Should A Web Comic Use Reference Material or Not?

To answer this question, first, let’s understand that ‘reference material’ is defined as looking at real photos of or understanding the history of objects, people, or places that may be portrayed or emulated in one’s artwork or storytelling.

MANY, if not MOST, professional artists and writers use reference material as they craft their stories and artwork. They do so to render the most accurate representation of the subject.

For example, if one was telling the story of a German World War II NAZI story, they may need to know how to describe or depict a Luger pistol. As simple as the prop is, it must be accurate … an inaccurate depiction could be distracting, perhaps even disgusting, for a reader/viewer who knew better. Thus, understandably, it behooves a creator to do a little ‘real world’ research on Lugers and keep a file of images and information on hand.

But …

Is There A Good Reason to NOT Use Reference Material?

I know of one artist who rarely (but not never) used reference material … so he claimed in an interview: Frank Frazetta, a significant influence on me.

In the interview, I appreciated that he mentioned that he aimed to be ‘fantastic in his art.’

OK, it only makes sense why he would avoid using real reference material for his work. He had enough ‘reference material’ in his head to draw from memory or logic that the less he relied on ‘realistic’ depictions of anything … people, swords, smoke, architecture, etc. … the more ‘fantastic’ his artwork would be.

I like it! But easier said than done?

If you look at Frazetta’s art, I think it’s safe to say he doesn’t lack an understanding/memory of the human anatomy or perspectives/physics. And I think that’s key … and that just takes time to train yourself to see, understand, and replicate perspective, dimension, anatomy, and ‘physics’ … I say physics because every picture has 1.) gravity, 2.) balance, 3.) perspective, 4.) hue, and 5.) light (or absence of light). If you can’t accurately represent that in your artwork, your reader is distracted, possibly upset, or disappointed (which doesn’t help you win or keep fans, ha!).

SIDE NOTE: I used to teach drawing 101 … ALL of my students … on day one … wanted to know how to do the texturing, shadowing, and fancy stuff … But, I didn’t let them until they could accurately draw still life of a sphere, cone, and box. If they couldn’t do that … even if it took them 15 weeks … forget it. There’s no fancy stuff for you. Ha!

Well, the students didn’t like that. Sadly, the art department relieved me of teaching. Oh well.

I guess I didn’t give them what they paid for … and, oh yeah, I’ve seen their subsequent work in the student galleries … they still can’t draw worth (or a) dick!!!

So, take away point … how good is your mental ‘physics’ and ‘anatomy?’ … because if it’s not good, then yes, use reference material, please. BUT … how well can you draw a hand? In various postures, perspectives? From memory? How about feet? … if you’ve got it, well, hey,… and if that’s all you need for your story, then maybe you don’t need reference material as much, eh? And your work, even if slightly flawed, might be better for it.

To be honest, I think there can be delightful magic in the ‘imperfection’ of storytelling … to some degree, I don’t care for ‘manicured, predictable, ideal, safe, typical, ideal, or accurate’ … I prefer a fair degree of flawed, raw, original, and unpredictable … that’s my preference for storytelling, so I use those devices.

Does My Artwork or History Have to Be Perfect?

Are you allowed to slightly ‘alter’ history or real depictions of real places, people, or things?

Yes! As long as you make it obvious that you are characterizing the facts/reality. OK, I’ll explain further …

When you see ‘caricatures’ of celebrities, the intent is to distort features or mannerisms of a certain person, object, or place. The artist tries to maintain recognizability but exaggerates prominent features, perhaps with satirical intent.

For example, an artist may draw a cartoonish representation of one-time TV personality Jay Leno and exaggerate a large chin in the drawing.

Or …

Perhaps the artist wants to create a world of her/his own … and multiple facets of physics and biology could be distorted (Dr. Seuss comes to mind). In which case, the creator can decide what’s real, less real, or more real … as long as they don’t go too far that the reader is confused or in disbelief.

My story, Ogrexx, is set in pre-WWI Spain. History has been altered significantly, but I must consider some historical facts. For example, Zeppelins/airships … did they exist yet? Did they use helium or hydrogen? How fast did they go? How high (altitude) can they go? It all required some reference research. But after I had a ‘basic’ understanding of airships, that’s all I wanted or needed to know … I wanted to create my own little ‘airship’ world that was fundamentally, but not essentially, dependent upon actual physics and history. I can, and want to, improvise from there … even if my depictions weren’t accurate or plausible as long as they were close, like Alfred E. Neuman’s airship close. Ha!

But, ultimately, that’s the route I chose. There are MANY altered history stories out there. To a large degree, such stories MUST use some reference material. It would be hard to ground the reader otherwise, I think.

But when it comes to … how do I draw a Spanish castle? Or a tank? Or a pole arm? Or a bishop’s robe? … I don’t reference anything. I don’t want to. I pulled it from my head/memory/logic. I’m confident that what I come up with agrees with the reader. And at the same time, I don’t aim for ‘generic’ … ugh… I can’t stand ‘generic’ … no, I still aim for ‘uniqueness/detail’ … which isn’t easy/quick to do, right?

It would be easiest if every stormtrooper in Star Wars looked the same … oh, wait, they do!

But that’s the path of ‘generic’ art … sometimes it’s necessary. It’s ALWAYS easiest. But I resist it as much as possible … even the NPCs are unique in my storytelling. Ha!