Opinions about the work of John Buscema

[Bronty]

While we are on the subject, sort of, I think that the overall marvel artwork from 66 to 70 or so was not very interesting. I remember when there was one of those classic cover discussions in Silver a while back it really struck me how very few classic covers were produced by marvel in the back half of the decade. Its VERY slim pickings, and mostly steranko. I dont k ow if that was because marvel was trying to establish a house style and putting round peg artists into square peg holes, or what, but there is clearly something significant going on with the artwork at that time, which might boil down to the artistic direction at the time (steranko probably had a longer leash than most).

[jbud73]

As I said in the other thread, I think John produced exceptional work for a brief period (1968-71 says Scott Williams, and I'll take his word for it), after which he produced work that ranged between functional and merely very good (but falling short of greatness). I can see Tim's (tth2) point - maybe "adequate draftsman" was a bit inflammatory, but Big John was not an auteur, he was a guy doing a good job for what he was being paid to do - draw comics. Nothing really more or less.

 

A friend who collects Ditko argued to me (persuasively) last year that, in the long-run, its the artists who were truly important that will stand the test of time. He argues that Kirby and Ditko stand above all others and downplays the relative importance of Romita and Buscema in particular - they may have had long careers, they may be widely admired, they may have influenced many (to do solid work, but not to break new ground) - but they lag far behind Kirby and Ditko. Again, if you read "Marvel Comics: The Untold Story", there really isn't much space devoted to Romita or Buscema. They basically did their jobs and kept the machine going. The artists who really seemed to matter the most (by my subjective interpretation) were Kirby, Ditko, Steranko, Adams, Miller, Byrne and McFarlane.

 

That said, if I were to create a Hall of Fame of Marvel Artists, taking into consideration/balancing their importance, their quality, their influence, their output, etc. (including giving some weight to what they have done outside of Marvel), it would look something like this:

 

1. Kirby - The King

2. Ditko - Importance of his contribution to ASM and early Marvel is immense

3. Romita - Not necessarily groundbreaking, but contribution to ASM and his output/longevity/influence count for a lot

4. Miller - Not huge output for Marvel, but his Daredevil and Wolverine were game-changers and big bonus points for genre-defining non-Marvel work

5. Byrne - Was at the top for a while; X-Men work cements his legacy

6. Adams - Would rank above Byrne overall, but his Marvel output was so limited

7. Steranko - Pushed the boundaries; if only his output was greater both at Marvel and overall

8. Buscema - Like Romita, output/longevity greater than innovation, but still important

9. McFarlane - Shook everything up in the late '80s and early '90s

10. (tie) - Colan, Lee, Sienkiewicz, Starlin, Windsor-Smith - OK, cheating a bit with several entries here...just outside the top names, but still worth mentioning

 

Of course, depending on how you weight their non-Marvel (including non-comics) artwork, writing contribution, etc., I'm sure that you could move the order around to suit your preference, but I think I have the right people here in relatively the right order.

 

This is a cool list, and based on the criteria, hard to argue with. I would quibble with the inclusion of Steranko, who's work I adore, but who had such a small output and other than a few truly iconic images, did not really alter the trajectory of Marvel comics. He sure did evolve from his Kirby surface approach to comics, as did Barry Smith. Speaking of which, I would definitely put BWS solidly in the top ten. The work he did evolved into some true brilliance, and the introduction of Conan and the sword and sorcery genre he and Roy made to Marvel was a thunderbolt out of the blue and one felt for decades. At the very least, I'd flop BWS and Sterankno in this list.

 

McFarlane might be a tad low on this list as well, and I'm not even a "McFarlane guy". Maybe flip it with Buscema? Even that seems too low. Pains me a little to say, but McFarlane probably needs to go around 5 or 6, above even Adams (shudder!).

 

Scott

 

Scott not you too.

 

It would be interesting to put all the Marvel covers for the short run guys (BWS, McFarlane, Adams, Steranko and Ditko even) next to each other and have a gander to see what revisionist history could look like. I still think when you put Neal and Barry's work up there against Todd's they will come off very very well.

 

Hey I was a McFarlane era kid too, I think the thing we used to talk about was how he changed the look of how the webbing was drawn and when I got older I always thought that he had Wrightson's artistry in mind when he did this.

 

For me the Marvel torch is and will always be carried by Kirby, Romita, Buscema and Kane/Colan. These are the guys that pumped out image after image, defining almost all of the core characters in the Universe. When I think of Marvel art these are the artists that define it.

 

[Nexus]

In terms of style, Michael Golden -> Art Adams -> Todd McFarlane. That's how I always saw it, anyway. It's too bad that Golden and Adams don't make the list (and they shouldn't, given their extremely limited output), but without them, there'd be no McFarlane.

 

Love Buscema's Conan. The definitive Conan for me. Take Buscema on Conan all day long over BWS.

 

Miller's Batman/DK IS ugly. Old, ugly, battered. But that's what makes it interesting. A 180 departure from the young, sleek Batman from Neal Adams, Marshall Rogers, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez that came right before. Not a mere gimmick or novelty, either...DKR's art and story still hold up, certainly compared to other Batman comics from the past. Of all the DKR art that has been sold the last few years, the one I coveted most was The Splash. But this #2 cover is right up there. Again, congrats to the eventual winner. A true A+ crown jewel piece.

[jjonahjameson1]

In terms of style, Michael Golden -> Art Adams -> Todd McFarlane. That's how I always saw it, anyway. It's too bad that Golden and Adams don't make the list (and they shouldn't, given their extremely limited output), but without them, there'd be no McFarlane.

 

Love Buscema's Conan. The definitive Conan for me. Take Buscema on Conan all day long over BWS.

 

Miller's Batman/DK IS ugly. Old, ugly, battered. But that's what makes it interesting. A 180 departure from the young, sleek Batman from Neal Adams, Marshall Rogers, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez that came right before. Not a mere gimmick or novelty, either...DKR's art and story still hold up, certainly compared to other Batman comics from the past. Of all the DKR art that has been sold the last few years, the one I coveted most was The Splash. But this #2 cover is right up there. Again, congrats to the eventual winner. A true A+ crown jewel piece.

 

I see how Michael Golden begat Art Adams, but I don't see the link to McFarlane.

[Koa]

In terms of style, Michael Golden -> Art Adams -> Todd McFarlane. That's how I always saw it, anyway. It's too bad that Golden and Adams don't make the list (and they shouldn't, given their extremely limited output), but without them, there'd be no McFarlane.

 

Love Buscema's Conan. The definitive Conan for me. Take Buscema on Conan all day long over BWS.

 

Miller's Batman/DK IS ugly. Old, ugly, battered. But that's what makes it interesting. A 180 departure from the young, sleek Batman from Neal Adams, Marshall Rogers, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez that came right before. Not a mere gimmick or novelty, either...DKR's art and story still hold up, certainly compared to other Batman comics from the past. Of all the DKR art that has been sold the last few years, the one I coveted most was The Splash. But this #2 cover is right up there. Again, congrats to the eventual winner. A true A+ crown jewel piece.

 

I see how Michael Golden begat Art Adams, but I don't see the link to McFarlane.

 

I think McFarlane is late 70's early 80's influenced. Byrne/Miller/Dave Sim/Golden influenced primarily. Adam's came in to late to be a primary influence for him. They were both cartoony, both had a thin line early on but I don't see the relation people keep making to arthur beyond that

[Koa]

 

Miller's Batman/DK IS ugly. Old, ugly, battered. But that's what makes it interesting. A 180 departure from the young, sleek Batman from Neal Adams, Marshall Rogers, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez that came right before. Not a mere gimmick or novelty, either...DKR's art and story still hold up, certainly compared to other Batman comics from the past. Of all the DKR art that has been sold the last few years, the one I coveted most was The Splash. But this #2 cover is right up there. Again, congrats to the eventual winner. A true A+ crown jewel piece.

 

This is the best description of the appeal of Miller's art on DKR, specifically the cover up for auction. Why is it in the Bucsema thread! !

[Koa]

This is one of my favorite comic book images by anyone, to me it's the quintessential mephisto image but was never used for promotion of reprinted. Would have made a great poster back during the 80's poster craze

[lb jefferies]

Someone needs to mention Simonson. Ok, there, I did it.

[Mephisto]

While we are on the subject, sort of, I think that the overall marvel artwork from 66 to 70 or so was not very interesting. I remember when there was one of those classic cover discussions in Silver a while back it really struck me how very few classic covers were produced by marvel in the back half of the decade. Its VERY slim pickings, and mostly steranko. I dont k ow if that was because marvel was trying to establish a house style and putting round peg artists into square peg holes, or what, but there is clearly something significant going on with the artwork at that time, which might boil down to the artistic direction at the time (steranko probably had a longer leash than most).

 

I personally think this period is where Buscema's best work takes place. Scott has or had a very beautiful Vision splash from this period. Forget Silver Surfer 4, the cover to 3 was on CAF and even though I'm not much for pen and ink that cover is tight.

[gambron]

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion especially when it comes to what inspires or moves one in a piece of artwork, comic or otherwise. But I have to say that it truly PAINS me to hear the like's of John Buscema being referred to as a .265 or .285 hitter.

 

I think it's well documented that Stan completely discouraged John from thinking outside the box and expressing himself when it came to panel layouts, story-telling etc. and made it very clear that Buscema was to emulate Kirby and not try and re-invent the wheel. This deeply hurt John and I think his lack of inspiration at times

was most-likely in the name of self-preservation and protecting his job.

 

That said I can't think of anyone at Marvel during the 60's and 70's who could better capture the "precise moment of tension" in a piece and who's characters conveyed more raw emotion. I'll give a few examples below but Buscema's work is literally LOADED with these little tidbits of Genius. It's in this way that Buscema truly shined, and shine he did. I do agree with Gene's placement of him at 8th or 9th on the list but any reference to him in this thread as merely an "adequate draftsman" or "a serviceable artist" can't be further from the truth.

 

From Avengers #76 Palmer Inks

 

From Silver Surfer #12 Adkins Inks

 

From Savage Sword of Conan #73 Buscema Pencils and Inks

 

From Avengers #80 Palmer Inks

 

And of Course Avengers #58 Klein Inks

 

Have a great weekend guys!

 

Ken R

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=19201

 

 

 

 

[stinkininkin]

In terms of style, Michael Golden -> Art Adams -> Todd McFarlane. That's how I always saw it, anyway. It's too bad that Golden and Adams don't make the list (and they shouldn't, given their extremely limited output), but without them, there'd be no McFarlane.

 

 

That's exactly right. While Golden had his own influences, it's amazing to me how his importance in the trajectory of late comic art is little appreciated or understood. In some ways, he is one of if not the most influential of artists coming out of the late 70's/early 80's.

 

Scott

 

[Koa]

In terms of style, Michael Golden -> Art Adams -> Todd McFarlane. That's how I always saw it, anyway. It's too bad that Golden and Adams don't make the list (and they shouldn't, given their extremely limited output), but without them, there'd be no McFarlane.

 

 

That's exactly right. While Golden had his own influences, it's amazing to me how his importance in the trajectory of late comic art is little appreciated or understood. In some ways, he is one of if not the most influential of artists coming out of the late 70's/early 80's.

 

Scott

 

Always wondered who influenced Michael Golden, his work seemed so iconoclastic to me.

[drdroom]

While we are on the subject, sort of, I think that the overall marvel artwork from 66 to 70 or so was not very interesting. I remember when there was one of those classic cover discussions in Silver a while back it really struck me how very few classic covers were produced by marvel in the back half of the decade. Its VERY slim pickings, and mostly steranko. I dont k ow if that was because marvel was trying to establish a house style and putting round peg artists into square peg holes, or what, but there is clearly something significant going on with the artwork at that time, which might boil down to the artistic direction at the time (steranko probably had a longer leash than most).

 

Huh. My feeling is just the opposite. Kirby, Colan, Neal Adams and John Buscema all working at their peak. I don't think there is a better 4 year period in Marvel's history. It's a truism that DC had better covers and Marvel had better insides in this era, but still: Daredevil 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 55, 56 Surfer 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. X-men 16,17, 42, 43, 59, 62. Avengers 25, 27, 28, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, King-size 2. FF 46, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62, 66, 67, 72, 74, 77 Captain Marvel 6, 8, 9, 17, 20. ST 143, 146. Doctor Strange 171, 172, 177, 178. Iron Man 1, 5, 14, 18. As well as those good Steranko covers you mentioned.

 

[drdroom]

I didn't even mention the great covers Romita did for Spidey!

[Koa]

I didn't even mention the great covers Romita did for Spidey!

 

I thought he went overboard with the feathering sometime after his inks of Gil Kane on Amazing spider-man. I really wish Gil and john Collaborated more before the change in Romita's style. Between Gil's structural drawing, dynamic staging and John Romita Sr.'s aesthetics I think they formed the perfect marvel artist in 1970-71

[Koa]

People forget what Amazing Spider-Man sales were like before McFarlane started on that book. (nowhere near the top)

 

ASM 297

 

 

Spider-man is such an icon now that older fans want to forget nobody cared about him in the mid 70's through 1989 when mcfarlane took over because he undid Romita's visual playbook for the character and his supporting cast. it was all about Mutants, the punisher and a million other things. Spiderman was marvels Superman at that point, dated and obsolete. kraven's last hunt caught some attention, but everybody knew it was a one off story. there was that one issue about the dying boy and the introduction of the hobgoblin but between the first appearance of the punisher and Todd Mcfarlane that was it. David micheline's writing was not very good, it was Todd's visual presentation that created the excitement. Wonder how different AMS would have been had J.M Dematties continued writing the title for mcfarlane?

[Bronty]

While we are on the subject, sort of, I think that the overall marvel artwork from 66 to 70 or so was not very interesting. I remember when there was one of those classic cover discussions in Silver a while back it really struck me how very few classic covers were produced by marvel in the back half of the decade. Its VERY slim pickings, and mostly steranko. I dont k ow if that was because marvel was trying to establish a house style and putting round peg artists into square peg holes, or what, but there is clearly something significant going on with the artwork at that time, which might boil down to the artistic direction at the time (steranko probably had a longer leash than most).

 

I personally think this period is where Buscema's best work takes place. Scott has or had a very beautiful Vision splash from this period. Forget Silver Surfer 4, the cover to 3 was on CAF and even though I'm not much for pen and ink that cover is tight.

 

well sure that's his best period.... I agree completely.

 

But the greater point I'm making is that in that time period, there's really very little going on that truly stood the test of time.

 

 

[Bronty]

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion especially when it comes to what inspires or moves one in a piece of artwork, comic or otherwise. But I have to say that it truly PAINS me to hear the like's of John Buscema being referred to as a .265 or .285 hitter.

 

Hey for a career batting average, that's not too shabby at all! You have to include the rookie and old man years in those averages and implies that he was batting over .300 in his heyday

[Bronty]

In fairness, I just looked over a list of career batting averages and .285 is probably the more correct analogy, I take back the .265. There are some *very* good ball players at .285 career to its no slight to JOhn

[Bronty]

While we are on the subject, sort of, I think that the overall marvel artwork from 66 to 70 or so was not very interesting. I remember when there was one of those classic cover discussions in Silver a while back it really struck me how very few classic covers were produced by marvel in the back half of the decade. Its VERY slim pickings, and mostly steranko. I dont k ow if that was because marvel was trying to establish a house style and putting round peg artists into square peg holes, or what, but there is clearly something significant going on with the artwork at that time, which might boil down to the artistic direction at the time (steranko probably had a longer leash than most).

 

Huh. My feeling is just the opposite. Kirby, Colan, Neal Adams and John Buscema all working at their peak. I don't think there is a better 4 year period in Marvel's history. It's a truism that DC had better covers and Marvel had better insides in this era, but still: Daredevil 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 55, 56 Surfer 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. X-men 16,17, 42, 43, 59, 62. Avengers 25, 27, 28, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, King-size 2. FF 46, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62, 66, 67, 72, 74, 77 Captain Marvel 6, 8, 9, 17, 20. ST 143, 146. Doctor Strange 171, 172, 177, 178. Iron Man 1, 5, 14, 18. As well as those good Steranko covers you mentioned.

 

Well its not hard to see why we disagree then.

 

Kirby - I prefer his earlier material although he had some nice ff work during this time, but really, most all of his marvel work was good so I see that as neutral; a constant

 

Colan - not a personal favorite overall

 

Adams - as others have said his marvel output was so limited, its tough to even count it for much. just a few issues of x-men really. (the avengers stuff is after the stated time period)

 

Buscema - put me in the camp that likes him well enough but doesn't love him

 

 

Add it all up and as time period I view it as an awfully milquetoast sort of time artistically although from a business pov I can see why with the growth marvel was enjoying they would have wanted it that way at that time.