needs a human element in order to tell a tale? I disagree wholeheartedly.

As do I.

And as do I

No doubt adding humans can solve certain problems, and I don't mean to say it's always the wrong choice (I liked Mordalles tiny soldier figures, for examples). But I don't agree with the implication that it's the only way to solve them, or the best way.

It's neither the 'only' nor exactly the 'best' way - I don't see anybody implicating that. It's just a 'very easy' way and probably the most common one used in the industry, when it comes to illustrating the monsters (either book or game art). 'One of the best ways', I could say THAT.

Well, for example, one of selmiak's original reference images was Gollum sitting on a rock, which I think accomplishes a lot of storytelling very simply.

Why? Because you've seen the movie/read the books? There's some story behind most of these film/game creature references, you know. The story is working behind the pictures.
Besides, I for one didn't like the Jackson's Gollum - it accomplished nothing for me, really.

If it helps, maybe try to think about landscape photos and other pictures with no humans in the image. They can still have drama, conflict/contrast, and even tell a story. It might be more challenging, but that also means the solutions can be more interesting.

It doesn't help in this workshop's case. The solutions may or may not be more interesting. But it's not so much about looking for interesting solutions to surround the monster with. First and foremost it's about the monster itself. Humans, hands, cats, chains - they are props and secondary actors to the star of the picture.   

For storytelling and tension, there's a lot that can be done with posing/action, light, point of view and field of view, atmospheric perspective, and props/scenery.

Examples would do us some good here. Honestly, I think we could all benefit this. I know I would.   

(For a cheesy example, what if in your image, instead of the charging warrior with the spear, there was a terrified cat raising its back?)

Right And that's the moment when your potential employer (in either game or book industry) says: "next"! Human being the protagonist, is the most common opponent for monster, like it or not. Human with whom the player/reader/viewer is supposed to identify with

I certainly wouldn't eliminate the light, no.

But you would eliminate the tension and drama by removing human. That would result with a less interesting picture.

Again the thinking seems to be, "Hmm... there's a problem with some aspect of this image. What to do? Oh, just stick a person in there! Problem solved!"

Pretty much. It's the easy solution. Also it's the one that adds an instant story & drama to the picture. The pros outweight the cons in any case. 

How about adding some smaller fishes for scale instead? Or adjusting those underwater plants to give a greater sense of scale? Make the dragon trail bubbles? Increasing the use of atmospheric perspective/water haze, and adding some particles? Putting in some underwater cliffs, or a wreck in the distance, a sunken city or something? (I get the impression cat ran out of time, and maybe she would have tried some of these options if she were to work more on it.)

Indeed, these are very nice solutions to the scale problem. But they aren't so good solutions for the lack of drama/tension. Human is an instant one. 2 in 1, you know, no need to add water And most of us run out of time.
 
In my case, none of these solutions would work, since I wanted to show the monster waving his 'carniparases'/snakearms. Waving alone would be like kissing the air. And this wasn't supposed to be a rpg bestiary book picture or simple piece of game concept art (otherwise, my b/w "BEFORE & AFTER" sketch would do the job), but something a bit more elaborate, descriptive.

There's also one very important factor of adding human that we were saying very little about so far.

We are humans after all. We read, watch, play stories, in which human/humanoid is common. The human most often feature as protagonist, and is a majority in most stories. If your next AGS game's protagonist will be a fish or a rock, that's cool. But most of the games are crowded by humans, like it or not. So for some of us this workshop was also a good opportunity to practice drawing humans.  Human is certainly the most commonly used game monster    

From technical point of view, it is much more challenging to accurately paint a human than most of other subjects. Small fishes? Underwater plants? Particles? Bubbles? Technically, child stuff. Even wrecks and sunken cities are easier to paint than humans For me, that was an excellent opportunity to practice anatomy 'in motion'. And a one that was much more challenging, in technical terms.     

My personal opinion is that exploring some of these options could, in most of these examples, have led to more interesting solutions than just sticking a person in there (which starts to feel a bit like a cop-out once everyone starts doing it, and IMO blunts the effectiveness).

Maybe yes. Or maybe not. Or maybe some of us didn't have time Like, quite a lot of us. As I said, it's one of the easiest ways to solve most of the problems. Also, the problem of a lonely monster. It's also a well-rooted, classical one. In the spirit of forefathers of concept art and their forefathers, and all that;)

It doesn't blunt the effectiveness, since I won't be including other people's work in my portfolio. After the workshop ends, everyone goes home, holding his/her (monstrous) child by the hand (if it has hands:)). The workshop's main purpose wasn't 'gathering many monsters in one place', otherwise it could be named 'AGS monster mittens' It wasn't also the scariest/ugliest monster contest, otherwise it could be named Monster Olympia;) It's main purpose was learning.


-----
I'd also agree with the Misj' critique of Ben's painting. While I love the atmosphere, the details, technical execution  of the piece, for me it lacks a clear story. The somehow sad/melancholic look of the hunched monster leaves me with too much questions to answer. Is he a dethroned lord of some castle, or did he just get kicked out from a monster bar? Is he pictured remembering his demonic lover or prey, or is he lost in this calm deserted place, looking for a portal to bring him back home/hell? He's naked, looking so vulnerable (for a monster). The moon above adds to the reflective, melancholic mood of the piece.

As I said, I like it, but there's too much questions concerning the 'main actor'. Too much for an out-of-context, illustration, utility piece (that's functioning without a text description).

@ Ben
On a side note: I don't want to sound too prim and proper, but in my opinion showing monster's willy in your piece is a mistake. Since it's not exactly a nude act piece, and the nakedness isn't the main theme (nor is supposed to play any important part), I'm for covering/obscuring the private parts here (well, almost any game/book publisher would be because of the non-classical (ancient) take on nudity). For me it's a purely functional issue. The willys (and coochies and sometimes breasts even) in art have a certain quality: they most often steal the scene, obscuring the other - sometimes more important elements - in the process. That's the case with your picture, too. 

[ThreeOhFour]

To be perfectly honest, my intent for showing genitalia was multi-purposed. It was intended as a bit of humour, as I always like to draw with a bit of humour, it was intended to give realism to the monster - animals have means for reproduction, it's as simple as that, and when I see humanoid creatures without means for reproduction it looks quite silly to me, and finally it was meant as a bit of a playoff of the archetypal Frazetta style image, wherein the beast is contrasted against an unbelievably beautiful adonis of a man or woman, no doubt to emphasise the monstrous nature of the creature through juxtaposition, but also makes a lot of such fantasy art embarrassingly sexualized, through the vulnerable poses of the barely-clad women to the dominant poses of the tanned and steroid enhanced men - none of whom are seemingly old, fat, lanky or awkwardly proportioned at all.

I totally understand your point, basically, but stick with my decision.

[cat]

I agree with Ben here. Placing a random object there just to hide his genitalia Austin-Powers-style would be ridiculous.

[Kasander]

Haha, all right Now after you've said that, I understand your need of humour and playing off the stereotypes.   

I was aiming, on the contrary, for the more or less arche-/stereotypical, 'industry based point-of-view' depiction. That's where my criticism comes from. That's why I went more or less Frazetta route.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about these stereotypes being childish and about mass-sexualization of entertainment industry though. Well, stereotypes...in films, books, games, comics, in any type of media...  It's a wide subject to discuss, worth a separate thread.

@Cat
Nobody's talking Austin Powers style. I'm talking Frazetta style obscuring. Check out how he does it (see Andail's link). BTW, in rare cases when Frazetta shows full frontal nudes it doesn't always pay off, IMO. But I don't know, probably those 'border' pieces that bug me a little were intended as (s)excapist fantasy style illustrations for the likes of Playboy or something So maybe there was some purpose in showing these bits, after all.

EDIT:
I've drawn my monster's willy without any special cover. I didn't use the warrior's weapon or piece of rock to hide it, right? It doesn't draw attention to itself. I understand that Ben was going for fun and I'm 100% ok with it    

[Andail]

Smello! The results are in, and the winners announced here:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48324.msg636456514#msg636456514

A fantastically good round, I'd say, so thanks a lot for participating and let's do it again soon!