The worst creators ever.

[goldust40]

...and what does it take to appreciate it?

 

Does it take a degree from an institution?

 

Does it take a certain IQ?

 

Does it take a certain amount of time?

 

Does it take talent?

 

Does it have to be quantifiable?

 

Possibly a degree of intelligence, but nothing else on that list.

 

As for the work itself, there has to be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

[VintageComics]

...and what does it take to appreciate it?

 

Does it take a degree from an institution?

 

Does it take a certain IQ?

 

Does it take a certain amount of time?

 

Does it take talent?

 

Does it have to be quantifiable?

 

Possibly a degree of intelligence, but nothing else on that list.

 

As for the work itself, there has to be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

 

Sorry for the quick post. I meant it to be an addendum to my previous post and I guess I submitted it after your last one.

 

I'd say that more importantly, it takes a degree of emotional maturity to appreciate art. Nothing else. We can argue whether it takes a degree of intelligence to be emotional but I don't think that's important. I believe art is meant to elicit an emotional reaction. Otherwise it's just a technical drawing meant for knowledge. Now that doesn't mean a tech. drawing cannot be beautiful, but the purpose for the drawing and the reaction to the final product can be completely incidental and independent of each other.

 

How that emotion is reached in each separate person determines what sort of art each person appreciates.

 

With that in mind, I agree that there must be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

[goldust40]

With that in mind, I agree that there must be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

 

Dammit, he reached a concensus with me despite all my efforts (like calling that art building an "eyesore", which was an emotional reaction).

 

I didn't even get to rant about how I hate revered architects like Le Corbusier or Gropius.

[Jeffro.]

Presumably DC had Ernie Chan/Chua draw 9,372 uninspired covers for the same reason everyone loved Vince Colletta. He helped sell comic books by never missing a deadline.

 

Jack

 

Uninspired is spot on.

[Jeffro.]

I never implied that guys like Bagley or Heck are/were talentless. Hell, both of them can draw better than I can by a wide stretch, but this thread is not about calling someone talentless, it's about discussing those creators whose work we do not enjoy.

 

 

 

To me these people are no different than Colan. I was never a fan of Colan's work but the guy has a huge following. His art is anything but realistic.

 

I'm not a Colan fan either. I enjoy his TOD stuff but that's about it.

[VintageComics]

With that in mind, I agree that there must be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

 

Dammit, he reached a concensus with me despite all my efforts (like calling that art building an "eyesore", which was an emotional reaction).

 

I didn't even get to rant about how I hate revered architects like Le Corbusier or Gropius.

 

It's probably better that way as I'd be in way over my head on that topic unless Gropius is a latin word for "date from hell". In that case I could relate.

 

[goldust40]

Presumably DC had Ernie Chan/Chua draw 9,372 uninspired covers for the same reason everyone loved Vince Colletta. He helped sell comic books by never missing a deadline.

 

Jack

 

Uninspired is spot on.

 

But of a professional standard with cover art that let you know what the story inside was about. More than certain artists previously mentioned.

[VintageComics]

I never implied that guys like Bagley or Heck are/were talentless. Hell, both of them can draw better than I can by a wide stretch, but this thread is not about calling someone talentless, it's about discussing those creators whose work we do not enjoy.

 

I guess I prefer talking about why people don't enjoy something rather than just getting a yes or no answer.

 

[goldust40]

With that in mind, I agree that there must be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

 

Dammit, he reached a concensus with me despite all my efforts (like calling that art building an "eyesore", which was an emotional reaction).

 

I didn't even get to rant about how I hate revered architects like Le Corbusier or Gropius.

 

It's probably better that way as I'd be in way over my head on that topic unless Gropius is a latin word for "date from hell". In that case I could relate.

 

 

 

In case you're interested....

[Jeffro.]

I never implied that guys like Bagley or Heck are/were talentless. Hell, both of them can draw better than I can by a wide stretch, but this thread is not about calling someone talentless, it's about discussing those creators whose work we do not enjoy.

 

I guess I prefer talking about why people don't enjoy something rather than just getting a yes or no answer.

 

 

I don't like Bagley's stuff because it was bland and uninspired. However, Larsen was worst than Bagley in Spidey.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Alex Saviuk who epitomizes bland and uninspired. Chua was the same way and so is Bagley.

 

I find Heck's (more recent) stuff to be jarring and unpleasant to look at.

[Jeffro.]

Presumably DC had Ernie Chan/Chua draw 9,372 uninspired covers for the same reason everyone loved Vince Colletta. He helped sell comic books by never missing a deadline.

 

Jack

 

Uninspired is spot on.

 

But of a professional standard with cover art that let you know what the story inside was about. More than certain artists previously mentioned.

 

I'll concede that. No argument there.

[goldust40]

Presumably DC had Ernie Chan/Chua draw 9,372 uninspired covers for the same reason everyone loved Vince Colletta. He helped sell comic books by never missing a deadline.

 

Jack

 

Uninspired is spot on.

 

But of a professional standard with cover art that let you know what the story inside was about. More than certain artists previously mentioned.

 

I'll concede that. No argument there.

 

But yes, uninspired, especially after the Adams era.

[Jeffro.]

 

But yes, uninspired, especially after the Adams era.

 

Kinda hard to follow Adams.

[VintageComics]

With that in mind, I agree that there must be an innate humanity for it to be considered art.

 

Dammit, he reached a concensus with me despite all my efforts (like calling that art building an "eyesore", which was an emotional reaction).

 

I didn't even get to rant about how I hate revered architects like Le Corbusier or Gropius.

 

It's probably better that way as I'd be in way over my head on that topic unless Gropius is a latin word for "date from hell". In that case I could relate.

 

 

 

In case you're interested....

 

Well, the home Lou and I just moved into was built in 1960 and it looks like it was designed by Gropius.

 

He was definitely ahead of his time.

 

[goldust40]

 

But yes, uninspired, especially after the Adams era.

 

Kinda hard to follow Adams.

 

I said especially, dammit.

[Sal]

i've never understood Corbu. i think he's one of those who cannot be removed from the time in which they created.

[That Ron Dude]

Aesthetics is a tough topic. If it wasn't there wouldn't be university courses on it.

 

Thanks for the various reactions, pro and con. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

 

Speaking of topic, this one is "The Worst Creators Ever". I could be accused of taking it too literally, but I did keep it in comics and in the comics that have been enjoyed during my lifetime at that.

 

We couldn't call it "The least inspired creators" because then Liefeld couldn't be mentioned. He was innovative. We could call it "the creators who have stuck around a long time while adding the least to the media". Maybe we should. Heck and Colletta might get nominated for that. But I still respect Heck and Colletta. Both of them could draw up a storm. Coincedentally, I have been reading the Thor reprints in Marvel Essentials #3. Quirky Bill Everett inked only one of the stories. It is quite bad next to the Colletta stories. Colletta did a great job on Thor (though I have heard that professionals at the time looked at the original art and grimaced when they saw what Colletta had done to Jack Kirby's pencils). Liefield might qualify for "Most lauded in the short term while adding little in the long term". He might be the champ for that but lets see what happens when the kids who read his work on the X-Men characters get a little older and start writing books.

 

I don't think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, most of the time. But an artistic creation just has to be good for somebody. If somebody likes it that is often enough. Years ago, somebody on the boards asked if anybody remembered a Marvel Monster story from the early '60's about an ugly guy who went to another planet where he became handsome. I couldn't tell the fellow where the story appeared (specifically) but I remembered the protagonists name to be Wilber Weems. I remembered that thirty five years after reading it. That dumb story affected at least two people, me and him. I think that's enough to make it a good story. When I think of all the kids who read Don Heck stories over the years, an artist who may have put 100,000,000 comics into circulation, that's way more than enough. He was a great artist but I have no illusions that anyone would ever put him in the top 100.

 

Here's a topic that somebody could put up-- 100 good things to say about Don Heck. I think it would work at a table at the Kowloon Restaurant with a bunch of my comic fan friends but I am not sure if it would work here. I'll start though--

1.He made Tony Stark look like Errol Flynn

2.his women were beautiful

3.he textured clothes nicely

4.his backgrounds were detailed and realistic

5.Kirby liked his Iron Man stories

6.he drew other dimensions well in the monster stories

7. he sure could handle a pen

8.he spotted black areas well in the '50's romance stories

9. he usually inked his own work

10.when Kirby left the Avengers and Heck took over I didn't notice the transition

11. he used smoke and fog well, he drew weather well and his stories didn't always take place on a sunny day at 2:00 in the afternoon

12. when Palmer inked him he looked great

13.did he draw the first Sunfire story with an Asian superhero?

14.he drew books with teams like the JLA and the Avengers that were time consuming and made drama difficult because of the number of characters that had to be delineated

15.he drew cauliflower ears on Happy Hogun

16. he was the #3 man at Marvel at the beginning

17.he had a long career

18 he had his photo taken and his voice recorded to promote Marvel in the early years

 

I remember speaking to Jeffrey Morgan, writer of Mr. X, which was often seen as being one of the most innovative books of the 1980's. I suspect that nobody outside of Toronto remembers Jeff or cares about his writing. He said to me, "Anybody who can make a living in comics has my respect". I feel exactly the same way (except for the obvious crooks, criminals and assorted scumbuckets that have made it a difficult place to do business). I really don't want to dump on any of the people who have added to my joy of comics, or to anyone else's joy either.

 

Comics isn't Hollywood. We don't have a Tom Cruise. Cruise has given us joy but is fair game to mock because he is not connected to reality. Tom Cruise is a public figure. His being mocked is compensated by as much as eighty million per film and a list of wives and girl friends that any man would envy. He dines with kings and presidents. I will never meet him or know him as a person. If I want to react to his couch jumping or his interview with Matt Lauer, that is perfectly natural.

 

Don Heck on the other hand, is an average guy who probably never made more money than a school teacher. He read his own fan mail. I don't know if he ever did the convention circuit but the point is, most of these guys are average people and completely accessible. Anyway you look at it, he was a huge talent. Why would I want to diminish him?

 

To say that he peaked in the 1950's is accurate. To say that he wasn't as good as Ditko or Kirby is accurate. To say that he favoured quantity over quality may be true but lets also add that he never got rich. Kirby and Ditko cranked it out too. I wonder if there work would have been better if they did half the number of pages. I have never heard them criticized for that though; people instead talk about their prodigeous page rate.

 

Anyway, I hate to concentrate on Heck. But put in any name you want from the history of comics as long as its someone who had little fan following over a long period. How about Ayers, Ron Wilson, John Tartaglione, Sal Buscema, Larry Lieber, Herb Trimpe or Marie Severin. They made people happy. They drew and told the story well enough to be in the biggest of the big leagues.

 

Their works are all subject to criticism but I think the criticism should keep in mind a wide variety of factors and shouldn't just push any one of them aside as "worst". Also, keep in mind that they or their children might be reading all this. Be nice.

 

 

[COI]

You know wahat I have noticed about this thread I don't believe I saw a professional comic artist or fine artist comment in this thread.

 

 

SO I have one phrase for everybody who bashed all these great artist and writers.

 

Go do a better job

 

This post is 100% horsespit. If a bridge falls, I don't have to be able to build a better one to know that either the architect, the builder or both fooked up.

 

architects don't really do much bridge building. "engineer" is the word you were looking for, chum

 

Damn, Finghy got pwned.

[COI]

I don't know why Heck gets so much hate.

 

Obviously, Kirby was far from the worst artist, but he may be the most overrated ever.

 

Gotta love jazz hands and dislocated shoulders. I really wish I could take away the movement effect of thors hammer to see just exactly what the frick was going on with Giantman.

 

 

 

[Justanuthercap-migration]

This sort of goes with some of the things about point of view and appreciation mentioned above.

 

I absolutely LOVE the style Keith Giffen used in his Trencher books for some strange reason....

 

My son hates it with a passion....