Being Original

[piratg]

Hi,

Ive recently got back into the idea of trying to use art again in my work for concept design, unfortunately Ive got bit of disability which makes drawing i.e. holding things akward .

I can still draw ( on a good day )well enough to usually get across an idea its just not going to look as pretty for the end result.

Any way my first question really isnt about drawing - unless theres process in there i..e using something like charcoal that helps but rather about the process of how the ideas are realised.

Without souding pretencious then ,I dont mean creating another vampire / goth chick with a gun hybrid or anything else but actually trying to create something original and even symbolic .

To give an example , darth vader who has is instantly recognizable as an archetpye of the evil galatic lord himself ,as Gandalf is the wizened wizard.

Im just very interested how you some of you go about trying to achieve that originality like Lucas did with some many of the designs in that film and whether its some even achievable again ?

Thanks

pg

[Interceptor]

I say you get creativity from experiencing life.
While studies and life drawing and all that are great, without any life experience, there's no art in your art.
The people you meet, places you go and things you see can help you expand world creative world.

[Renegade89]

George Lucas made most of star wars trying to combine sci-fi with western and samurai films, darth vader is his take on a samurai armor gone sci-fi.

Tolkien was quite an educated guy, lots of his concepts and things in his universe have similarities with folkloric tales, myths and even history from different places, he also loved nature which shows in his work.

Both of them took things that inspired them, that they loved, things from this world and started playing with them, using their own views of life and their own experiences to make something thats new for everyone else and to create characters with their own personality, no matter how fantastic the setting appears the characters in this stories and they problems are very easy to relate to for people on this world.

Just look around everywhere, see what catches your interest, and have fun with it.

[piratg]

Im aware the styles are a mixture in star wars but I belive that they also relate on deeper levle to the characters symbolism .

Vaders mouth could be speaker or prison from which end you view it.

I do have lots of ideas but am hindered by inability to draw which is frustrating .

For robots or more sci-fi type things I realise archiecture would be useful , maybe I should just start there and look at design books for some ideas Im not sure ...

Im not unware of desgin concepts such as line, contrast, colour , tone, shapes, spaces so on

But Im not that well versed either .

[kev ferrara]

piratg... I believe you are talking about metaphors... (I'm really into this at the moment, so for people who keep encountering me talking about this, sorry)

I think the artist's job is to re-interpret the world in iconic ways... by making comparisons between what we know, human expression and feeling and commonality, with things we don't know or find mysterious or scary (death, space, horror, frontiers, the infinite, sexual compulsion, etc.)

It is when these comparisons are so spot-on and unheard-of that they spark the imagination and become common parlance... symbols... new letters of the human alphabet (like darth vader today, or the cowboy individualist of 100 years ago, or Forest Gump, or Superman, Tarzan, etc.) that truly offers opportunity for originality.

What is the frontier of today? Find it and make art about what it means to the human heart. Figure out a way to make an icon out of the frontiers of right now.

[piratg]

piratg... I believe you are talking about metaphors... (I'm really into this at the moment, so for people who keep encountering me talking about this, sorry)

I think the artist's job is to re-interpret the world in iconic ways... by making comparisons between what we know, human expression and feeling and commonality, with things we don't know or find mysterious or scary (death, space, horror, frontiers, the infinite, sexual compulsion, etc.)

It is when these comparisons are so spot-on and unheard-of that they spark the imagination and become common parlance... symbols... new letters of the human alphabet (like darth vader today, or the cowboy individualist of 100 years ago, or Forest Gump, or Superman, Tarzan, etc.) that truly offers opportunity for originality.

What is the frontier of today? Find it and make art about what it means to the human heart. Figure out a way to make an icon out of the frontiers of right now.

Yes you are correct it is basically metaphors but also images too that may relate to collective unconcious Carl Jung spoke about and Joseph Campbell mentions in his books.

I think your right , dont get me wrong but I also think there is something more to it .

For example you mention iconic which would imply it takes very little to know what its is also i.e. through shape or colours so on

But what im curious about is whether they might be forulma for realising this in better way in the same way campbell did with myths and stories.

[Jason Rainville]

Before you become interesting, you have to be interested
- some person

Like everyone's been saying, the more you love something the more it'll help your art.

As for a magic formula for the creation of new iconic ideas, it might rest in the use of psychology and how certain shapes/colours affect us in different ways. Or maybe there isn't any.

[kev ferrara]

Piratg, I think it is one thing to come up with formulas and relationships between myths and notice and categorize archetypes...

But to synthesize one of your own, that is artistry. I believe there is such a thing as talent, and talent is the ability to synthesize your own emotions with outer phenomena... to be that creator of metaphor. The formula is simple... make a synthesis. But knowing that does not mean you come up Darth Vader or Tarzan or The Death Dealer.

All to say... there is no formula for talent.

[Call0ps]

i think is all about being honest with yourself, in this case with your art. i mean theres so many people whos trying to be like other artists, learning and get inspired by them is good, but usually people, they limit their self by it ( copycat whatever... )
i totally agree it Interceptor, soo dont over think about it man, enjoy drawing ;)

[Farvus]

I thought about these things yesterday but the conclusion from that was nothing special. Experiencing life is important but it's this passive part.
When it comes to creating things, the more of your personal view on subject you can put, the more there will be chance for originality. It's what CallOps mentioned. Be honest with yourself and even if you feel that your personal choices feel weird, follow them as deeply as possible and you might be positively surprised. This weirdness might be something fresh actually.

[Blue]

I think it is amazing you guys can pinpoint originality. I can't figure out how I started painting what I do or 'how' i choose original content.

Really, i just draw from my head and let the pieces evolve as I go.

[piratg]

Piratg, I think it is one thing to come up with formulas and relationships between myths and notice and categorize archetypes...

But to synthesize one of your own, that is artistry. I believe there is such a thing as talent, and talent is the ability to synthesize your own emotions with outer phenomena... to be that creator of metaphor. The formula is simple... make a synthesis. But knowing that does not mean you come up Darth Vader or Tarzan or The Death Dealer.

All to say... there is no formula for talent.

Yes to create your own is the whole point , artistry is a tool to do it but its means nothing without religion , philosophy or science - its stagnante

Its bit arrogant to assume that by expressing your emotions whill create anything original when most peoples emotions are dysfunctional and out of touch, certianly not like the experinces of early man in the cave.

I look around me [ and this might piss some folk off ] but I see nothing original because the people doing that art - like today christians - missed the point and road it was lying on altogether.

Art was an experssion on rock caves of experinces that happenes outside the perimeteres of reality , it was message , part of ritual not just some random emotion that sprung up because the sun was shining .

Da Vinci used this in his work.

Beside if you theroy was that simple or true there would lots of original art - i just see different variations of the same boring themes.

It matters shit how well you paint them or work medium you use , the message behind it all is the same and its like listening to the same song being covered by multiple bands.

Another cyborg and another laughing clown ..

[piratg]

I dont see the problem in forumlas either, I realise it threatens the idea of talent to some here but yout already using it in art programs or even use it to show your art.

The forumlas such perspectives etc are based in science and thats not something everyone picks up either when their 7 or 8 , so I dont see this idea of art being some living entity or talent as really true.

It wasnt till I read a Hogarth book that I learned how to draw a human figure properly ..

[enrigo]

There's one writer who I really look up to, his work got a lot of originality and some effective experimental feel to it. Then I saw an interview that ask him how he came up with the imaginative stuff. Surprisingly his ideation method was just similar to the brainstorming web everybody did in high school.

It changes my perspective on the formulaic approaches in art.

[Blue]

originality doesn't exist, to keep it blunt and simple, its a myth. the human mind is incapable of creating something from nothing.

This is extremely debatable...

But I can prove you wrong with 1 example: math.

[Jason Rainville]

This is extremely debatable...

But I can prove you wrong with 1 example: math.

Before there was 1+1=2, there had to be one of something...

[squidmonk3j]

Without souding pretencious then ,I dont mean creating another vampire / goth chick with a gun hybrid or anything else but actually trying to create something original and even symbolic .

To give an example , darth vader who has is instantly recognizable as an archetpye of the evil galatic lord himself ,as Gandalf is the wizened wizard.

Im just very interested how you some of you go about trying to achieve that originality like Lucas did with some many of the designs in that film and whether its some even achievable again ?


Did you actually read Jung and/or Campbell?

Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter...these are all the same story. In fact, they're as unoriginal as it gets...storywise.

Take Star Wars and the Matrix movies...notice how they're almost exact copies as far as plot and characters go. But then-pop eastern philosophy ('cuz u'know, back then we were all One) is replaced with now-pop solipsism/BIV-theory ('cuz now we're all No One) , the All American Farmboy is replaced with the All American Office Worker, Fancy schmancy Laser Technology is replaced with 1337skills, etc etc....it's all just setting, meant to reflect contemporary society and thus making The Hero's Journey relevant and sellable yet another time.

The craft lies in the telling, not the story.

With sufficient craft and understanding, vampire / goth chick with a gun hybrid would be TOTALLY AWESOME!

[Farvus]

Originality doesn't mean creating something from nothing. It's exactly what you described as creativity

originality : things you know pieced together in a new way and then hiding your sources

creativity : it's what you use to create originality

[Duq]

You can create awesome original ideas that noone has ever seen before. But if your audience cant relate to your work, it is worthless.

Its about taking a stereotype, and finding out how far you can push the stereotype near the edge of association. Bilal and Moebius for example created wonderfull worlds within a very stereotypical genre.

I think that if you want to create really original and refreshing work, you need to start by appreciating the stereotype.

[kev ferrara]

it's all just setting, meant to reflect contemporary society and thus making The Hero's Journey relevant and sellable yet another time.

While this is true... the formula is to synthesize the archetype to the new milieu ... to accomplish that new formulation *is the essence* of what it means to be creative. To know your time, to feel the emotions of the new frontier, to generate those new versions of the achetypes, to be able to tell that tale so it seems as new as tomorrow, to make it iconic yet believable and surprising...

If the word creative means anything refers to the thing you are calling uncreative, the new synthesis."The telling" is also tied in with that synthesis, every step of the way.

If that isn't creative, I don't know what is.

[piratg]

this question is more a human function question than anything else. i did studies on this very subject, and this is what i came up with:

originality doesn't exist, to keep it blunt and simple, its a myth. the human mind is incapable of creating something from nothing.


creativity : you take things you know, and piece them together in a new way.

theres nothing complicated about it, but some people are naturally more capable than others. the higher a persons "creative IQ" the more likely they will be able to create something seemingly brand new.


i feel you with the whole "hard to draw" thing. i injured my right hand badly as a child, then again over 3 years ago and it hasnt healed from either injury. its become so useless that i can barely hold things.

Then you feel wrong .

May i ask what the injury with your hand was ?



Science has created many things that didnt exist before and whose concept ,although maybe take from necessity or desires, certainly came from somewhere.

You cant have function or the idea of asking the right questions in order to know those functions without desire , I doubt the first man for example found out fire was dangerous without burning himself in the process , and Im quite sure it took more than one attempt too.

I see where you going though , so I suppose in essence your maybe right .

BUT

Then there is the question of the very first dream a man or woman ever had and what they saw it to know for sure.

If McKennas Theory on mushrooms spores is correct then there is also the idea that our own ideas are not even technically derived from this earth at all .

[piratg]

Did you actually read Jung and/or Campbell?

Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter...these are all the same story. In fact, they're as unoriginal as it gets...storywise.

Take Star Wars and the Matrix movies...notice how they're almost exact copies as far as plot and characters go. But then-pop eastern philosophy ('cuz u'know, back then we were all One) is replaced with now-pop solipsism/BIV-theory ('cuz now we're all No One) , the All American Farmboy is replaced with the All American Office Worker, Fancy schmancy Laser Technology is replaced with 1337skills, etc etc....it's all just setting, meant to reflect contemporary society and thus making The Hero's Journey relevant and sellable yet another time.

The craft lies in the telling, not the story.

With sufficient craft and understanding, vampire / goth chick with a gun hybrid would be TOTALLY AWESOME!

You missed out, Campbells 6 hours interview with Mill Moyers is far better than the books, he was far better speaker and her covers everything in that interview too ( Lucas said this too ), not just that particulair book.

No vampire / goth chic /girl power thing is crap - its been done and its boring

It so predictable I might as well play with some nuts and open cracker..

Sullen / dark pvc / pale skin / bad industrial music some weak candy floss boy friend for her to come chasing after like in Underworld and a face tighter than crows arse.

[piratg]

You can create awesome original ideas that noone has ever seen before. But if your audience cant relate to your work, it is worthless.



Yes, well thats why I mentioned the message , what the idea is saying and what its not.

[NoSeRider]

I think you become creative when you ask about things that are right there in front of you.

People seem to accept things for what they are, but don't examine them. They just accept without question. Right brain thinking is of intuition and seeing things spatially.

You kill your ability to question, you kill your intuition...then you kill seeing things spatially creatively.

You don't question, then you loose the narrative. You loose narrative, you don't create.

Lorne Lanning the creator of Odd World, didn't necessarily create something new....he just questioned what was already there.

[piratg]

I think you become creative when you ask about things that are right there in front of you.

People seem to accept things for what they are, but don't examine them. They just accept without question. Right brain thinking is of intuition and seeing things spatially.

You kill your ability to question, you kill your intuition...then you kill seeing things spatially creatively.

You don't question, then you loose the narrative. You loose narrative, you don't create.

Lorne Lanning the creator of Odd World, didn't necessarily create something new....he just questioned what was already there.

This is where Entheogens come in..

[Duq]

This is where Entheogens come in..

You dont need those though. All you need is the question "Why?". With asking yourself that question, you will start looking for justification of what your are creating. And if you as the creator know that answer, your audience will accept that without doubt.

Entheogens really dont help, the questions you will need to answer are hard ones, and if you want to explore the possibilities you better have a clear head.

The vampire goth girl thing can be awesome. Vampire: The Masquarade has an incredibly rich and believeable world. And the creators of Requiem: Vampire Knight made a brilliant story about gothic vampires with guns

[piratg]

You dont need those though. All you need is the question "Why?". With asking yourself that question, you will start looking for justification of what your are creating. And if you as the creator know that answer, your audience will accept that without doubt.

Entheogens really dont help, the questions you will need to answer are hard ones, and if you want to explore the possibilities you better have a clear head.

The vampire goth girl thing can be awesome. Vampire: The Masquarade has an incredibly rich and believeable world. And the creators of Requiem: Vampire Knight made a brilliant story about gothic vampires with guns

But it helps loosen conceptual reality unless you can do it yourself - which most cant.

Why operations or mental deductions and reason , dreams are more powerful and original .

Vampire culture period is old - its done there can be nothing of that , that really can be called original .. its overused

And dont get me started on dwarves and elves for fantasy..

[NoSeRider]

Art is shapes. Make new shapes to make something new.

[kev ferrara]

One important aspect of the artist's job, it seems to me, is to make the unfamiliar familiar, and the familiar startling again.

This goes for barbarians, elves, cowboys, vampires, military, domestic situations, love.. everything you could possibly think has been "done to death" will again be done beautifully and startlingly and will be resurrected as an archetype.

All it takes is an artist to make it so.

A simple scan of the last 100 years in pop culture will reveal scores of examples..

If you leave aside reality, and move toward the abstract, anything is still possible with all the incredible new materials being made available, (like memory-materials, lucite, glowing material, material that refracts light at odd angles) and with all the incredible new architectural software, virtual technology, home fabricators, DNA as a medium, sculptures made of moving stained glass, new musical instruments, etc etc etc. The possibilities will not end any time soon.

All you have to do is stop being so negative and whiny, and just open your eyes. And try like hell to make your vision come to pass.

But you must have a vision in the first place.

[piratg]

One important aspect of the artist's job, it seems to me, is to make the unfamiliar familiar, and the familiar startling again.

This goes for barbarians, elves, cowboys, vampires, military, domestic situations, love.. everything you could possibly think has been "done to death" will again be done beautifully and startlingly and will be resurrected as an archetype.

All it takes is an artist to make it so.

A simple scan of the last 100 years in pop culture will reveal scores of examples..

If you leave aside reality, and move toward the abstract, anything is still possible with all the incredible new materials being made available, (like memory-materials, lucite, glowing material, material that refracts light at odd angles) and with all the incredible new architectural software, virtual technology, home fabricators, DNA as a medium, sculptures made of moving stained glass, new musical instruments, etc etc etc. The possibilities will not end any time soon.

All you have to do is stop being so negative and whiny, and just open your eyes. And try like hell to make your vision come to pass.

But you must have a vision in the first place.

Kev,

There are and have been no archetypes since Vader...

Indian Jones comes very close ..

100 yrs yes theres examples but I mean in recent years i.e. the last 20 or so .

Can you give me any good examples from then ??

[piratg]

There are plenty example of ideas but Ninja Turtles which is just reinterpted ninjas is hardly an archetype .

When you think of things such as adventurer - Jones or evil galatic lord - Vader
WTF a ninja turtle ?

Its just doesnt stick does it even though its has fairly unique look , its not as though when someone writes a story with archetpyes hero , wizened wizard / mentor etc your going to instantly think of adding a ninja turtle whose can throw a move or two..

[piratg]

Art is shapes. Make new shapes to make something new.

Shape is important , its helpts if its distinct .

But new shapes ?

You mean doodling ?

[NoSeRider]

Darth Vader was only new to Western Culture....kinda.

Star Wars was just a Cowboy movie in space mixed in with Asian philosophies, like the 'Force'.

Star Wars wasn't anything new. It was just a reinvented cowboy western asian philosophy kendo sword fighting genre movie.

People love the familiar. If it was really new, it would have probably been too bizarre to take, and you'd probably wouldn't have watched it.

What it really did is affected you at an emotional level. It explored the grandeur and the mythos of legend. It reinvented the past and stories of lore......it was narrative.

Learn the narrative. Examine what's around you. Question.....and when people tell you to shut up, tell them to go 'f' themselves. You want to be an artist, question things.

[kev ferrara]

Kev,

There are and have been no archetypes since Vader...

Indian Jones comes very close ..

100 yrs yes theres examples but I mean in recent years i.e. the last 20 or so .

Can you give me any good examples from then ??

Uh, Vader isn't an archetype, he's a version of an archetype, made new again.

The reason there aren't new archetypes, in general, is because, despite what you read in the papers, people don't change, life doesn't change and the world pretty much stays the same. Well, almost...

Where life does change, let's say over the last 40 years, there are new archetypes...

Which is why we now have the archetype of the "culture-immersed tech geek"... we now have the "benign globalist entrepreneur" we have the "questioning yuppie who seeks more authenticity", we have the "transhumanist-biological-enhancement" people, we have the "post partisan news consumer", we have the "independant filmaker-entrepreneur", we have the "blogger in his pyjamas", we have the "India-outsourced telemarketer", we have the "Bill O'Reilly-Keith Olberman-Chris Matthews arrogant talking head who thinks he's funny" type, the "friendly alien from another planet" etc. Oh, and let's not forget the "Post Feminist career girl who "waited" and "put career ahead of love" and now, lost, longs for the traditional family and is paying some online dating service a crazy amount of money to find anybody suitable quick!"

Now, these are not "wholly new" types. They incorporate the old with the new. You can't re-invent the devil. Its too primal a type. You can only combine the idea with something else... and provided the combination is relevant it can have currency.

[_Mario]

Before there was 1+1=2, there had to be one of something...Well, for a start you could use the peano axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axiom) to construct N (natural numbers). That would at least give you 1, 2 and unlimited other successors to play with. Then you can use N's properties to construct mathematical operations. And now, finally, you should know why and how this "1+1=2" thing works (at least in N) ;).

[NoSeRider]

http://user.aol.com/pnhassett/art/Ralph.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heilemann/469989157/in/set-152728/

Ralph Mcquarrie, the concept designer for Star Wars, used a lot of past designs for reference. As you can see CP30 was based on the Metropolis robot.

I'd imagine he went through the same process for Darth Vader?

[NoSeRider]

cfeWA0795Cw

Graphic Design - Character Design
Principle is the same....it's all narrative.

[squidmonk3j]

pirateg - you have no understanding of the concepts you are referring to.

rN2VqFPNS8w

[piratg]

Uh, Vader isn't an archetype, he's a version of an archetype, made new again.

The reason there aren't new archetypes, in general, is because, despite what you read in the papers, people don't change, life doesn't change and the world pretty much stays the same. Well, almost...

Where life does change, let's say over the last 40 years, there are new archetypes...

Which is why we now have the archetype of the "culture-immersed tech geek"... we now have the "benign globalist entrepreneur" we have the "questioning yuppie who seeks more authenticity", we have the "transhumanist-biological-enhancement" people, we have the "post partisan news consumer", we have the "independant filmaker-entrepreneur", we have the "blogger in his pyjamas", we have the "India-outsourced telemarketer", we have the "Bill O'Reilly-Keith Olberman-Chris Matthews arrogant talking head who thinks he's funny" type, the "friendly alien from another planet" etc. Oh, and let's not forget the "Post Feminist career girl who "waited" and "put career ahead of love" and now, lost, longs for the traditional family and is paying some online dating service a crazy amount of money to find anybody suitable quick!"

Now, these are not "wholly new" types. They incorporate the old with the new. You can't re-invent the devil. Its too primal a type. You can only combine the idea with something else... and provided the combination is relevant it can have currency.

Very good point

This poses a lot of interesting questions

So how would you interpt some of these symbols you mention ?

[piratg]

pirateg - you have no understanding of the concepts you are referring to.

rN2VqFPNS8w

Really , and you do ?

[Duq]

To be honest, you are confusing archetypes with actually characters. Darth Vader isnt an archetype on its own. His archetype would be a henchman or minion, or a champion (because he has considerable strength). The emperor, his master, has the archetype of very basic villian, namely a Dark Lord or Evil Lord. Both of these archetypes are hundereds of years old.

Being an ninja turtle isnt an archetype. A ninja turtle is design and setting. The turtles themself fit certain archetypes of the Leader, the Joker, the Figher and the Thinker.

The archetypes that Kev mentioned arent archetypes either. They are archetypes applied to the current setting and narrative. But within them you still got a lot of the platonian and jungian archetypes.

Based on your comments earlier, I have to agree with Squid. You dont seem to have read enough about archetypes to form a solid argument, and you dont really understand the basics of archetypes. Like Squid said, read a book about it. Mythology combined with Carl Jung should push you in the right direction. What has been discussed in this thread so far is really just a tip of the iceberg.

[kev ferrara]

So how would you interpt some of these symbols you mention ?

These new takes on old archetypes are essentially self-explanatory. That's what makes them archetypical. So I don't think there's any interpretation really necessary.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

[piratg]

These new takes on old archetypes are essentially self-explanatory. That's what makes them archetypical. So I don't think there's any interpretation really necessary.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

Sorry I wasnt clear, I meant how would you re-interpt these symbols from preset day you mentioned ?

I think the gensis of the character through setting such as those you described in todays enviroment / social / politcal etc structure is big part of this too.

Vaders armour is initself a life support machine / prison like comsmic of joke of everything he set up to be.

Those type you mention have that irony in them too i.e. post feminist

thanks again


p.s. I like your undead take on the cowboy , esp the crossed arms in the coffin , is he lich ?

[piratg]

To be honest, you are confusing archetypes with actually characters. Darth Vader isnt an archetype on its own. His archetype would be a henchman or minion, or a champion (because he has considerable strength). The emperor, his master, has the archetype of very basic villian, namely a Dark Lord or Evil Lord. Both of these archetypes are hundereds of years old.

Being an ninja turtle isnt an archetype. A ninja turtle is design and setting. The turtles themself fit certain archetypes of the Leader, the Joker, the Figher and the Thinker.

The archetypes that Kev mentioned arent archetypes either. They are archetypes applied to the current setting and narrative. But within them you still got a lot of the platonian and jungian archetypes.

Based on your comments earlier, I have to agree with Squid. You dont seem to have read enough about archetypes to form a solid argument, and you dont really understand the basics of archetypes. Like Squid said, read a book about it. Mythology combined with Carl Jung should push you in the right direction. What has been discussed in this thread so far is really just a tip of the iceberg.

Im not confusing anything, go read up archetypes he is the father / the shadow archetype essentially - he is the heros shadow ( luke ) all the way through , remember the part in Yoda cave ?

Your only looking at it from a very basic surface lvel not as it pretain to the enviroment and certinaly not the pyschological point of view.

Vader was no hero or champion - that was the point he to him being the shadow to Luke in the story- until the very end.

"The archetypes that Kev mentioned arent archetypes either. They are archetypes applied to the current setting and narrative. But within them you still got a lot of the platonian and jungian archetypes."

But thats how archetypes are made, through the setting and structure of the enviorment their in ?

You dont get punks without punk music

Youd dont get head bangers without heavy metal

You dont get politician without governments..

And all those are archetpyes relevant today.

""??? archetypes that arent but are archetypes ?? ""

You say Im confused ?

I never said the turtles were archetypes, that was my point , I was being ironic because they were very popular , they had unique niche ( usually something an archetype has ) but they are instantly recognisnable yet they are not archetypes ( they have no message ) probably because its for kids.

In fact when you look at all cartoons theres no archetypes they for this reason i.e.no clear message really because its not relevant to our world.

They were not really born out of enviroment or background but the ones below were and thats why their very relevant and the most popular examples today.

Batman and joker though have very two defined archetypes , as does superman.

As you know Heros were created in part to boost american morale hence why they were super.. Batman being an exception i.e. no powers

[Duq]

actually, shadow is one of the main archetypes. And as such not really usable to identify a character, at least not a character that can stand on his own, a shadow needs an ego, an ego doesn't need a shadow. Why do I say he is a champion or a hero?

He is champion because he is in service of the emperor, thats something that has been made clear since the start. He is the fist of the emperor in a way. Darth Vader is clearly very powerful, but he is also controlled. And this is where his flaw is. A familiar story template is that of the of evil champion rising up against his master based on internal conflict within the character. Through the story (IV - VI) Darth Vader is giving more and more away of his inner conflict. And the more he gives away the more appealing the character becomes to the audience. The suit, the mask, the voice are some of the things we remember, but are part of the setting. Change any of these things, and Vader would still be awesome, change the archetype and he might not be so awesome.

The way how Luke sees Darth Vader does not change Darth Vader or Darth Vaders inner conflict. Luke however is a catalyst that fuels the inner conflict.

Why I say that Kev's archetypes are not real archetypes is quite simple. An archetype is a personality. You take an archetype, combine it with a setting, and then you get a character. Lets take the wise old man for example.

In a medieval setting, the old wise man could be a wizard, like Merlin. In a roman setting it could be an advisor to the emperor. In our time it could be a politician with integrity. In Starwars it could be Obi Wan or Yoda.

To pick some of your examples. Punks, head bangers and politicians have different personalities. They share a common trait which is music or their job (which is the stereotype), but underneath that they are different persons. This is why a Gothic vampire girl with guns(this is the stereotype) can work. Try to imagine for yourself a Gothic vampire girl that is a fighter, and then do the same but then for an adventurer. If you would draw these two characters, you will get two completely different characters with different faces, shapes and clothing.

The turtles again, each turtle is based on a certain archetype. The leader, thinker, joker and fighter. These are very basic archetypes and have worked in hundreds of stories creating fun moments. You say they don't influence children, yet children from that time created turtle role models based on their archetypes. The fact that they are turtles and ninja's and teens is completely irrelevant to the archetype. Just ask some people who where kids around that time which turtle they liked, and why. Most will say, because Donatello is making new stuff all the time or because Leonardo is such a fearless leader.

Batman fills the archetype of an anti-hero, he has so much character flaws which make him an awesome character. The Joker is a typical archenemy ( or shadow, this is one character with the Shadow actually applies), he has no character flaws, and is in everything the opposite of batman. The Joker is an awesome character, but only when batman is around, because he has no flaws the audience really doesn't care about the joker. Superman is a typical god, he is perfect, has no flaws and because of that is just a rubbish character. Although this has changed in the last 10 years or so, he still doesn't have alot of reference points for the audience. That these characters where made to show off american pride is again design and setting.

And again I'm saying you need to read more about this. Characters without an archetype simply don't exist, because they are blank. As long as you keep saying "In fact when you look at all cartoons theres no archetypes" you don't understand the concept behind archetypes.

edit: Just a simple thingy, that might explain it better then all the lines of text I wrote. Here are the different layers for Donatello, a turtle

Donatello
archetype: The thinker
role: technical problem solver
stereotype: teenager, mutant, ninja, turtle
setting: modern day sewers

these 4 layers added together create the character. Normally a writer would get to work now, and determine character flaws and strong points. Then the visual stage follows and the artist makes shape and color associations resulting in:
http://binkythedoormat.files.wordpress.com/2006/07/donatello.jpg
Now the concept might not be amazingly original, but all the 4 layers that compose the character are explained in one image.

The creative development by the writer and the artist around these layers is what makes the character memorable or not.

[Farvus]

piratg - You first wrote "To give an example , darth vader who has is instantly recognizable as an archetype of the evil galatic lord himself ,as Gandalf is the wizened wizard." and later you mentioned that you look around and you don't see anything original. The whole difference between some concept art and Darth Vader from a movie is that when you watched Star Wars, you remembered not only Vader's look but his specific voice, acting, his role in the whole story and other context. All these things summed together and made him so original and memorable. Imagine how would that work if George Lucas decided to give stormtroopers Vader's black outfit and give Darth Vader white stormtrooper's outfit. I think you would still remember this character as something special.
I'm also absolutely sure that you could take some characters from "Character of the week" activity on this forum, put them in a good role in some movie and they would come out as good as Vader or Gandalf.

You can think about character more like movie director or like artist. For this second path you just need more visual thinking - shapes, colors, stylisation, composition, texture and so on. This is your main language.