Caricature tutorial: section #1 Introduction

What exactly is a caricature? It's not a portrait as such; in fact, the objective is to produce a drawing that looks nothing like the subject while, at the same time, being instantly recognisable. Gerald Scarf, the UK's finest caricaturist likened his approach to caricature as "stretching a piece of chewing gum as far as possible without breaking it". Once the thread of chewing gum snaps, the likeness is lost. No one can stretch chewing gum like Gerald Scarf!

The real question should be: what is a likeness?

It isn't the proportion of the individual features as these can be distorted beyond recognition without losing the likeness. The likeness seems to rest on what I call "hooks". These are the unique, individual features that make us instantly recognisable to all who know us. These features can be exaggerated but must essentially remain as they are –– just louder; more in-your-face.

John Lennon, for example, had thick eyebrows, small eyes, a straight and rather sharply pointed nose with defined, narrow nostrills. He was slightly goofy which was more apparent when he laughed. The set of his mouth was contrived to conceal this and resulted in a range of facial expressions that were typically Lennon. This may not sound as though I am describing the good-looking chap he clearly was but this is the nature of caricature. Caricatures are never flattering. As a caricaturist, you should always ensure that your subject is either (a) a celebrity you are unlikely ever to meet face-to-face or (b) someone with a strong self-image and a weak right hook!

On this page, I'll show some examples of caricature in different styles. I confess, some of the subjects have aged somewhat since these were drawn but I'm far too fond of them to write them off simply because they're a little out of date. On the following pages, we'll look at the construction of some simple caricatures of people who are well enough known for these to be recognisable.



Stephen Fry is an excellent subject for caricature. He has the powerful jawline and physique of a rugby player and the nature of a poet. He is essentially a kindly looking man. There is something 'boyish' about him that he will probably retain well into old age (he is now in his fifth decade and still looks a bit like a student).

As kindly as I'm sure he is by nature, he is also capable of cutting sarcasm and I rather suspect that his bent nose is more likely to be attributable to this despite the physical appearance of a rugby player. If I ever meet him, perhaps he'll tell me. Then again, perhaps I'll end up with a nose to match. Being a caricaturist can be a very hazardous occupation.

This drawing is of a very young Paul Newman (about the age he was when he first appeared in the film The Hustler). Here, I've kept the style to very simple pen strokes. The 'hooks' are the pale eyes and the full upper lip. Usually, the lower lip is fuller than the upper but, in a few people, the reverse is true. The nose, interestingly, is not like Paul Newman's at all but more like Marlon Brando's. However, drawing the nose correctly seemed to diminish the likeness and I had to try several nose 'styles' before this one which, though inaccurate, actually set the likeness. This chin is also important here although you'll see that I've afforded it little in the way of detail. Caricatures can be very detailed but, by no means do they have to be.

Michael Hestletine was always my favourite subject. Regardless of the man's political convictions, his departure from mainstream politics was a sad day for caricaturists. What part of this face isn't a hook? Well, OK: That ear. That ear could be anybody's. The rest is exclusively Michael Hestletine. Politicians are becoming younger and far more clean cut and I swear to God this is a deliberate attempt to confound political caricaturists! Ah well....

We'll analyse the different styles I've used here later in this tutorial but, for the moment. Let's try some simple caricatures and get into the feel of identifying and utilising the hooks that can make even a crude drawing instantly recognisable. So get a pen or pencil and a sketchbook ready and move on to the first practical.

Caricature tutorial: Project Dubya

George Bush's main 'hook' is the mouth and nose. The nose is pinched similar to that of John Lennon (featured later). The mouth, however, is pure Bush. It's an interesting mouth as the upper lip appears to belong to a larger mouth than does the lower lip. Therefore it overhangs the lower lip slightly. However, there is no "slightly" in caricature so this is homed in on and exaggerated.

The eyes are fairly simple as he has thick eyebrows and an almost permanent squint as if gazing into the sun. You'll notice that the eyebrows are simply a squiggly line forming an arch and the eyes are just a single stroke. No need for fine detail here.



I tend to draw the features first before framing them with the head and hairline. This last is easy to rub out, alter etc. without interfering with the features. Get the likeness sorted then decide how you want to draw the head. As you can see on the right. The likeness is already established with just the face. This could now be applied to a gorilla, a horse, a blue whale or whatever. Everyone will know it's a caricature of Dubya. So let's look a little more closely at those 'hooks'....


Draw the most characteristic feature first (in this case, his mouth) as this is the easiest bit to evaluate in isolation. You'll know if it's right or not without having to draw the rest in to see the likeness.


When you're happy that you've got this right, You can draw in the eyebrows and eyes. Although the eyes are single strokes, the position of the eyebrows suggest that the eyes are squinting rather than closed. If the eyebrows were raised slightly, the eyes would look closed.

Bush does not have a strong jawline so his face is framed with simple curves down to the chin. This, in turn, protrudes only slightly and is not particularly pronounced.

As for the hairline, you'll see that I've sketched this in rather crudely and, had I inked this in, I would have retained a crude sketchy look to this. Bush's hair is an interesting texture so that, although not tousled as such, it never looks freshly combed. The ears are well proportioned. Having had a spate of public figures with large ears, British caricaturist seem to be drawing large ears on everybody by default. I always felt that too much was made of Blair's ears but I think this was to compensate for the fact that he had no strong visual hooks.

Politicians are always good subjects to learn caricature as there are so many examples to inspire you. Practice by shamelessly copying other caricatures in the papers. Then practice by drawing from photo references and finally practice by drawing from memory. If you can draw presentable caricatures of politicians, you can find a market in the press and magazines. But don't delay.... they have a habit of retiring or dying just at the point that you've got the hang of drawing them!

Project: John Lennon

OK. John Lennon is not seen in caricature quite as frequently (and never as unkindly) as Dubya so the hooks will be less familiar. I don't know if you've noticed but caricatures of politicians tend to be a little shaky when they first come to public attention. Gradually, different artists discover different hooks which are quickly taken up by other artists so that the standard of capturing the likeness improves but they all end up looking as if they were drawn by the same person. You can't copyright or patent a hook; consequently, caricaturists steal from each other shamelessly. This is OK. I'm inviting you to steal from me and, if you get good and get published, I shall certainly steal from you.

Usually, the most prominent hooks are the mouth and the nose. The eyes are also very important in setting the likeness but mouths and noses tend to vary in appearance much more so let's take an analytical look at these features. I've drawn a rather formal caricature of Lennon which is less of a cartoon than the one of Bush (arguably, the same could be said for the subjects).

Perhaps Lennon's most distinctive feature is his nose so we'll analyse the anatomy of this. In the first drawing (Fig. 1), I've highlighted the nostrils which are pinched rather in the same way that Bush's are. Usually, when drawn full face, the line of the nostrils curve in a little towards the centre of the nose at the top. With Lennon as with Bush, this line continues on down as if to meet at the tip of the nose in a 'V' but stopping just short.

Where Lennon's nose differs from Bush's is the slight broadening of the nose directly above the nostrils, giving the effect of a slight sneer as if wrinkled in disgust (see Fig. 2). This feature fits well with his reputation as a master of sarcasm and a fierce critic of the establishment. Remember too, that the nose is very narrow compared to other noses. There is always the tendency in drawing in general to draw what we know rather than what we see. In this case, that would mean that we draw a nose as we understand noses to look like rather than drawing the nose we are looking at. If you're familiar with drawing anyway, you will be used to dealing with this inclination. In caricature, however, you need to emphasise the difference so pinch that nose right in.

OK? Happy with what you've drawn so far? Now let's get on to his mouth. Lennon's mouth is as distinctive as his nose but the distinction is far more subtle. Lennon has fairly thin lips and the upper lip is very slightly fuller than the lower lip. Also, the upper front teeth project forward slightly; not enough to protrude as such but I think enough for Lennon to feel conscious of this. Consequently, he always chewed gum when singing (in fact, I think he always chewed gum period) so that his mouth was always busy, ensuring that he didn't inadvertently break into a goofy smile (although there are rare photos of relaxed moments when this is quite evident). He was also quite careful in the way he opened his mouth so that the centre of the lips parted while endeavoring to keep the corners closed. This resulted in the upper lip curling up slightly. He would open his mouth by raising the upper lip a little more than lowering the lower lip. This creates an aquiline swoop to the line of the upper lip (see Fig. 3).

Because Lennon always tried to keep the corners of his closed (possibly for fear of losing his chewing gum), this intensifies the creases at the corners of the mouth which, with Lennon, extends downwards. This is less apparent with his moustache which is why I chose the clean shaven look for this exercise (Fig. 4)

Initially, I found John Lennon quite difficult to draw largely because of the subtleties of his mouth. There was something going on with that mouth that I couldn't quite put my finger on. This is where I find analysing both the structure and the way he used his mouth helpful. When you do encounter a feature that you just can't get to look right, it's usually because you're looking too superficially. Study as many photos as you can get hold of (thank God for Google Images!) and, if possible, study video footage so that you become familiar with the problem feature in action. The more you understand, the better you can draw it. Remember what I said about the tendency to draw what we know rather than what we're looking at. The more you know, the better you are able to draw it.

When drawing the head, note that Lennon has a strong jawline, high cheek bones and a fairly pronounced chin. Note too, the musculature of the jawline. In later years, the hollow below the cheekbones became quite pronounced.

The only real distinctive thing about Lennon's eyes is that they were quite small and he tended to squint until he began to wear his glasses openly.

Lennon changed his appearance frequently throughout his life and you need to be aware of the subtle differences that age or the fact that he initially didn't wear his glasses had on the overall look. In the early "Mop-Top" years, his eyes appeared even smaller due to his squint. His face was fuller so the musculature of the jawline was less pronounced.

An alternative glossary of computer terminology

A drive
The process of going nowhere in particular in the car

Byte
An unpleasant wound usually inflicted by a Jack Russel

Megabyte
As above but more generally inflicted by a crocodile

Kilobyte
To be avoided at all costs

C
The first step in writing words such as “cat”, “cabbage” and “canary”

C+
A C that always gets ‘A’s

C++
A C that always gets ‘A’s and still remains popular

CAD
An absolute bounder

CGI
A C that didn’t get any grades and ended up in the army

CGI script
Prescribed dialogue for CGIs who are not allowed to speak for themselves

CGI bin
The last resting place for most CGIs

Cursor
One who responds to error messages with profanities

Desktop
The top of a desk

Digital information
A finger gesture accompanied by the command: “Spin on this!”

Defragmentation
Something computer buffs like to do from time to time for no particular reason

Disk memory
Recollection of the things we used before MP3s

Edit
What Ian Hislop does in his spare time

Edit-Undo
What the Private Eye production team have to do when Ian’s gone home.

Emulation
The sincerest form of flattery

Error message
Your computer’s way of reminding you that it is smarter than you are.

Extended memory
Remembering what you had for breakfast yesterday.

F-key
A key that one cannot find. See also Effing key and F***ing key

Female connector
A dating agency for lesbians

Fields
Large areas of land that contain little but grass and, occasionally, cows.

Files
Used to repair keyboard damage to fingernails

File folder
See Uri Geller

Floppy disk
A disk prior to taking Viagra

FTP
The sound a file makes when you try to upload it.

Function
A gathering of people with whom you would not normally associate.


Garbage characters
The people your mother always told you to avoid.

GUI
A state of icky-stickiness

Hard disk
A disk after taking Viagra

Hyperlink
A link with a severe caffeine OD

IBM
Archaic term for computers

Input
A polite request for an error message

Internet
A system by which researchers kill several hours before going to the library

ISP
A dyslexic attempt at a colloquialism for ‘urine’

Jack
The man who does the plumbing and other odd jobs around the place.

Java
A holiday destination for those with an adventurous spirit and an armed tour guide.

Keyboard
A tool for mis-spelling words in common usage

Laptop
An extremely popular dance in Thailand

Log on
A boastful term for an erection

Macintosh
See ‘raincoat’

Memory errors
Wachamacllits.... you know.... wassnames.

Microsoft
A problem not even Viagra can solve.

Mouse
A small rodent

Mouse ball
The part of a mouse to grab if you want its heart and mind to follow

Mouse cursor
A foul-mouthed rodent

Mouse icon
A small portrait of the Patron Saint of rodents

Mouse pad
A snazzy apartment for batchelor rodents

Mouse port
A fortified wine popular among rodents

Network
General repair jobs done during the slack season in the fishing industry.

Online
A gathering place for loud birds at 5.00am.

Output
A dyslexic attempt at writing ‘potato’

PC virus
A viral infection that avoids minority groups

Pentium
A popular tourist attraction in Athens

Phone Jack
What to do when the plumbing goes wrong or odd jobs need doing.

Pie chart
The top 100 pastry polls of which steak & kidney is currently No. 5

Plug & play
A popular form of vibrator

Power strip
A performance guaranteed to create a few log-ons

PPTP
A common response to phrases such as: “You wanna come back to my place an’ jump on my bones?” and usually results in spilling your Martini over your shirt.

QWERTY
The feeling you’re left with after an alarming PPTP experience.

RAM chips
A crude method of eating French fried potatoes.

ROM
A traditional gypsy

Serial mouse
A popular rodent soap opera

Terminator
A rather unwelcome visitor

USENET
A good way of catching fish

Web mail
How garden spiders correspond with each other

Web address
Where the postspider delivers the web mail

Windows operating system
Often called a ‘hinge’

Cannabis, the botanical Franz Kafka

I’m sure you are weary of all the arguments on both sides of the on and on and ongoing debate about cannabis legislation. Lord knows, I am! Nevertheless I feel compelled to at least attempt to add my views to the immeasurable volume of material already written about it. Perhaps if, each time we encounter an impassable river, we toss in a pebble, eventually we will be able to walk across. This is my pebble. OK?

I find it rather obscene that a government that habitually takes such pains to evade issues that challenge its commitment to the Health of The Nation in connection to the NHS, rail safety, pollution, GM crops etc. etc., should have the audacity to claim that our welfare is the reason for its continued legislation against a particular plant that brings immense pleasure to those who enjoy it, pain releif for those suffering from conditions such as MS, and to which no known fatalities can be directly attributed. Alcohol, on the other hand (Yes....that old chestnut!), not only enjoys immunity from the long arm of the law but also provides the treasury with a nice little income by way of taxes. If one so much as mentions the fact that alcohol is frequently directly attributable to countless fatal cases of alcoholic poisoning and is also inclined to stimulate violent and antisocial behaviour (one tends to see soccer hooligans sucking tinnies rather than spliffs) or even hints at its traditional role of destroying The Family, one is immediately accused of being pedantic. Compare the road deaths attributed to cannabis to those attributed to alcohol and one is being confrontationally emotive.

Every Saturday night one can hear (or even see, should one recklessly venture out) the consequences of alcohol consumption. At best, this is rowdy behaviour between midnight to around 2:00am. At worst, it’s unprovoked violence and vandalism in the streets and often worse brutalities in the home. I am constantly being effected by alcohol despite the fact that I rarely touch the stuff. I am kept awake at night by drunken revellers, my garden is regularly strewn with take-away cartons and lager cans. A friend of mine lost her legs to a drunk driver and I don’t know anyone who hasn’t, at some time, been the victim of an unprovoked attack by someone who has been drinking. I am occasionally effected by cannabis only because I occasionally smoke it; an activity that would only effect the people in the next room if I knocked on the wall to ask if they’d like to join me.

Apparently, there are a lot of cannabis users in my neighbourhood and to be fair, the take-away cartons could be attributable to them, but not the violence or the vandalism. One hears about cannabis use in one’s neighbourhood. One hears and sees alcohol use first hand. One has only to pass a house in which alcohol is being consumed to know precisely what is taking place. If the same were true with cannabis consumption, the police would hardly need to rely on tip-offs.

Yet it would appear that alcohol presents no threat to the Health of The Nation that the government can put its finger on. They are quite happy to endorse its manufacture, distribution and consumption and has even passed new laws extending the opening hours of pubs–––– in some instances to 24 hours a day–––– whilst, of course, taking a sizable cut in the proceeds. I would like to know why such a destructive drug is endorsed when a comparitively harmless one is outlawed. However, when asked, ministers seem to prefer to answer an entirely different question or quote the percentage of heroin addicts that began with a few joints (whilst, of course, totally ignoring identical figures representing the percentage of alcoholics that began with a few lagers). The reality is that alcoholics and drug addicts are born not made. It might be helpful to balance these statistics with the percentage of both alcoholics and other drug addicts that displayed signs of personality problems before drugs or alcohol were entered into the equasion. Quoting statistics takes the debate nowhere. We need to stop all this faffing about and look at the realities: The incidents of negative consequences directly and solely attributable to cannabis use compared to that of any other drug (including paracetamol) is negligible. Why, then, is Cannabis Sativa, C. Indica and whatever other variants are currently being created in Amsterdam the only genus of plants ever to have been outlawed in this country? Papaver Somniferum, better known as the opium poppy is widely grown in gardens. It is legally sold by Hurrans and other leading seed suppliers. Peyote cactus is quite legally sold among other cacti and succulents and psilocybin mushrooms grow wild all over the place. As far as I know, it is not illegal to grow coca (although processing it into cocaine is), so why is poor old Bob Hope (the plant that dare not speak its name) the only plant that actually gets arrested like a sort of botanical Franz Kafka character? Does anyone have a rational answer to this question, preferably based on fact rather than opinions?

Well, OK, perhaps the use of cannabis can make one pedantic and emotive. To what do politicians attribute their total inability to give a direct answer to a simple question?

'Independence' of the IPCC

We have all read and heard assertions that the IPCC is a fully independent police watchdog and those of us able to see through the lies and spin are aware that this is all tosh.

The IPCC website assures us that:

“No member of the Commission may have served as a police officer.”

Oh really? So what about Peter Goode, Regional Director of the Cenral Region?

Peter Goode has served in the police service in Leicestershire for 31 years. He retired in October 2003 at the rank of Chief Superintendent. And let’s not forget Barry Simpson, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Director of Corporate Services who served nine years as a police constable in Fife.

What method of incisive, investigative journalism did I employ to dig up this damning contradiction to the claims of the Comission? Er.......... I read it on the IPCC website.

The commission asserts its independence of “the police, interest groups and political parties” . It’s the political parties that are rather misleading. It implies that the commission is independent of politicians which is clearly not the case. Nick Hardwick, Chair of the Commission which is funded by the Home Office, is “accountable to the Home Secretary” (as is clearly stated on the Commission’s website). The Home Secretary obviously doesn’t welcome allegations of misconduct or abuse of power within the police force and he who pays the piper... etc.. However, the Home Office is not a political party, it is part of the government. Likewise, the government, undoubtably peopled by members of the political party in office and is committed to the policies of that party, is not, in itself, a political party. It is the government.

The IPCC is far from independent of those who have a vested interest in whitewashing any dubious actions of the police. We have seen this “independence” and “transarency” in action most notably in the case of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes:

Lana Vandenberghe, a former secretary at the Independent Police Complaints Commission was working for the commission at the time of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. Consequently, she had access to documents and photographic evidence that contradicted the police assertion that he had vaulted a ticket barrier and had been wearing suspiciously bulky clothing for the warm weather. She waited for two weeks to see what would happen. Would the commission pick up on this? Would the commission act on this information? Apparently not. The commission had decided to sit on it and Vandenberghe was forced to leak the documents to ITN. She was suspended and subsequently resigned from the commission.

The Chairman, Nick Hardwick concluded that targeting an individual on the basis of looking a bit foreign and shooting him seven times in the head while he was held down by police officers and then lying to imply that his behaviour and dress gave reasonable grounds for suspicion did not constitute any impropriety on the part of the police. No doubt, the Home Secretary, to whom he is accountable would not have looked favourably on any other conclusion.

Independent? I would say not. Transparent? Most certainly..... but only because they’re so crap at lying.

Atheism

There seems to be a lot of confused feelings about atheism and it seems to mean different things to different people with only one aspect in common: the non belief in God (notice I use the capital G out of respect for those who do believe). Some atheists are fiercely anti God and / or anti religion so I think I'd better explain my position here: I do not believe in the existence of God or any other deity simply because I do not feel within my heart that such exists. I don't insist that God doesn't exist, only that I don't personally believe it. I also accept that I could be wrong. I have difficulty believing in the duck-billed platypus..... and I've seen those!

The trouble is that atheists are judged on something over which they have no control. We can't choose to believe something; either it rings true or it doesn't. As a child, I had problems with this because, in those days, religious instruction (or 'Scripture' as it was called) promoted the idea that not believing in God is sinful if not actually evil (and there is no shortage of people and institutions that still hold that view). So, for years, I prayed to a God that I didn't believe was there, went to Sunday School and sang in praise etc. etc. Now the odd thing about this was that I was not doing this to please God as I didn't truly believe. Nor did I fear the wrath of God for the same reason. I wasn't doing it to please others as I had actually chosen to attend Sunday School despite my embryonic atheism. I did it because, although I did not believe in God, I did accept the reasoning that I was, therefore, 'evil' and this was my way of compensating. The psychology of the child moves in mysterious ways that even God would never have thought of!

Now, I don't doubt that there are closet atheists who profess a belief in God to make themselves more socially acceptable. For a politician to claim to be an atheist, for example, would be professional suicide. I'm also sure that there are those who do believe but, for some reason or other feel bitterness toward a God they feel has somehow wronged them and have declared themselves atheists to get back at God (sort of voting with their feet). Faith can become very complicated. Take, for example, the priest who prays to God to restore his faith in the existence of the very God to whom he is praying.... such things could cause a rent in the Space/Time Continuum!!

To me, there doesn't need to be an intelligent entity directing everything. There doesn't need to be an Ultimate Plan and I don't feel the need to worship. I am quite happy with the concept that everything just is. I don't feel the need to know how or why we exist; I am content that we do. I am, however, suspicious of any school of thought that tries to dictate what we should believe. All that could ever be imposed is what we claim to believe as we have no control over what strikes us as true. It would seem that it doesn't really matter what we actually believe within the privacy of our minds as long as we outwardly conform to a prescribed system of 'belief'. This can only lead us away from truths.

As much as atheism has come in for unwarranted bad press, so has religion. More evils have been blamed on religion than has ever been blamed on atheism and this is because more evils have been committed in the name of religion. It's easy to then conclude that it is religion itself that is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of Muslims during the Crusade, the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland and the current terrorism in the West from Islamic fundamentalists (I don't include the Invasion of Iraq here as this wasn't done in the name of religion but in the name of greed.... ie; control of Iraq's oil reserves). But religion is not the motivating factor behind these outrages but far baser motives: prejudice, control, retribution and good old tribal feuding.