Neal Adams versus Bernie Wrightson

[Guest Grails]

 

 

 

I was looking for this very image to post! I believe a lucky board member owns the original.

[bhhooks22]

If your talking small body of work then put Barry Smith,Jim Steranko and Mike Kaluta in there.

 

I love those trippy Nick Fury/SHIELD covers!

 

 

#4 is my all time favorite. (thumbs u

 

 

Closely followed by :

 

 

 

 

[bhhooks22]

This rounds out my top five. Not that anyone asked.

 

 

[Mr.Diggler]

I love flipping through this book. My favorite BW art.

[TupennyConan]

 

Palsied left hand, giant neck/shoulder arrangement, shocked faces

[Shadow]

I started collecting in the late 70's and these 2 artists were my favorites. There's been great points laid out so no reason to rehash all of them. Neil Adams brought a more realistic approach back to comics at the time. I liked his angles and realistic faces.

 

But, for my own tastes, I'd lean towards Wrightson. Granted, I love the first 10 Swamp Things he did. For me, his early work had a sort of flow to it. There was great "light & dark" play within the work. Even with the Swamp Thing and monsters, there was a grace or fluid look to it. Like Shiverbones, I'd lean towards a classic Wrightson "original art".

 

And, sadly, I do think neither are anywhere near what they were years ago. I heard Wrightson has bad arthritis and Neil Adam's work looks too sketchy and distorted. (Of course, I thought Kirby's 70's work was awful too.)

 

I can't remember the issue, but an issue of Green Lantern has Adam's pencils and Wrightson's inks I believe. Plus Wrightson did a pretty good job with Batman in Swamp Thing #7 but, then again, Batman can lend itself to "horror".

[TupennyConan]

They both contributed to this cover:

 

[shiverbones]

I started collecting in the late 70's and these 2 artists were my favorites. There's been great points laid out so no reason to rehash all of them. Neil Adams brought a more realistic approach back to comics at the time. I liked his angles and realistic faces.

 

But, for my own tastes, I'd lean towards Wrightson. Granted, I love the first 10 Swamp Things he did. For me, his early work had a sort of flow to it. There was great "light & dark" play within the work. Even with the Swamp Thing and monsters, there was a grace or fluid look to it. Like Shiverbones, I'd lean towards a classic Wrightson "original art".

 

And, sadly, I do think neither are anywhere near what they were years ago. I heard Wrightson has bad arthritis and Neil Adam's work looks too sketchy and distorted. (Of course, I thought Kirby's 70's work was awful too.)

 

I can't remember the issue, but an issue of Green Lantern has Adam's pencils and Wrightson's inks I believe. Plus Wrightson did a pretty good job with Batman in Swamp Thing #7 but, then again, Batman can lend itself to "horror".

 

Wrightson did some work on the Harpy Issue of GL, I forget which # that was.

[right_you_are-migration]

Both artists are tainted - Neal Adams did Skateman and Wrightson did the horrid angelic Punisher mini.

[Zonker]

Wrightson did some work on the Harpy Issue of GL, I forget which # that was.

 

I think Wrightson did contribute to that issue. But the one that I remember with full Wrightson inks over Adams pencils was #84, the "plastics" issue, with the running sound-effect in-joke of "Ka-LOOT-a" (for Mike Kaluta, the 3rd leg of DC's Bronze Age artistic trinity).

[shiverbones]

Wow! I never read that one, looks like I have to get a reader now!

[Weird Paper]

Wrightson drew lots more stuff than Adams so his work is more available.

 

 

Huh? Adams has about 4x the portfolio of Wrightson (quantity) For awhile, it seemed like NA drew every other cover DC put out. Bernie, though amazing, didn't have any extended continual work outside of Swamp Thing, did he? Scattered horror stories and the occasional fill-in or Hooky-type work.

 

I'll give you that his finishing is and was much more refined than Adams, but Adams is THE guy from the 70s (though better when inked by Palmer or Giordano). All those covers...

[Bronty]

Wrightson drew lots more stuff than Adams so his work is more available.

 

 

Huh? Adams has about 4x the portfolio of Wrightson (quantity)

 

yep, and I betcha its more like 10x or 20x! He was doing everything DC put out for a while there!

[dover]

I love flipping through this book. My favorite BW art.

 

I have to admit, if I could buy OA and it was between one of these Frankenstein plates and an Adams cover, I would go for Wrightson Frankenstein every time!!

[MR.COMICBOOK]

Honestly, I wonder the same thing. I collect Adams covers but next will be Wrightson, I even have a few already.

 

It seems as though they each chose to draw different projects and that makes all the difference. What level of control each had in chosing is the better question. How did Neal get on Green Lantern? Did Bernie have a shot at it? Was Neal harder working or more persistant in getting better characters? Did Bernie push or was he more laid back?

 

In any career we have times when we can go forward, take a plunge or risk and try something new. Is that what happened here? Neal got GL/GA and Bernie got Swamp THing? One was a huge step forward, the other was just cool. Did someone at DC have a preference for one of them?

 

They are both great,, the pages of GL/GA that Neal drew and Bernie inked are some of the best I have ever seen. I think the better question is how one ended up doing "main stream characters" and one did horror one off stories.

 

 

There's more to it than that IMO.

 

- Bernie has a small body of work to start with - limiting his # of fans

- On top of that, Bernie did not do many covers.. he tended to do complete books or interior stories although he did a few covers here and there

- yes he worked largely in the one genre

 

meanwhile Neal

 

- has a very large body of work

- did an ENORMOUS amount of covers during his peak years. He was basically DC's unofficial house cover artist for 5 or 8 years. Name a DC title out in the early 70s and hey there's probably at least a few adams covers on that title.

- he worked in every genre imaginable, so every comic fan out there remembers/can appreciate his work

 

...so there's just a way more widespread appeal to Neal's work for all those reasons, not just because he drew superheroes.

 

Really just the body of work factor will mean that neal will always have the upperhand in this respect. Its no different than Jack Kirby. If Jack had a small body of work along the lines of Wrightson's output, he'd be long forgotten by now.

If your talking small body of work then put Barry Smith,Jim Steranko and Mike Kaluta in there.

 

What's that got to do with anything? I don't follow. Obviously you can still be well admired with a small body of work (Frazetta), what I'm saying is that a large body of work helps get you recognition (Kirby).

Just reminiscing, Adams, Wrightson, Steranko,Barry Smith and Kaluta all drawing comics at the same time, I wish we had artists like that drawing modern comics right now for the big two.

[Bronty]

for sure. Early 70s DC had an amazing lineup!

[dover]

Honestly, I wonder the same thing. I collect Adams covers but next will be Wrightson, I even have a few already.

 

It seems as though they each chose to draw different projects and that makes all the difference. What level of control each had in chosing is the better question. How did Neal get on Green Lantern? Did Bernie have a shot at it? Was Neal harder working or more persistant in getting better characters? Did Bernie push or was he more laid back?

 

In any career we have times when we can go forward, take a plunge or risk and try something new. Is that what happened here? Neal got GL/GA and Bernie got Swamp THing? One was a huge step forward, the other was just cool. Did someone at DC have a preference for one of them?

 

They are both great,, the pages of GL/GA that Neal drew and Bernie inked are some of the best I have ever seen. I think the better question is how one ended up doing "main stream characters" and one did horror one off stories.

 

 

There's more to it than that IMO.

 

- Bernie has a small body of work to start with - limiting his # of fans

- On top of that, Bernie did not do many covers.. he tended to do complete books or interior stories although he did a few covers here and there

- yes he worked largely in the one genre

 

meanwhile Neal

 

- has a very large body of work

- did an ENORMOUS amount of covers during his peak years. He was basically DC's unofficial house cover artist for 5 or 8 years. Name a DC title out in the early 70s and hey there's probably at least a few adams covers on that title.

- he worked in every genre imaginable, so every comic fan out there remembers/can appreciate his work

 

...so there's just a way more widespread appeal to Neal's work for all those reasons, not just because he drew superheroes.

 

Really just the body of work factor will mean that neal will always have the upperhand in this respect. Its no different than Jack Kirby. If Jack had a small body of work along the lines of Wrightson's output, he'd be long forgotten by now.

If your talking small body of work then put Barry Smith,Jim Steranko and Mike Kaluta in there.

 

What's that got to do with anything? I don't follow. Obviously you can still be well admired with a small body of work (Frazetta), what I'm saying is that a large body of work helps get you recognition (Kirby).

Just reminiscing, Adams, Wrightson, Steranko,Barry Smith and Kaluta all drawing comics at the same time, I wish we had artists like that drawing modern comics right now for the big two.

 

If they were drawing now, would we know it? Meaning: with todays comic book industry and format, gloss, would they shine as well as they did back then? Pretty simple time the early 70's, comic books were simple and it was easier to seperate the fluff from the great works, the geat artists. Just a thought. I can't make heads or tails of modern stuff, so much flash, variant covers, blank covers for signiture series, 2nd print variations, etc.....

 

 

[cavecarson]

Love these guys both. Adams would be my first choice Wrightson a very very close second. I think both are amazing. Admas has very clean lines and Wrightson's details are sometimes stunning. <3

[Bronty]

Honestly, I wonder the same thing. I collect Adams covers but next will be Wrightson, I even have a few already.

 

It seems as though they each chose to draw different projects and that makes all the difference. What level of control each had in chosing is the better question. How did Neal get on Green Lantern? Did Bernie have a shot at it? Was Neal harder working or more persistant in getting better characters? Did Bernie push or was he more laid back?

 

In any career we have times when we can go forward, take a plunge or risk and try something new. Is that what happened here? Neal got GL/GA and Bernie got Swamp THing? One was a huge step forward, the other was just cool. Did someone at DC have a preference for one of them?

 

They are both great,, the pages of GL/GA that Neal drew and Bernie inked are some of the best I have ever seen. I think the better question is how one ended up doing "main stream characters" and one did horror one off stories.

 

 

Yeah, interesting point. I think a good penciller today is probably a lot more concered with leaving lots of blank areas (so that the ink doesn't get in the way of the digital coloring) than back then. The coloring used to complement the ink work, now its almost the other way around sometimes. ::

 

 

There's more to it than that IMO.

 

- Bernie has a small body of work to start with - limiting his # of fans

- On top of that, Bernie did not do many covers.. he tended to do complete books or interior stories although he did a few covers here and there

- yes he worked largely in the one genre

 

meanwhile Neal

 

- has a very large body of work

- did an ENORMOUS amount of covers during his peak years. He was basically DC's unofficial house cover artist for 5 or 8 years. Name a DC title out in the early 70s and hey there's probably at least a few adams covers on that title.

- he worked in every genre imaginable, so every comic fan out there remembers/can appreciate his work

 

...so there's just a way more widespread appeal to Neal's work for all those reasons, not just because he drew superheroes.

 

Really just the body of work factor will mean that neal will always have the upperhand in this respect. Its no different than Jack Kirby. If Jack had a small body of work along the lines of Wrightson's output, he'd be long forgotten by now.

If your talking small body of work then put Barry Smith,Jim Steranko and Mike Kaluta in there.

 

What's that got to do with anything? I don't follow. Obviously you can still be well admired with a small body of work (Frazetta), what I'm saying is that a large body of work helps get you recognition (Kirby).

Just reminiscing, Adams, Wrightson, Steranko,Barry Smith and Kaluta all drawing comics at the same time, I wish we had artists like that drawing modern comics right now for the big two.

 

If they were drawing now, would we know it? Meaning: with todays comic book industry and format, gloss, would they shine as well as they did back then? Pretty simple time the early 70's, comic books were simple and it was easier to seperate the fluff from the great works, the geat artists. Just a thought. I can't make heads or tails of modern stuff, so much flash, variant covers, blank covers for signiture series, 2nd print variations, etc.....

 

 

Yeah, interesting point. I think a good penciller today is probably a lot more concered with leaving lots of blank areas (so that the ink doesn't get in the way of the digital coloring) than back then. The coloring used to complement the ink work, now its almost the other way around sometimes.

[JohnT]

We need more threads like this...

 

Had a whole dissertation on this subject written but my computer froze up right before I could send it. I'll try to hit the high points...if I can remember them.

 

I'm going to disagree with the statement that Adams is more popular because he drew superheros, while Wrightson was limited to horror. This may have given Adams more exposure to a wider comic buying public in the 70's, but at this point every comic collector is very familiar with both. And I actually think that it's easier to produce jaw-dropping covers in the horror genre than it is drawing superhero books (or Lois and Jimmy!) where you have to feature the same character in the same old scenes: fighting an arch enemy, saving the world from a monster, saving a loved one, etc. So in that sense I think Adams had the tougher road toward greatness.

 

What I admire most about Adams is his ability to produce innovative, beautiful, incredibly dramatic covers on superhero books whereas most other artists just get in a total rut. Heck, even his Superboy covers were great!

 

Having said that, I'm still partial to Wrightson. Adams was slick, energetic, dynamic, and his fine lines are beautiful to behold. But I'm a sucker for Wrightsons bold lines, which drip with texture, light and shadows. Heck, I think I like him in black and white better than color! I also see him as following in the footsteps of Frazetta, my all-time favorite artist.

 

I'll close with a couple of favorite covers, one from each: