If you're indicating that something is furry/shaggy/floofy/etc, just throw out three zigzags in the fur line. Maybe five. Even numbers are bad for this because they feel more 'regular' and less 'random'.
Keep 'em different sizes, and put them on a place where the body beneath is definitely convex.
Chuck Jones' design of Wile E. Coyote is an example of this: he's shaggy and unkempt and scruffy, but he's actually a very sleek design. Except for the exuberant floofs of fur at all his joints, that both show that he's furry and suggest that he's kinda scrawny and underfed...
I'd throw in some visual examples, as this is much easier to explain that way, but I'm tired and cranky right now. *grin*
... oh, what the hell. here: notice, 3 tufts of feather-hair on her head. it looks "random". if there were 2 or 4 it would look "regular". here, note the underside of the tail of the one on the left? it's the 'showing convexity with fur floofs". but only two, so it looks kinda weird. see the shoulders? three little foofs.
Not the best examples but I don't feel like going trawling through my sketchbook scans!
Three is kind of the magic number for 'random' elements in the simplified realm of animation design. It's enough to hint at detail without actually cluttering up the place with real detail, and it has that 'natural' feel of oddness. Plus it can be kind of physically pleasing to scrawl out three little shags in a row.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-19 07:30 am (UTC)Keep 'em different sizes, and put them on a place where the body beneath is definitely convex.
Chuck Jones' design of Wile E. Coyote is an example of this: he's shaggy and unkempt and scruffy, but he's actually a very sleek design. Except for the exuberant floofs of fur at all his joints, that both show that he's furry and suggest that he's kinda scrawny and underfed...
I'd throw in some visual examples, as this is much easier to explain that way, but I'm tired and cranky right now. *grin*
... oh, what the hell.
here: notice, 3 tufts of feather-hair on her head. it looks "random". if there were 2 or 4 it would look "regular".
here, note the underside of the tail of the one on the left? it's the 'showing convexity with fur floofs". but only two, so it looks kinda weird.
see the shoulders? three little foofs.
Not the best examples but I don't feel like going trawling through my sketchbook scans!
Three is kind of the magic number for 'random' elements in the simplified realm of animation design. It's enough to hint at detail without actually cluttering up the place with real detail, and it has that 'natural' feel of oddness. Plus it can be kind of physically pleasing to scrawl out three little shags in a row.