





Looking through my Illustration Now! textbook I saw a few artist that I really enjoyed, but one that really stood out to me was Nishant Choksi. When I first saw his illustrations the colors really stood out to me and drew me too them. They have the feel of illustrations from the 1950’s, which really appeals to me, but he also manages to keep them modern enough that they don’t appear to be dated. They have a slightly aged and ‘vintage’ feel to them that I love. He uses contrasting, limited color extremely effectively to put emphasis only on the main parts of the piece, such as dark blue and orange and teal. I also really like his use of flat, stylized colors, because that is something I like to attempt in my own work. His linework is very minimal which really enhances the pieces’ simplicity, and draws your eye where he wants. I also enjoy his use of action lines in his pieces because I feel like they add a lot of movement to pieces that could otherwise be very static. Lastly, I just love the subjects of many of his pieces because they all seem to be somewhat science related, and I especially love his ‘Moon Explorer’ piece.
It was harder for me to choose an artist that I really didn’t like, because most of the Illustrators that I didn’t enjoy had at least one piece that I liked. However, I ended up choosing Jasper Goodall for my least favorite artist, mostly because of one set of illustrations of his that I found pretty ugly. His first piece is the work that is on the front cover, but there’s just something about it that doesn’t quite catch my interest. I think it looks like vector art (which it may or may not be, but I’m not sure), which I am not in general a fan of. I also think the colors are a little too blatant and don’t really quite work with each other. I also don’t really like the bathing suits that he designed for the same reason. Lastly, the final pieces shown of his work were probably my least favorite from the entire book. To me they looked as if they were really trying too hard, and aesthetically I found them to be extremely unattractive. The use of hot pink and lime green seems very amateurish to me, and overall they seemed very cliché. I think my dislike of his work really stems from differing aesthetic values.
Kimi Kimoki
Many styles in the “Illustration Now!” book appeal to me but one that stood out the most for me was Kimi Kimoki. Most of her works have a photographic realism about them yet it’s still quite easy to tell that they are in fact just illustrations. The approach that she takes to her work intrigues me. Take for example, the second example of her work the book shows called “Untitled” that appeared in Coming Up Magazine. While the woman’s figure is outlined, the mark is subtle and I found I didn’t really notice it until put the image right up to my eyes. I liked how it gave definition without being too overwhelming and bold. Maybe the most obvious reason I was drawn to her works, was the blending. She blends it to look realistic yet her lines still have a sort of sharpness to them that separates them from the other values. I have to say what appealed to me the most was her use of color. Her works seem to stick with a limited amount of colors, and those colors are only applied to the areas in which she wants the viewers to focus. The rest is just outlined, sometimes just lightly shaded in grayscale. This further emphasizes what she wants the viewer to focus on and that her illustrations are make look real but are in fact not.
Zeloot
While there are many illustrators’ works I don’t necessarily hate but don’t enjoy either, the prize goes to Zeloot. I admit he has interesting ideas but I find myself very confused by those ideas. The majority of his works leave me guessing what exactly the message his piece is trying to get across. While he uses a limited pallet similar to Kimoki, I find that the colors are just too much. Because he uses only one shade of a color, it leaves me feeling that there’s just too much of one color. Also I feel like the colors he puts together just don’t work for his pieces due to the almost neon quality of each color. It hurts my eyes to focus on one color for too long thus causing my eyes to constantly move to a different place. Also, he uses the same color so methodically in a piece sometimes, (such as the second example in the book) that it jumbles the composition up and makes me confused even more. His use of patterns, while I feel it does help to break up the use of one color, once again just furthers to make his compositions chaotic and makes my eyes strain to actually see what it is he’s illustrating. Overall I wouldn’t say I hate his work, for I haven’t seen much of it, but at first glance he is definitely not one of my favorites.



One artist that I found to be my favorite in Illustration Now! Was the Japanese Illustrator, Gez Fry. The first thing I noticed was his use of light and perspective (Which I like to fiddle around with in my own work) which really makes his illustrations something interesting to look at. The most prominent example of his great use of perspective is on page 102. On this page it is an illustration of a woman, but the perspective is so abstract that it took me a second to realize what the subject of the picture was. Gez Fry also uses the light source, and sometimes contrasting colors, as a tool to really portray a strong mood for the viewer. Upon looking further for his work, I stumbled upon some of his concept art and character designs. His designs were very fresh and unique- really cool stuff. Also, the illustration I found outside of the book had a roughness to them that I enjoyed a lot. Much more interesting than the smooth blending of colors seen in the Illustration Now! Book. His summary in the book stated that he was a digital painter, which intrigued me because his stuff had a sense of traditional media. Whether his art is a hybrid of both or just mocking the traditional look, I think his style of art and sense of perspective/lighting is really great. Definitely an artist I wish to look more into.
The artist that I disliked the most was French Illustrator, Laurent Cilluffo. His illustrations seemed incredibly boring and way to simplistic for my taste. His work also seemed to have too much going on at once to the point where I couldn’t focus on anything. It seemed to be just a bunch of visual noise with no clear focal point. Illustrations, at least from my knowledge, are supposed to represent some sort of idea or story. But I get neither when I look at Laurent Cilluffo’s stuff. Cilluffo didn’t appear to have a website so I had to research him on my own, and although I didn’t get many results, all of his art looked the same to me: A bunch of stick figures running around chaotically with some sort of lined architecture incorporated. Nothing to connect to, no emotions or moods portrayed. Just apathy. When I look at art I want to be able to connect with the characters, be projected into the world, and get a sense of the story behind it so my mind and fill in the blanks, and sadly I get none of these things with Cilluffo’s art.
One artist that I really liked while looking through the Illustration Now book was MARC BOUTAVANT. He's from France and his work is bright and colorful and very eye catching. His pieces are very busy which works for him very well. He incorporates wonderful little animal illustrations that I'm very drawn to. I went on his website and it made me like him even more. I enjoy drawing animals and he gave me a lot of inspiration to explore new ways to draw. He also uses great color combinations. I love how many different things are going on in his pieces. All of the animals are doing such random things throughout his artwork, like the bunny and the squirrel having tea and the monkey playing the flute and the badger trying to catch the skittles that the snail is dropping as he’s falling. They make me happy just looking at them. They are pleasant because both adults and children can enjoy his work.

One artist I really didn't like was MARK FREDRICKSON. I hate how dramatic they are. I don't like that they're mainly of celebrities. I just think they are really annoying and they are not something that I'm drawn to. And the fact that he did Hilary Clinton as Harry Potter bothers me, cause I like Harry Potter, and I hate her. And I'm not really a fan of caricatures because I think that they are strange. And when I went to his portfolio online, it made me like him even less. This one to the left really gets on my nerves. I hate creepy ugly faces like that. It’s not that he is not talented, because I most certainly could not paint like that. I just do not think that his work is interesting or tasteful. Just thinking about him right now gets on my nerves a little bit.
One illustrator from the book that I rather disliked is Simon Spilsbury. What I dislike about him is purely subjective however. Though I do appreciate the grotesque and disturbing imagery, I found his imagery was just too much for me. Again I understand that he has a specific purpose for his work (like social criticism) I just cannot see anything that I like. Anything to do with the physical shapes of people or animals has always frightened and, to some degree, disgusted me. Simon Spilsbury’s pieces in the book are disturbingly just what I hate. The first two images, called “Carbon Fatprint #1” and “Carbon Fatprint #2” I found just revolting. To be honest, I have no interest in looking at piles of billowing fat, even if it is meant to represent pollution coming from cars. There’s the Mickey Mouse one, getting plastic surgery. Again, the creepy destruction of a body. I think the line work is what really gets across this sort of “gross” feeling. It’s not that he doesn’t draw well, it’s that the rough lines just further highlight the squishy, bubbly edges of the human fat. (On that subject, let’s not talk about “Draw Porn”) On top of it all, I find his coloring uninteresting, at least to me. Sorry Mr. Spilsbury, but your work is just not for me.
An illustrator that I really liked is Gez Fry. As someone who has been influenced by Asian illustration (modern and historical), I find his work especially interesting. I’m immediately impressed by his technical skills (someday I want to paint a cityscape as beautiful) but I also like the way he mixes some of the realistic image with a fantastical one (“Ginza”) The variety of mediums is also impressive. “Ginza” looks like watercolor while “Poplin” looks very much like a photoshop image. And then there is “Ukiyo-e” which looks exactly like an ukiyo-e wood block print. I also appreciate his ability to inject his pieces with a subtle meaning, without hitting viewers upside the head with explicit images of pop culture icons or celebrities. You have to think about what they mean and what he was trying to convey. You can come back multiple times, re-evaluate the painting and still see something new or different. The woman of “Ukiyo-e” has a bizarre tattoo of a green magician while in a reflection (or is it above the water?) a man stands on a modern street. On first look I just saw the woman and the tattoo. A second time, I saw the fish. Third, I saw the man in the corner. Gez Fry is an artist I would like to look into some more.
