• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

I am going to re-read Liefelds New Mutants run.

Started by MR.COMICBOOK,

121 posts in this topic

Doctor Svord

Doctor Svord

Posted
Posted

 

Disclaimer.

 

Anybody who want's to avoid my philosophical point of view please ignore.

 

At the expense (or risk, take your pick) of being called a relativist again, I am going to say that the beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder. Now I know that this is a cliche, but take a moment to think about this: each person has a different reason for liking something. Expression is personal and how someone interprets that expression is going to be different to everyone. I say a color looks green and to someone else it looks blue. I get that a lot with navy vs. black as well...each person has a reason that they perceive something a different way. I know it sounds wacky but I love to figure out why people differ on things rather than just hearing whether they like it or not.

 

Anatomically the guy stinks. I've seen worse, but not much worse.

 

From an expressive point of view he's doing what people like (or liked in comics)..the men look verile (small heads, big muscles), the women have big boobs and long hair, the scenes are a little over the top.

 

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

It takes two very different type of perspectives and/or mind sets to appreciate them.

 

 

 

There's only one problem with your comparison bro: Both of those images are easily recognizable as bulls. :baiting:

 

With Liefeld, you can't tell if his characters are Dudes, Chicks, Dude-Chicks, or Chick-Dudes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big Daddy

Big Daddy

Posted
Posted
I think I'm the only person who does like his art. I don't know why. I just do. I know it's bad. Maybe I have tumor.

 

I don't mind it either. People think it is cool to slam him whether they really dislike him or not. No, he is not great with anatomy. But neither were some other artists including Kirby, yet they worship him. TOS #88 has one of the worst covers I have ever seen, yet nobody talks about it.

 

No..... Liefeld is no Neal Adams. He made a certain style of art which was very stylized and which EVERYBODY was crazy about when it came out. I worked in a store at the time, and people were absolutely nuts about it. They liked it as much as Jim Lee X-Men, and nearly as much as McFarlane Spider-man. New Mutants #87 was the hottest book I had ever seen to that point.

 

My advice, read it and make up your own mind.

 

I was wondering when somebody was going to step up.

 

Obviously he was a big hit back in the day. I wonder how many people posting today actually read it and enjoyed it.

 

 

Personally I enjoy Liefeld and Todd McFarlanes art. I think it was kind of innovative at the time. There are quite a few crappy artists out there that are a whole lot worse. Just look at a lot of the garbage that has come out in the past couple of years. I mean the stuff Texaria used to draw was pure . And a lot of people didn't like Kirbys box like figures either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

 

Disclaimer.

 

Anybody who want's to avoid my philosophical point of view please ignore.

 

At the expense (or risk, take your pick) of being called a relativist again, I am going to say that the beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder. Now I know that this is a cliche, but take a moment to think about this: each person has a different reason for liking something. Expression is personal and how someone interprets that expression is going to be different to everyone. I say a color looks green and to someone else it looks blue. I get that a lot with navy vs. black as well...each person has a reason that they perceive something a different way. I know it sounds wacky but I love to figure out why people differ on things rather than just hearing whether they like it or not.

 

Anatomically the guy stinks. I've seen worse, but not much worse.

 

From an expressive point of view he's doing what people like (or liked in comics)..the men look verile (small heads, big muscles), the women have big boobs and long hair, the scenes are a little over the top.

 

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

It takes two very different type of perspectives and/or mind sets to appreciate them.

 

 

 

There's only one problem with your comparison bro: Both of those images are easily recognizable as bulls. :baiting:

 

With Liefeld, you can't tell if his characters are Dudes, Chicks, Dude-Chicks, or Chick-Dudes.

 

 

I'm such a failure.

 

:tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gpanalysis

gpanalysis

Posted
Posted

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

 

Umm, yes. Hey Roy, and you know I luv ya man, but do you know much about Picasso's work? Although we can debate over his "style" there is no question that his technique was solid. Like most artists he could draw/paint/sculpt/etc in ANY style, but his technique was without error.

 

Although he was known for (and excelled in) cubism, he was able to produce art in any style, including as a "realist" (note this is an art style in itself, and not about whether his art was "realistic")

 

For example, a very young Picasso (in his teens) produced this:

 

Picasso_FirstCommunion1895.jpg

 

Do I like it? Nope. But that's different to whether I think it is technically or structurally sound. Which it is.

 

For me, Picasso created his best work in the cubist style. Pure wizardry, intoxicating, breathtaking. Show anyone his large work "Guernica" and there is little doubt about what it depicts: pain, suffering, betrayal, anguish, murder, loss, destruction. Would the piece have worked better if Picasso had employed the realist style instead of the cubist style? In my opinion, absolutely not. Ultimately, this fact alone, is the pure genius. He applied the cubist style over a solid ground of technique to produce a masterpiece. The mangled faces, the forced anatomy, the displaced arms, and the mixing of animal and human anatomy is used effectively to create a reaction within the observer. The method via which he brings them together is grounded in art technique.

 

Placing Liefeld next to Colan, Kirby, Romitta, etc? Umm, no. Not for me. Even when you take away his style, where is the flow, the movement, the composition, the rhythm, the expression? Where is the technique of his art form? For me anyway, his work doesn't have an "angle" from which I can appreciate it. Sorry :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

 

Umm, yes. Hey Roy, and you know I luv ya man, but do you know much about Picasso's work? Although we can debate over his "style" there is no question that his technique was solid. Like most artists he could draw/paint/sculpt/etc in ANY style, but his technique was without error.

 

Although he was known for (and excelled in) cubism, he was able to produce art in any style, including as a "realist" (note this is an art style in itself, and not about whether his art was "realistic")

 

For example, a very young Picasso (in his teens) produced this:

 

Picasso_FirstCommunion1895.jpg

 

Do I like it? Nope. But that's different to whether I think it is technically or structurally sound. Which it is.

 

For me, Picasso created his best work in the cubist style. Pure wizardry, intoxicating, breathtaking. Show anyone his large work "Guernica" and there is little doubt about what it depicts: pain, suffering, betrayal, anguish, murder, loss, destruction. Would the piece have worked better if Picasso had employed the realist style instead of the cubist style? In my opinion, absolutely not. Ultimately, this fact alone, is the pure genius. He applied the cubist style over a solid ground of technique to produce a masterpiece. The mangled faces, the forced anatomy, the displaced arms, and the mixing of animal and human anatomy is used effectively to create a reaction within the observer. The method via which he brings them together is grounded in art technique.

 

Placing Liefeld next to Colan, Kirby, Romitta, etc? Umm, no. Not for me. Even when you take away his style, where is the flow, the movement, the composition, the rhythm, the expression? Where is the technique of his art form? For me anyway, his work doesn't have an "angle" from which I can appreciate it. Sorry :foryou:

 

One of the most frequent concepts that was pounded into my head in music school was the idea that you cannot BREAK the rules without first knowing precisely what they are and why they work.

 

There are a lot of musicians running around these days who produce absolute hack work, whether it's popular, symphonic, or soundtrack. They couldn't analyze a Mozart concerto to save their lives, because they never learned the foundational rules of why music works.

 

They just break the rules because they think it's "cool", and they mostly fail. They produce work that, at best, reaches a certain level of fame, and then is never heard from again.

 

Same concept.

 

Once Rob Liefeld is gone, and the people who were interested in his initial work are gone, no one is going to care about anything he did, other than as a cautionary tale. In fact, because of his fame far exceeding his talent, future generations will look back on US and wonder just what the hell we were thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Now really...did you REALLY think that needed to be explained...?

 

lol

 

( :jokealert: )

 

(thumbs u

 

lol

 

Apparently I did. This place can be very literal. So, who knows?

 

Sorry to have stepped on your punchline man.

 

:sorry:

 

Totally ok. ;) Isn't the first time, won't be the last.

 

In fact, over on the Valiantfans board, we even have (had, I guess) a term for it.

 

it's called "getting Chiclo'd"

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
Now really...did you REALLY think that needed to be explained...?

 

lol

 

( :jokealert: )

 

(thumbs u

 

lol

 

Apparently I did. This place can be very literal. So, who knows?

 

Sorry to have stepped on your punchline man.

 

:sorry:

 

Totally ok. ;) Isn't the first time, won't be the last.

 

In fact, over on the Valiantfans board, we even have (had, I guess) a term for it.

 

it's called "getting Chiclo'd"

 

(thumbs u

 

I have used it here a few times already - I think we can get it commonly used over here as well!

 

lol

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unca Ben

Unca Ben

Posted
Posted

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

 

Umm, yes. Hey Roy, and you know I luv ya man, but do you know much about Picasso's work? Although we can debate over his "style" there is no question that his technique was solid. Like most artists he could draw/paint/sculpt/etc in ANY style, but his technique was without error.

 

Although he was known for (and excelled in) cubism, he was able to produce art in any style, including as a "realist" (note this is an art style in itself, and not about whether his art was "realistic")

 

For example, a very young Picasso (in his teens) produced this:

 

Picasso_FirstCommunion1895.jpg

 

Do I like it? Nope. But that's different to whether I think it is technically or structurally sound. Which it is.

 

For me, Picasso created his best work in the cubist style. Pure wizardry, intoxicating, breathtaking. Show anyone his large work "Guernica" and there is little doubt about what it depicts: pain, suffering, betrayal, anguish, murder, loss, destruction. Would the piece have worked better if Picasso had employed the realist style instead of the cubist style? In my opinion, absolutely not. Ultimately, this fact alone, is the pure genius. He applied the cubist style over a solid ground of technique to produce a masterpiece. The mangled faces, the forced anatomy, the displaced arms, and the mixing of animal and human anatomy is used effectively to create a reaction within the observer. The method via which he brings them together is grounded in art technique.

 

Placing Liefeld next to Colan, Kirby, Romitta, etc? Umm, no. Not for me. Even when you take away his style, where is the flow, the movement, the composition, the rhythm, the expression? Where is the technique of his art form? For me anyway, his work doesn't have an "angle" from which I can appreciate it. Sorry :foryou:

Yep. Picasso was a child prodigy and a genius. One of the best artists ever.

In art class I found it easier to attempt to copy a painting by N.C. Wyeth or Winslow Homer, than one by Picasso. That art exercise, as suggested by my teacher, really opened my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JuliusSeizure

JuliusSeizure

Posted
Posted
The NM covers aren't bad, no worse than a lot of contemporary comic art. Seems like the more popular Liefeld got, though, the more his art devolved into caricature.

 

Every artist seems to go through the same cycle. Byrne, Adams, Miller.

 

I'm obviously not putting Liefeld into the same class but 20 years ago many people gobbled the stuff up just like Art Adams, Mcfarlane and Mignola, Paul Smith etc etc. I know I did. It was cartoony and it was more than just acceptable at the time.

 

The extreme example of that, I've always thought, was Keith Giffen. His artistic style changed completely (much for the worse, IMO) from one page of Legion of Super-Heroes #307 to the next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

There is something about Paul Smith's artwork that really gets me, I can't help but like most anything he draws. Art Adams, however, I can leave or take.

 

OT, but....

 

BTW, how do you pronounce Mike Mignola's last name? I have always pronounced it with a "Latin" flair, "min-YO-la," but I have never ever heard anyone say it. Am I right, or is it "mig-NO-la," or something else?

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

It's like comparing Picasso to Robert Bateman. The two are both considered greats but are the two comparable?

 

 

Umm, yes. Hey Roy, and you know I luv ya man, but do you know much about Picasso's work? Although we can debate over his "style" there is no question that his technique was solid. Like most artists he could draw/paint/sculpt/etc in ANY style, but his technique was without error.

 

Although he was known for (and excelled in) cubism, he was able to produce art in any style, including as a "realist" (note this is an art style in itself, and not about whether his art was "realistic")

 

For example, a very young Picasso (in his teens) produced this:

 

Picasso_FirstCommunion1895.jpg

 

Do I like it? Nope. But that's different to whether I think it is technically or structurally sound. Which it is.

 

For me, Picasso created his best work in the cubist style. Pure wizardry, intoxicating, breathtaking. Show anyone his large work "Guernica" and there is little doubt about what it depicts: pain, suffering, betrayal, anguish, murder, loss, destruction. Would the piece have worked better if Picasso had employed the realist style instead of the cubist style? In my opinion, absolutely not. Ultimately, this fact alone, is the pure genius. He applied the cubist style over a solid ground of technique to produce a masterpiece. The mangled faces, the forced anatomy, the displaced arms, and the mixing of animal and human anatomy is used effectively to create a reaction within the observer. The method via which he brings them together is grounded in art technique.

 

Placing Liefeld next to Colan, Kirby, Romitta, etc? Umm, no. Not for me. Even when you take away his style, where is the flow, the movement, the composition, the rhythm, the expression? Where is the technique of his art form? For me anyway, his work doesn't have an "angle" from which I can appreciate it. Sorry :foryou:

 

George, no harm at all.

 

Again, I really don't care if anyone likes Liefeld or not. To me this discussion has evolved into a discussion centered around appreciation. Who appreciates it and why?

 

Most people (meaning the average Joe) only recognizes Picasso's cubism work and judge him by that, just as they instantly recognize Bateman's realism.

 

I honestly don't remember if I was collecting (or buying his stuff) when Liefeld was drawing in his heyday but I probably would have liked it. It looked like all the rest of the late 1980's, early 1990's stuff going on lots of clear line work after the murky 80's with Austin's, Sienkewiez' and Miller/Janson's heavy inks.

 

The guy was simply drawing for kids and he had a hell of a following. I would have been in there reading and enjoying the stuff for what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing