Caricatures - to stretch or not to stretch

My god, I've just realised how long it's been since I've drawn anything. I'm going to do some tonight come rain or shine.

In the meantime let's discuss a common debate in the world of caricature - "How exaggerated does a face need to be in order to qualify as a caricature?" There are those who believe the more exaggeration the better, and like to twist a face almost beyond recognition, and then there are people who prefer a more subtle, portrait-like caricature, sometimes barely stretching the features at all. So which one is right?

Actually, I don't think either method can be considered right or wrong. Every artist has his or her own style, and they shouldn't try to conform to what others consider to be the correct way of doing something. Sure, if a caricature is extremely exaggerated and still retains an uncanny likeness, it is very impressive and a rare talent. Many artists are able to draw realistic portraits, but struggle when it comes to caricatures. But I think that a restrained caricature can be just as effective, if not more so. In fact, some of my favourite caricatures are the ones where at first glance you're not sure if it even is a caricature, or a straight portrait. Only on closer inspection do you notice the subtle distortions which make the face come to life. An example of this kind of caricature is this version of Mick Jagger by Terry Dunnett. The likeness is so spot on that at first you just think it's a portrait of Mick.


Mick Jagger by Terry Dunnett

Personally, my caricatures have never been really exaggerated. I started out with more of a comic portrait style, and gradually began to favour more realistically rendered, only slightly stretched caricatures. Maybe you could put it down to lack of skill, or lack of sufficient practice. Either way, I still prefer to keep my paintings strong in likeness, even at the expense of an extreme level of exaggeration.

Recently Sebastian Kruger unveiled a new caricature of Clint Eastwood, and many of his fans criticised him for starting to lean away from caricature, some saying that it was just a straight portrait. However, if you look closely you'll find that there are many subtle distortions of the face, it's just that the amazingly high level of realism makes you think it's simply copied from a DVD still frame or a photo. Don't get me wrong, I think Kruger's earlier work, when he tended to exaggerate more, is fantastic. I just don't consider it to be any more worthy of being called 'caricature' than, say, the Clint Eastwood, or this recent Jimi Hendrix.

Anyway, the debate will no doubt continue. The hardcore exaggeraters will continue stretch faces to their limits, while the restrainers will keep on keeping it more realistic. And I'll keep practicing until I find a style I'm happy with . . .