Spider-man popularity is amazing given lack of "name" artists who drew him

[dekeuk]

 

OK, Spidey fans, retract your claws.

 

I am not putting the webhead artists like Ditko and Romita down.

 

But it occurs to me that when people talk about the greatest artists of the silver/bronze age in other threads (sparked by my Adams vs. Wrighton debate) that hardly anyone lists Spidey artists as their favorites.

 

I see names like Adams, Wrightson, Steranko, Kane, Toth, Aparo, Kubert, Kaluta, etc.

 

And then I think "yeah, but none of them ever drew the ASM title". At least not on any kind of regular basis (maybe a one shot here and there)

 

And yet Spidey and the ASM title have a huge following.

 

Why is this?

 

Yeah, some people loved Ditko, but not at the level of appreciation I see for these other artists that get discussed.

 

I think it speaks to the strength of the Spidey character that he became so popular DESPITE not having artists like Adams and Steranko drawing the ASM title.

 

One great thing Spidey always had though was Stan who crafted great characters and storylines in the first 10 years of Spidey's history.

 

 

[Scrooge]

Another aspect you might want to consider is that Spidey had such a following BECAUSE he didn't have a zillion revolving artists working on the series. There is something to say about consistency and Spidey in its early life WAS Ditko and then Romita. We live in the era of line-up changes every 6-month it seems but familiarity (in a non-pejorative sense) certainly helped strengthen the Spidey franchise in addition to the innate appeal of the character and its premises.

[Turtle]

I think you hit on a few major points already, with Stan helming the story and whatnot.

 

I'm a big John Romita Fan, so I'll let the Ditko fans address the early ASM work. I liked that John Romita changed the early look of the character while making the artistic transition between the two artists easy on the readers. In my eyes, he helped to revolutionize the look of the character by taking him from the scrawny high-schooler in a costume to an athletically-built adult.

 

The difference wasn't day and night between the two, not at first anyway, so as not to alienate the readers who enjoyed the art of the first 38 issues. Over time, Romita was able to make it his own. Generally, whenever someone takes a character and gives them a distinctive look that it generally favored, the fans will dig that artist. A modern example would be how Todd McFarlane made Spider-man a contortionist of sorts. This went over well with the fans and we all know how Todd ended up.

 

Why is Romita not usually up there? In my mind, he's my favorite SA artist, but he worked primarily on Spider-man. He did have other work, but ASM took up a good chunk of his time, so his other work isn't nearly as etched into peoples minds. My

[VintageComics]

Baigley did the record run of 108+ issues and Kane and Andru both had runs that lasted quite a while....so very strong points.

 

I know this thread kind of got started based on my comments in the Adams thread and I always wondered why Adams never did draw him.

 

It's actually something I remember thinking about as far back as the 80's.

 

R.

 

 

[dekeuk]

 

 

I know this thread kind of got started based on my comments in the Adams thread and I always wondered why Adams never did draw him.

 

 

Adams didn't want to draw Spidey because people wouldn't know when Spidey's mouth was wide open with a shocked look on his face. (someone commented that Adams Batman covers always have Batman with his mouth wide open)

 

Really though, I don't think Adams could be as dramatic with Spidey because his mask covers the entire face, so you can't see the great facial expressions Neal drew. Also, Adams style lends itself to night time scenes, and Spidey always swung around in broad daylight.

 

 

 

[Ogami]

I see names like Adams, Wrightson, Steranko, Kane, Toth, Aparo, Kubert, Kaluta, etc.

 

 

 

These guys worked almost exclusively for DC, right?

 

You sure your question isn't biased from the get go?

 

Anyway, I would put the Amazing guys up against any great title, pound for pound.

 

Ditko

Romita

Andru

Kane

Romita Jr.

Frenz

Zeck

McFarlane

Larson

Bagley

 

sure, there's some guys in there that are considered B listers, but man, that's a nice roster.

[SilverRich]

 

HUH??? Gil Kane did many of the Spidey Keys, along with many others...look it up. He just may be the most underrated artist in the genre.

[SilverRich]

That was meant toward the original poster.

[Fedoraman]

I liked Ron Frenz's work in the early 80's. He was the artist who drew me in - his Hobgoblin was great.

[Ogami]

I liked Ron Frenz's work in the early 80's. He was the artist who drew me in - his Hobgoblin was great.

 

same here.

 

I mean, sure, he doesn't have the same name recognition as Deukek's list, but I know who's line I would be in at a con.

[MR.COMICBOOK]

It`s not about the art, it`s about the character.Spiderman is universally appealing. Spider-man is famous like Obama,outside of this board, nobody I know in real life ever heard of Neal Adams and the so called popular artists.

[Jeffro.]

Never understood why people liked Bagley. I thought his stuff was awful.

[dekeuk]

I see names like Adams, Wrightson, Steranko, Kane, Toth, Aparo, Kubert, Kaluta, etc.

 

 

 

These guys worked almost exclusively for DC, right?

 

You sure your question isn't biased from the get go?

 

 

 

The names I listed were the ones I saw other people listing in another thread as being one of their 3 favotire artists of the Adams era.

 

Hey, I always liked the Spidey art and artists. I just find the entire ASM colelcting frenzy has been driven by the popularity of the character and title, not by the artists who drew the book.

 

For example, an ASM #122 is a key because the Goblin gets killed. The price of that book is not driven by the artist.

 

But a Batman #232 by comparison is a key for 2 reasons, first because it is the first appearance of Ra's Al Ghul, secondly because it has Adams cover & art.

 

The collecting of Spidey books is much less driven by the artist than other titles that are collected.

 

 

 

 

[Guardian Comics]

I see names like Adams, Wrightson, Steranko, Kane, Toth, Aparo, Kubert, Kaluta, etc.

 

 

 

These guys worked almost exclusively for DC, right?

 

You sure your question isn't biased from the get go?

 

 

 

The names I listed were the ones I saw other people listing in another thread as being one of their 3 favotire artists of the Adams era.

 

 

 

Exactly...I thought the other list was for Adams' peers during the bronze age...which Ditko nor Romita would have been part of, hence the omission. It wasn't a greatest artists of all time thread or else Romita and Ditko would have made the list.

 

Jim

[NelsonAI]

I do agree that Ditko and Romita are superstars that help make Spider-Man, the title it is today.

 

Popular titles such as Spider-man are such strong character driven titles that fans will follow the title even with an average artist. Publishers are smart enough to know that you try to put a star artist on a struggling title in order to attract fans and increase sales.

 

X-Men was a struggling title and artists such as Adams and Steranko did a few issues or covers to see if sales would increase.

 

DC does the same. Batman will still be the biggest selling title for DC regardless of the artist. Ever notice that the best artists at DC are assigned to Green Lantern?

 

Cheers!

N

 

[seanfingh]

 

I don't know how anyone could consider Ross Andru to be a pedestrian Spidey artist. Andru's art was Spidey between 75 and 78 or thereabouts. As a matter of fact, when I think about Spidey in the abstract, my mind's eye sees Ross Andru's Spider-man.

[ft88]

Ditto on the Frez, and don't forget the Voss covers on 261 and Web of #1 another "B artist" that gets plenty of kudos.

 

I have always preferred a good story over good art. To me the art compliments the story and not the other way around. Even if the art is the story (ie GI Joe 21 or other minimalist story's) the comic is still a story first with the art complimenting it.

 

It's why most CGI movies that suck still suck and good CGI movies have great stories where the quality effects compliment the story but aren't the only thing going.

 

It's also part of what we look for in the artists style. N Adams art in itself told a story of strong masculine heroic characters. Steranko art told a story of Pushing limits and expanding viewpoints. Wrightson dripped earthiness and dark dirt framed by beauties. Frazetta was explosive with anatomically perfect heroism.

 

Good stuff.

[VintageComics]

I don't know how anyone could consider Ross Andru to be a pedestrian Spidey artist. Andru's art was Spidey between 75 and 78 or thereabouts. As a matter of fact, when I think about Spidey in the abstract, my mind's eye sees Ross Andru's Spider-man.

 

Me too...and don't forget the Superman vs Spider-man treasury.

 

 

 

[dekeuk]

 

 

Exactly...I thought the other list was for Adams' peers during the bronze age...which Ditko nor Romita would have been part of, hence the omission.

 

 

Actually Neal was drawing Archie in 1959 which was long before Ditko's Spidey. And by 1967 he was at DC, which was when Romita was drawing Spidey, right?

 

Hey, I'm not putting Romita down, I think he was a great Spidey artist.

 

Anyone that can draw this cover is tops in my books:

 

 

[Annihilus]

Never understood why people liked Bagley. I thought his stuff was awful.

 

Ditto, that.

 

I liked Ron Frenz's run too, but always thought he was a bit of a Ditko clone. Put their work side by side and you can see the similarities.