Sunday, May 26, 2013


Not long ago, I was commissioned to redraw one of my earliest feminization works.

I often wish I could go back and redo a lot of my older work, but then I wouldn't get anything new done, and I already accomplish so little as it is.  I've certainly improved since I did the original version of this piece.  However, unlike a lot of my older art, this was one drawing I didn't especially dislike.  It's cartoony, but one could simply call it a stylistic choice.

Speaking of which, I used to bristle at seeing any given thing I did being described as a cartoon.   I mean, I'm a big fan of cartoons and a cartoonist is something I always aspired to be, but sometimes the word can seem to take on dismissive connotations, such as, "Oh, I like your little cartoons."  I'm probably too sensitive.

It feels a bit weird to be making this post so soon after Bea's recent announcement.  While outpourings of sentiment tend to make me uncomfortable, as I said in the comments section, I am very thankful to Bea, both for the many, many outstanding stories and for granting me wider exposure of my art, which has led to some interesting avenues.  Being as picky as I am, it's often difficult to find fiction within this genre that hits the right buttons for me, but for over a decade now, Bea's work is something I could always rely on.  I do believe this blog can carry on with or without its founder, though it of course will not be quite the same without her... uh, him.  Geez, after all this time, I still get tripped up by pronouns.


Carrie P said...

Hi Dave
First off I think both pics are great. The difference in technique is obvious but that doesn’t take away from the appreciation of either piece. To my untrained eye the first one looks the more accomplished for want of a better word but there is something about the second that draws me in, no pun intended. Actually I prefer the expression on the boy’s face in the second one .As I’ve said many times before I think your work is wonderful and you’re right to get pissed off if it’s referred to as “little cartoons.” It is art and bloody good too.
I also tend to agree regarding finding fiction within the genre that resonates with particular tastes and how Bea’s writing meets those expectations – and consistently, which I find is very rare. It a pity he’s decided to step away from the blog but maybe he might rise up on his hind legs again if something juicy comes up. He may not be able to resist giving his opinion, he still has a lot to contribute.
Anyway I’ve been meaning to ask you a few questions regarding your art. I hope you don’t mind.
1) How long does it take to create a piece?
2) Have you been influenced by other artists if so by whom?
3) Who are your favourite artists within the genre?
Thanks again for posting it really is great to see your work.


rocketdave said...

Yeah, it's more challenging than one might think to redraw something and capture the "spirit" of the original.

I'm not saying anyone's ever specifically referred to my work as "little cartoons," but that's the sort of inference I sometimes read into it when someone uses that term.

To answer your questions:

1. I don't normally time myself. It depends on how much work is involved, but I'd say the average piece can take around four or five hours to complete. This required probably less time than that because it wasn't particularly complex. It took me forever to motivate myself to work on it, though.
If you factor in the planning stages, it can take even longer. I rely on reference material a lot, but it can be difficult to locate a photo that features just the right pose or whatever it is I'm looking for. In fact, that might have been why I spent so much time procrastinating on this piece- I didn't trust my own sense of anatomy enough to replicate those poses in a more realistic way without consulting some type of photo reference first. But then I just winged it and it didn't turn out so bad after all.

2. I'm not sure there have been a lot of deliberate influences, but it's not like I could help but be unconsciously steered by art styles I've been exposed to, not always for the better. A couple of years ago, I created a somewhat disorganized collage of what I felt were some of my biggest influences:

3. I have an affinity for Eric Stanton, perhaps partly because he's one of the first fetish artists I became aware of by name. Actually, I think I might have done the original "Curtsey" in paints because his work was painted... though it's not like he had the benefit of photoshop when he was active. I just have a prejudice in favor of traditional art. Even though I do most of my coloring digitally, all my stuff is hand drawn.
Two other artists in this genre whose names first spring to mind are Christeen and Prissy.
While I always liked most of the themes in Christeen's work, I used to dismiss it as not being "real" art because it's basically cribbing from other people's photos. But I've tried a couple photo manipulations on my own and gained a greater respect for how much work is involved.
Prissy's art I've seen all over the place, and I feel kind of guilty for looking at it, because I'm aware it comes from a pay site, and I know I wouldn't appreciate the books I was paid to illustrate being distributed for free. I got annoyed when someone did that very thing recently, in fact.
But anyway, the bright, colorful look of Prissy's art is appealing, plus I'm just impressed by the sheer volume of work that person has produced. But some of their stuff is not to my taste. For lack of a better word, some of it a little too "gay" (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also, I don't understand why so many of the dominant females in those pics are old ladies. I mean, I've always fantasized about sexy older women, but not so old that they look like Granny Clampett. I don't see the appeal there.
Oh, I also kind of like the work of Andy Latex, but more for the ideas behind the art than the art itself, which is not bad, but not outstanding either. I think I've mildly criticized Andy a couple times for not seeming to know how to draw males. He's okay at drawing stylized sexy females and it kinda shows that he hasn't had a lot of practice at drawing much else. And I'm not as big a fan of latex as him.

Anonymous said...

I think these are great but I also loved Carrie P's illustrations in his Jack and Rose series. It would also be really wonderful if we could be treated to a depiction of the scene at the lingerie shop in Carrie's recent "Amongst Women". That would lend itself perfectly to this kind of art and, as they say, a picture can sometimes say more than a thousand words.