Steve Ditko, Unemployed

[Mighty Hal]

While reading THE EDUCATION OF A COMICS ARTIST, I came across this bit from Tim Kreider:

 

"Of course drawing is essential to a good comic, but "drawing" in comics doesn't necessarily mean naturalistic rendering. The fetishistic admiration for competent draftsmanship among fans and critics -- 'chops' -- has blinded a lot of them to real artistry."

 

His example of an accomplished draftsman is Frank Cho (and his "exquisitely rendered women, gorgeous as centerfolds, expressionless and empty-eyed, cartoon Olympias without humor or character") but, it seems to me, there a half-dozen other artists out there that are considered top tier because they produce 'naturalistic' artwork. And more on the way.

 

While I think that Kreider is wrong about Cho -- LIBERTY MEADOWS rocked -- I do think that comic artwork is supposed to be more dynamic and interesting than a Greg Horn cover painting. And I doubt that a young Steve Ditko could get a job from any of the major publishers today.

 

What say you?

 

 

 

[Bronty]

for that matter, could a young jack kirby get much work today?

[MedicAR]

No, I don't think Steve Ditko could get work today if he were just starting out, and this comes from a Ditko fan. He has worked to hard to incorporate his philosophical views into his work and put the emphasis on those views rather than the work. While I still pick up his new work, I don't enjoy it like I do his ASM run or even his work for Charlton on Static. Also, his work has become increasingly minimalistic over the last decade or so, incorporating only the elements, props, and backgrounds necessary to tell his story rather than create aesthetically pleasing artwork.

 

When I look at a comic artist's work, I look at more than just can he/she draw hot women, bird's eye views of skyscrapers, and bulging muscles. Comic art is very different from traditional art in that it tells a story, so a comic artist has to be able to keep the story flowing and allow the reader to go with that flow and understand what is going on. They also need to fit the style of the story.

 

Sticking with the example of Frank Cho, Liberty Meadows is a great read. Not just because of the art, although it is vital, but because the art fits the stories being told. He's not telling gritty crime noir drama, he's having fun in a fictional world. Would Liberty Meadows be as successful if Charles Schulz drew it? How about Frank Miller? Granted, these examples are extreme, but each has a very distinct style that works incredibly well for their style of story.

 

There are very technically talented artists in the business, they can draw realistic settings, cars, phones, offices, aircraft, or whatever. That might make them great artists, but not great comic artists. They also have to be able to tell a story and keep the reader involved.

 

Now that I've rambled on.....did I miss the point?

[Mister Trent]

While reading THE EDUCATION OF A COMICS ARTIST, I came across this bit from Tim Kreider:

 

"Of course drawing is essential to a good comic, but "drawing" in comics doesn't necessarily mean naturalistic rendering. The fetishistic admiration for competent draftsmanship among fans and critics -- 'chops' -- has blinded a lot of them to real artistry."

 

His example of an accomplished draftsman is Frank Cho (and his "exquisitely rendered women, gorgeous as centerfolds, expressionless and empty-eyed, cartoon Olympias without humor or character") but, it seems to me, there a half-dozen other artists out there that are considered top tier because they produce 'naturalistic' artwork. And more on the way.

 

While I think that Kreider is wrong about Cho -- LIBERTY MEADOWS rocked -- I do think that comic artwork is supposed to be more dynamic and interesting than a Greg Horn cover painting. And I doubt that a young Steve Ditko could get a job from any of the major publishers today.

 

What say you?

 

As I don't read any of todays' comic-books, I really wouldn't know (or care, for that matter).

 

Ditko's place in comics-history is assured. While many of the 'hot' artists of the moment will eventually fade, Ditko's star will continue to shine for a very long time.

 

My favorite publishing outfit, EC (under Al Feldstein's guiding hand), encouraged its stable of artists to be unique - and develop their own individual styles. Not be clones of the 'flavor-of-the-month'. So, in addition to its high-level of writing, EC is rightly remembered for its incredible array of artistic talent.

 

When we look back at those who have gone before, it's the unique talents that are best remembered.

[Mister Trent]

No, I don't think Steve Ditko could get work today if he were just starting out, and this comes from a Ditko fan. He has worked to hard to incorporate his philosophical views into his work and put the emphasis on those views rather than the work. While I still pick up his new work, I don't enjoy it like I do his ASM run or even his work for Charlton on Static. Also, his work has become increasingly minimalistic over the last decade or so, incorporating only the elements, props, and backgrounds necessary to tell his story rather than create aesthetically pleasing artwork.

 

Now that I've rambled on.....did I miss the point?

 

Ditko's influences, if starting out today, would probably be different to his influences way back in the 1940s/50s.

 

My take on the question is if Ditko's work (from the time of his original enrty into the comic-book field) would be acceptable to modern publishers?

 

If that's the case, his later work (which you cite as being increasingly minimalistic) would be years away.

[Claudio]

I definitley think Kirby was more talented and would have been able to adapt better than Ditko. Heck, Kirby would probably be doing less adapting and more innovating. Just my opinion. It's not like I ever owned any of their art!

[Bronty]

yeah, he would have had a better shot for sure, but nontheless his art is not "pretty" which is more and more of a prereq. these days.

[MedicAR]

I'm not sure "pretty" is a requirement. Look at artists like Ben Templesmith, Bill Sienkiewicz, Ashley Wood, or even Mike Mignola. They're not appealing in a traditional sense, but their unique styles have a large audience. I personally hated Mignola's work until I got hooked on Hellboy. Once I was a fan of the character, I became a fan of the artist.

[Bronty]

come on - mignola and sienkiewicz have been around 20 years. why don't you just use johnny craig as another example

[NelsonAI]

Steve Ditko's unique style, artistic ability and co-plotting skills would have broken through even in today's clutter of artists. His fluid acrobatic version of Spidey is exactly why he was assigned to ASM and not Kirby.

 

The "Marvel style" requires an artist to have storytelling skills. Something few artists actually have (i.e., Even with DC's full scripts, Kieth Giffen still had to do layouts for Kevin Maguire). Ditko was also never given enough credit for coming up with the actual plots in the later issues for ASM.

 

Even in today's market, let's not forget the Marvel and DC "Adventure" titles where the art does cater to a younger generation. Ditko would still have a place among the big 2 publishers in the modern era.

 

Cheers!

N

 

 

[Jeffro.]

come on - mignola and sienkiewicz have been around 20 years. why don't you just use johnny craig as another example

 

 

More like 30 actually, but I agree with your point.

[MedicAR]

come on - mignola and sienkiewicz have been around 20 years. why don't you just use johnny craig as another example

 

 

More like 30 actually, but I agree with your point.

 

I'm just not as "up" on modern as I'd like to be. I remember when Sienkiewicz was all the rage and not in a good way. It's hard for me to think of guys like that as "old" since I was there when they started.......

 

I didn't see you pick apart the other two.....

[Bronty]

good pickup that's because I've never heard of templesmith and have only passing familiarity with wood

[MedicAR]

Fair enough, I only know Templesmith from 30 Days of Night and Wood because of the attempt to bring Miracle Man back into the Spawn universe.

 

To me, and this solely my own opinion, there are very few good artists in the field today. There are the obvious greats like Jim Lee, Alex Roxx, John Cassaday, and a few others (I know I'll get eaten alive for leaving off someone's favorite) but they stand out for a reason. Not only can the illustrate incredibly well, they tell a story while doing it. You don't sit and scratch your head saying things like "Is that the main character or is that the main character?" or "who is punching who?" when you look at their art.

 

There are many artists with individual styles and that's a good thing, now they need to study the craft and learn to make their pretty pictures tell a story. For some reason Seth Fisher just popped into my head. His unique blend of anime and Hanna-Barbera on super-heroes was amazing. I hated it at first glance, but then I learned he could actually tell a better story than most in the business. I didn't like the story to "Iron Man and Fantastic Four Big in Japan" but it was beautifully illustrated and while the story wasn't inspired, the art certainly was.

[capt_comics]

The great ones, Ditko,Kirby,Anderson,Everett,Baker,Infantino,Powell,Adams,Kaluta,etc. would have been stars in any era....just like the great ones today

 

 

 

 

[comicartlinks-migration]

come on - mignola and sienkiewicz have been around 20 years. why don't you just use johnny craig as another example

 

Pia Guerra is a more recent example. Not flashy, but her art fit Y: The Last Man well, and it was one of the best books in recent memory...

 

Best,

Shawn