Dark Knight Returns #2 on Heritage

[Bronty]

I doubt Jack would have been as successful at Charlton.

 

Of course. That's the whole point. But it cuts both ways. Lots of artists considered to be "lesser lights" would have been bigger deals at Marvel and thus have reps equal to or bigger than, Buscema.

 

Anyways, forget Charlton. Make him an indy artist. Would he have the rep of a Stevens or a Crumb? No freaking chance

 

We're also giving short shrift to lots of artists who worked in less collected genres like funny animal and humor like Kremer, Montana, etc etc. I mentioned Barks, Stanley, and Lucey but only in passing.

[Bronty]

Everyone is going to have a fairly different list (certainly past the top 3 or 5). That's what makes this thread so interesting.

 

Also, again proving that nostalgia reigns, and admitting that we're all on the younger side, no one mentioned Alex Raymond or Will Eisner. In terms of influence, they deserve some serious recognition.

 

Ron

 

Sure, and I didn't even mention Kaluta who is the rare artist, and the class I have the greatest admiration for, that actually improve as they age. His 90s work is better than his 70s work! And his 70s work was already great.

[Silver Surfer]

Just a quick observation but how much difference is there really between Adams and Buscema? Similar styles, great talent but Adams seems to get more props because he worked on the Batman and Superman series? Same with Miller, hideous art on the DK2 series but because its Batman and some guy pays almost a half million for a page it somehow makes him a better artist. Anyways this could go on forever so I'll leave it at that.

[Bronty]

Just a quick observation but how much difference is there really between Adams and Buscema?

 

Massive difference, and I wouldn't call them stylistically similar either. I'll have to leave it at that as well because we clearly don't see eye to eye on Buscema or pretty much any of these artists, it would seem. He's a nice artist for sure but to call him top ten of all time is to me a failing to consider the tremendous ability of literally dozens of other guys.

[alxjhnsn]

I enjoyed Big John's work, but it never really stood out to me as someone doing something no one else could do. His B&W Conan work was the best I think, but others filled in for him and did excellent work, too.

[Bronty]

Crumb on the other hand is completely different never working in the superhero realm. His storytelling was never that strong, it is his art everyone knows.

 

His storytelling wasn't weak at all, just different because as you say he was not working in the same realm as most others. "storytelling" in traditional comics is distilling down the key parts of the story into pictures, explaining what's going on with pictures to the point where you could just look at the pictures and disregard the words and still know what happened in the story, right? In other words, illustrating the book as you would a children's book, which is really what it was.

 

Well, given the dialogue in many of those stories and given the themes in nearly all of them, that's not what crumb was going for, but that doesn't mean he couldn't tell a story. His stories weren't told so much with pictures as with the dialogue going on between the characters. So many of those stories commented on, well, existence and society. How do you draw that??? (Although I'd argue he did a pretty good job!).

 

So traditional comics storytelling not what he was going for, but make no mistake, he could tell a story through pictures if he wanted to. I always thought this was the single most interesting and poignant one page story in comics and there isn't a word of dialogue. Just pure storytelling ability.

 

[Tokay]

I looked at the DKR listing again tonight. Does anyone know the history of this cover? The condition description makes me kind of sad...

[the420kid]

I looked at the DKR listing again tonight. Does anyone know the history of this cover? The condition description makes me kind of sad...

 

That is sad. Someone must have had this in a $10 frame or never understood its significance. It's like the Mona Lisa being rolled up in a drawer collecting dust. uffff

[Nexus]

I looked at the DKR listing again tonight. Does anyone know the history of this cover? The condition description makes me kind of sad...

 

That is sad. Someone must have had this in a $10 frame or never understood its significance. It's like the Mona Lisa being rolled up in a drawer collecting dust. uffff

 

Belonged to an original owner, who hung it in his office. He fully understood the significance of the cover as he turned down McSpidey-type money for it over the years.

 

The tanning isn't that bad, compared to other art I've seen that had prolonged exposure to sunlight (or harsh indoor lighting). It's an easy fix for a paper restorer.

[the420kid]

I looked at the DKR listing again tonight. Does anyone know the history of this cover? The condition description makes me kind of sad...

 

That is sad. Someone must have had this in a $10 frame or never understood its significance. It's like the Mona Lisa being rolled up in a drawer collecting dust. uffff

 

Belonged to an original owner, who hung it in his office. He fully understood the significance of the cover as he turned down McSpidey-type money for it over the years.

 

The tanning isn't that bad, compared to other art I've seen that had prolonged exposure to sunlight (or harsh indoor lighting). It's an easy fix for a paper restorer.

 

so it's safe to assume there was no conservation/museum glass involved?

[Bronty]

I don't know about you guys but back in the 80s and 90s I didn't have a clue about that kind of stuff and I don't think most people did. I've bought pieces that were in expensive/custom period era frames and its just regular glass. I'm not sure most shops even carried it back then?

[the420kid]

I don't know about you guys but back in the 80s and 90s I didn't have a clue about that kind of stuff and I don't think most people did. I've bought pieces that were in expensive/custom period era frames and its just regular glass. I'm not sure most shops even carried it back then?

 

I've had people tell me that the conservation glass is overkill unless its in bigtime sunlight all day. I never heeded that advice and always get the UV glass anyway. (although it does add ALOT to the cost)

 

[Bronty]

it depends partly on the medium. your standard india ink line art comic OA is relatively resistant to light. On the other hand a watercolor will get just destroyed by light over time if you don't protect it. That being said, I'm with you.

[drdroom]

it depends partly on the medium. your standard india ink line art comic OA is relatively resistant to light. On the other hand a watercolor will get just destroyed by light over time if you don't protect it. That being said, I'm with you.

 

The ink line, and pencil too, is pretty tough but what about the paper itself? UV glass all the way, if you value the piece.

[Brian Peck]

I always use museum glass which is UV and very low reflection. When I frame something to hang on the wall I don't plan on ever selling or trading it. Doing it on the cheap is not for me, I would rather use the best when framing. The pieces are special I don't want them to yellow or fade at all.