Dark Knight Returns #2 on Heritage

[drdroom]

so buscema never had a fair chance with me as compared to miller.

No one in their right minds would ever compare Buscema with Miller.

 

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. He was good at doing what he did, which was dependably churning out comics in volume, but there was nothing distinctive or innovative about him.

 

Miller was a genius of the comic world. His art was innovative, distinctive, interesting and anything but middle of the road. He could change styles like a chameleon. Plus he was a great writer.

 

It`s like collecting art by an artist who produces the paintings that grace the walls of a Holiday Inn (perfectly adequate) versus collecting art by a Monet, Picasso or Van Gogh (genius, innovative).

 

Having said all that, I don`t love the cover of DKR 2 either.

 

Whoa! I wouldn't go that far. I WOULD say that Miller loves the medium and Buscema doesn't, and that Buscema's window of truly influential work was very small: about '68 to '71. But "adequate draftsman"? "Plain vanilla"? I think Jim Steranko, among others, would beg to differ. I do appreciate your heretical bent, though!

[Bronty]

so buscema never had a fair chance with me as compared to miller.

No one in their right minds would ever compare Buscema with Miller.

 

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. He was good at doing what he did, which was dependably churning out comics in volume, but there was nothing distinctive or innovative about him.

 

Miller was a genius of the comic world. His art was innovative, distinctive, interesting and anything but middle of the road. He could change styles like a chameleon. Plus he was a great writer.

 

It`s like collecting art by an artist who produces the paintings that grace the walls of a Holiday Inn (perfectly adequate) versus collecting art by a Monet, Picasso or Van Gogh (genius, innovative).

 

Having said all that, I don`t love the cover of DKR 2 either.

 

I wasn't comparing them; I think most people understand that they are very different artists. Just sayin' that some people appreciate buscema more than others but given the nature of my first real introduction to buscema (patch... puke) I wasn't going to be one of those people.

 

If my first introduction to kirby was devil dinosaur it might take me a little longer to appreciate him too

[CollectingFool]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. Miller was a genius of the comic world.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this ridiculous forum.

 

 

[Speedy-D]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. Miller was a genius of the comic world.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this ridiculous forum.

 

And yet, here you are...

[Bird]

I loooove Frank Miller. But I find that any recreations of classic stuff I get done seems to have been drawn originally by Big John. Case in point are the recreations I have of the cover to Silver Surfer #4, the greatest comic book cover ever. In fact, FM is a master draftsman (if it is ugly he wants it to be ugly), but even he would struggle to convey the power JB contained in that image.

 

JB was maximizing the comic form while FM went on and sought to expand or alter it entirely. But that should not discount JB's supreme talent.

[tth2]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. Miller was a genius of the comic world.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this ridiculous forum.

 

Wouldn`t it be a boring world if we all had the same opinion?

[delekkerste]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. He was good at doing what he did, which was dependably churning out comics in volume, but there was nothing distinctive or innovative about him.

 

Miller was a genius of the comic world. His art was innovative, distinctive, interesting and anything but middle of the road. He could change styles like a chameleon. Plus he was a great writer.

 

DKR #2 cover: love the published version, not so impressed by the empty, blanked out B&W OA, but still an A+ piece of comic art (and I don't give that designation out lightly, even as it is becoming as overused as "one of a kind" and "iconic" in the OA vernacular).

 

I think there was a short period when Buscema was churning out exceptional work, while his subsequent contributions ranged between functional and merely very good. But, I think you make an important point - there wasn't anything particularly innovative about him. Innovation as much as anything else is why Kirby and Ditko will always be at the head of the pantheon of Marvel's all-time great artists. Miller was similarly a creative innovator and one of the first to succeed as a successful writer-artist, stamping his authority on both existing characters and developing exciting and interesting new ones, which is why his legacy ranks head and shoulders above Buscema's, even though I would still rank the latter among the greats (just farther down the list). I'd still love to get a Buscema Silver Surfer cover.

[stinkininkin]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. Miller was a genius of the comic world.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this ridiculous forum.

 

Wouldn`t it be a boring world if we all had the same opinion?

 

Perhaps, but calling Buscema an "adequate draftsman" means you've either not looked at Buscema's best work or you don't know what a draftsman is. In terms of pure drawing ability, it's hard to think of anyone in the history of comics who is any better than Buscema, unless you also think the likes of Hal Foster, Joe Kubert or Frank Frazetta, all artists I feel are cut from the same cloth are just "adequate draftsmen". And speaking as perhaps as big a Miller fan as there is on this board, from a pure drawing standpoint Buscema is clearly Miller's superior. Obviously, Miller the writer adds a different dimension to Miller the artist, but that is another discussion.

 

You know what they say about opinions, and I have neither the desire or ability to change them here. But there is so much mediocrity in the history of comic art that calling out one of the true masters of the art form seems misguided. Please go find a copy of Silver Surfer #4 for example, and if after reviewing it in all of it's "vanilla functionality" you are not swayed, we will have to agree to disagree. Strongly.

 

Scott

[lb jefferies]

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. Miller was a genius of the comic world.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped paying attention to this ridiculous forum.

 

Wouldn`t it be a boring world if we all had the same opinion?

 

Perhaps, but calling Buscema an "adequate draftsman" means you've either not looked at Buscema's best work or you don't know what a draftsman is. In terms of pure drawing ability, it's hard to think of anyone in the history of comics who is any better than Buscema, unless you also think the likes of Hal Foster, Joe Kubert or Frank Frazetta, all artists I feel are cut from the same cloth are just "adequate draftsmen". And speaking as perhaps as big a Miller fan as there is on this board, from a pure drawing standpoint Buscema is clearly Miller's superior. Obviously, Miller the writer adds a different dimension to Miller the artist, but that is another discussion.

 

You know what they say about opinions, and I have neither the desire or ability to change them here. But there is so much mediocrity in the history of comic art that calling out one of the true masters of the art form seems misguided. Please go find a copy of Silver Surfer #4 for example, and if after reviewing it in all of it's "vanilla functionality" you are not swayed, we will have to agree to disagree. Strongly.

 

Scott

 

Nicely said, Scott!

[stinkininkin]

Having just defended John Buscema in my last post, I want to now emphasize that Miller has left a STRONGER legacy in comics than Buscema IMHO. I agree with some that Buscema did superb work through much of his career but that his peak years were short in number ('68-71). Miller on the other hand enjoyed a good 20 years of brilliance, both in story and art and in an ever evolving curve in terms of substance and style. From the late '70s DD stuff, right up to his Sin City and 300 run in the late '90s and everything in between, his work exemplifies what this medium is capable of. At his best, Miller's WRITING skills equaled or surpassed his drawing skills which itself was extraordinary. This is especially true when you consider that some of his best work was in collaboration with David Mazzuchelli and Bill Sienkewicze. Miller had it all and gave us a lot. Hard to find anyone with a stronger and longer living legacy than Miller.

 

And Buscema was still great! (thumbs u

 

Scott

[stinkininkin]

Now, can we go back to discussing valuations?

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

 

Scott

 

[tth2]

Perhaps, but calling Buscema an "adequate draftsman" means you've either not looked at Buscema's best work or you don't know what a draftsman is. In terms of pure drawing ability, it's hard to think of anyone in the history of comics who is any better than Buscema, unless you also think the likes of Hal Foster, Joe Kubert or Frank Frazetta, all artists I feel are cut from the same cloth are just "adequate draftsmen".

Foster, Kubert and Frazetta all had unique styles that made them stand out. I`m a huge fan of all of their work. There`s simply nothing unique about Buscema`s work. If you ever wanted to pick an artist who was the prototypical house artist, it was Buscema. Not weird or avante garde, attractive but not too attractive, not ugly, safe. No one ever hates his work or is turned off by it. He doesn`t split opinions (unlike a Miller or Ditko (there are even people who don`t iike Kirby)). It`s more that I don`t see how people can get passionate about his work, although clearly some people do.

 

And speaking as perhaps as big a Miller fan as there is on this board, from a pure drawing standpoint Buscema is clearly Miller's superior.

This statement really surprises me coming from you, Scott, since you`re an artist yourself. You should therefore know better than most that "pure drawing" is the most common skill of all. There are literally thousands of people cranked out by art schools and such every year in the US alone who have very good "pure drawing" skills. I can go into back alley art factories in China and find tens of thousands of artists who can draw very very well. I can ask any of them to draw a face, a car, a dog, etc., and they`ll each be able to render an exquisite drawing. Some of them might even be able to put those beautiful pictures into sequential form that tells a story. But there`s no spark to it, no inspiration. You`ve got to have MORE than just pure drawing skills to stand out in my opinion.

 

[drewincanada]

IMO Buscema's first run on the Avengers was a real eye opener. A real master class in dynamism, contrast, and energy. Look at those issues between #41 and 62. Remarkable, original work. When he returned to the title after a break of only a year or so, with issue #74, something was missing. It all felt serviceable and a little flat. I never understood why.

[stinkininkin]

Perhaps, but calling Buscema an "adequate draftsman" means you've either not looked at Buscema's best work or you don't know what a draftsman is. In terms of pure drawing ability, it's hard to think of anyone in the history of comics who is any better than Buscema, unless you also think the likes of Hal Foster, Joe Kubert or Frank Frazetta, all artists I feel are cut from the same cloth are just "adequate draftsmen".

Foster, Kubert and Frazetta all had unique styles that made them stand out. I`m a huge fan of all of their work. There`s simply nothing unique about Buscema`s work. If you ever wanted to pick an artist who was the prototypical house artist, it was Buscema. Not weird or avante garde, attractive but not too attractive, not ugly, safe. No one ever hates his work or is turned off by it. He doesn`t split opinions (unlike a Miller or Ditko (there are even people who don`t iike Kirby)). It`s more that I don`t see how people can get passionate about his work, although clearly some people do.

 

And speaking as perhaps as big a Miller fan as there is on this board, from a pure drawing standpoint Buscema is clearly Miller's superior.

This statement really surprises me coming from you, Scott, since you`re an artist yourself. You should therefore know better than most that "pure drawing" is the most common skill of all. There are literally thousands of people cranked out by art schools and such every year in the US alone who have very good "pure drawing" skills. I can go into back alley art factories in China and find tens of thousands of artists who can draw very very well. I can ask any of them to draw a face, a car, a dog, etc., and they`ll each be able to render an exquisite drawing. Some of them might even be able to put those beautiful pictures into sequential form that tells a story. But there`s no spark to it, no inspiration. You`ve got to have MORE than just pure drawing skills to stand out in my opinion.

 

As I indicated before, I'm not interested in convincing you. I prefer the "which artist is better" conversations over drinks at a bar than on message boards. I have all sorts of observations of why I think better of Buscema than you ( I think Buscema is a superb blending of Kirby and Foster to create a UNIQUE and instantly recognizable approach in both style and substance.) And I think you give short shrift to how good and powerful a STORYTELLER Buscema was at his peak, a skill and a talent that is more of a challenge to learn or to teach to a "Chinese back ally artist" than you imply. And I personally hear about the spark and inspiration Buscema instilled in some of the absolute best writers and artists that I know in the industry today, guys who I respect and who live and breath this stuff every day.

 

I think art is an intensely personal thing and you either have a relationship with it and you get it and love it, or you don't. Doesn't make you right and it doesn't mean you can't learn more about an art style or artist in order to better appreciate it, and maybe learn to love it. In lieu of that, I will probably never convince you in this forum and I doubt you will convince me. Fortunately, we can agree to disagree again. Strongly.

 

Scott

[inovrmihd]

I love the discussion of Buscema vs. Miller. You guys are verbalizing my thoughts in a much better way than I ever could. How would you describe John Byrne in terms of his artistic ability and contribution to the medium?

[Bronty]

Bright star that burned out circa 1990 ? IMHO.

 

 

 

(Burned brighter than most for longer than most but ultimately had a shelf life. In my pantheon hes above buscema but below miller).

[Brian Peck]

I enjoyed Miller's writing much more than his art. I think Miller's art on Daredevil was his best. I do love DKR but for the story more than the art. Miller was great at composition.

I am in the camp of John Buscema being a far better artist than Miller. Being different doesn't always mean better. I think John's had a better grasp of anatomy than Miller. John's best work was in the late 60's early 70's on Silver Surfer, Avengers and Submariner I loved his early run later on Conan. For a guy who didn't care for drawing comics and just looked at it as a job he did some great work.

If DKR are was alot cheaper I still would have no interest in owning the a page just for the art only if it had some good dialog. The DKN #2 cover looks very weak without colour. But as many of have to each his own.

[batman_fan]

I love the discussion of Buscema vs. Miller. You guys are verbalizing my thoughts in a much better way than I ever could. How would you describe John Byrne in terms of his artistic ability and contribution to the medium?

 

Love his run on Fantastic Four (which based on how much they sell for, I suspect other people do as well). I think his work on the Superman reboot is second to none. I personally consider this one of Byrnes best works !

 

[lb jefferies]

Foster, Kubert and Frazetta all had unique styles that made them stand out. I`m a huge fan of all of their work. There`s simply nothing unique about Buscema`s work. If you ever wanted to pick an artist who was the prototypical house artist, it was Buscema.

 

Nothing unique? There's a reason there was an Art of John Buscema book in the seventies. I think you're confusing your John's. John ROMITA was the prototypical house artist.

 

I realize it's tremendously important to be "right" on the internet, but this is an occasion where you probably just need to walk away and realize your initial comments were off base.

 

[Koa]

I love the discussion of Buscema vs. Miller. You guys are verbalizing my thoughts in a much better way than I ever could. How would you describe John Byrne in terms of his artistic ability and contribution to the medium?

 

 

Where Frank Miller went back and pulled influence from Will Eisner's spirit comics and EC books, combined them with Gil kane's idea of superhero dynamics and ,mixed it with Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson movies which were topical fantasies of the 1970's which were alien to the mass audience of the 1980's John byrne was a cleaned up version, shiny polished of Neal Adams. Bryne drew well enough that it impress 12-15 year old kids of his day but not so good that they felt there was no hope for them. He knew what kids/audience during his heyday wanted and knew how to communicate to them visually.