John Byrne

[inovrmihd]

A very interesting discussion has developed on the DKR 2 cover thread re: Frank Miller's artistic "competence", with many arguing that he is a genius, likening him to Picasso or Monet, a sentiment i agree with. In the thread, there was a discussion comparing him to John Buscema, the consensus being that while John was very good, there was nothing ground breaking about his art. I asked for thoughts about John Byrne, whose art I grew up on, and rather than pursue the matter on that thread, I thought it would be a better I idea to start this one. Was there anything ground breaking about his art, or was he simply the flavor of the day, having a great run during the 70's and early 80's? How would you compare him to Todd McFarland? If you were a curator of a comic art museum, how much time and energy would you devote to him versus other artists, and 20 years from now, will anyone care about his work?

[Koa]

I think John byrne is the prototype for todd Mcfarlane. An artist who got inside the mind of a generation and did comic art that inspired them because it's how they would have done it. Some of us, we lived vicariously through their ego's. John like todd modernized the look of popular artists who came before them. they put a 'modern day' spin on the older stuff. When John drew the FF for example, he kept all the cool elemnts of kirby, but ran them through a neal adam's inspired drawing style.

 

Todd did the same thing with spider-man in a way. But he also did was Miller did and jumped back further to artists younger fans might not have been familiar with at the time. He jumped back to Ditko's darker creepier spiderman, mixed it with byrne, took miller's fragmented imagery from DKR and marvel-ized it.

 

At their peak popularity their work is the equivalent of a great pop song or action movie. They were in the heads of their particular audiences commercially during thier time. both had the added advantage of older work being "forgotten" because reprints and the internet weren't around to point out every repeated cliche and there was a continual influx of new younger readers without the context older readers had.

[Brian Peck]

You still seem to equate great art with being different. I never thought Miller's art was groundbreaking, his writing is much better than his art. The style changed sometimes for good sometimes bad. Mcfarlane is different, his writing isn't that good , his art is better. But his style is a bit cartoony for my taste also more dynamic but anatomy is weak.

John was a better story teller than McFarlane ever was. A comic book artist is more than flashy pictures.

[Speedy-D]

You still seem to equate great art with being different. I never thought Miller's art was groundbreaking, his writing is much better than his art. The style changed sometimes for good sometimes bad. Mcfarlane is different, his writing isn't that good , his art is better. But his style is a bit cartoony for my taste also more dynamic but anatomy is weak.

John was a better story teller than McFarlane ever was. A comic book artist is more than flashy pictures.

And there's where Frank Miller shines. He tells stories in comics better than most anyone, both writing and drawing. He brought a cinematic flavor to his comic art from the early Daredevil days, and it's a revolution not to be minimized. He also drew really well, although I'll confess to loving the Miller/Janson team better than straight Miller (same goes for Byrne/Austin).

[delekkerste]

Was there anything ground breaking about his art, or was he simply the flavor of the day, having a great run during the 70's and early 80's?

 

I don't think there was anything particularly groundbreaking about his art. That said, no one did it better than Byrne for that shining period from the mid-70s to the early '80s. And, he did have a hand in the plotting and directing of the X-Men when it was at its legendary best, so he deserves extra credit there, which I feel puts him above John Buscema and some others in the Marvel pantheon. Claremont/Byrne/Austin on the X-Men is one of the top 4 creative runs in Marvel history (along with Lee/Kirby FF, Lee/Ditko ASM and Lee/Romita ASM), IMO, and helped sparked a resurgence at the publisher in the '80s (yes, I did just read "Marvel Comics: The Untold Story").

 

As an aside, I'm surprised that no one bought that Byrne complete FF story for $15K at CLink. Granted, it didn't have a killer splash or anything, but, still, a complete Byrne FF story for $15K seems like a better value to me than a lot of what else I'm seeing these days.

[Brian Peck]

If you call John Byrne flavor of the month then Mcfalane is flavor of the week. His work in comics wasn't that long (no one remembers is early DC art). Once he got rich he quite drawing. Byrne still draws, not on the level as before (Austin did contributre alot to X-Men) but he still draws because he likes it. Todd likes his toys and money better, ya he draws on occasion.

[Koa]

I hate the flavor of the month comments. John Byrne and Todd MCfarlane both have had a huge impact on pop culture in their ways. I don't know how either can be summed up in such a dismissive fashion.

[J.Sid]

Gene is right. X-Men was on the verge of cancellation before Byrne put his stamp on it. It's been at (or very near) the top ever since. The Claremont/Byrne run is up there with Kirby and Ditko contributions to the Marvel Universe.

 

As far as his storytelling contributions go, give Byrne credit for Wolverine's ascent to superstardom. For the last 25 years, he's been the 4th biggest superhero, behind Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. Before Byrne took an interest in him during the X-Men run (fellow Canadian) he was a sideshow clown with a minimal role in storylines.

 

 

 

[J.Sid]

I actually say give Todd credit for his then-groundbreaking layouts and storytelling. He was doing things in a way no one else prior to him was doing them, and to this day many storytelling techniques he pioneered are used by other artists.

[Mephisto]

If you call John Byrne flavor of the month then Mcfalane is flavor of the week. His work in comics wasn't that long (no one remembers is early DC art). Once he got rich he quite drawing. Byrne still draws, not on the level as before (Austin did contributre alot to X-Men) but he still draws because he likes it. Todd likes his toys and money better, ya he draws on occasion.

 

And balls, he loves balls!

[Mephisto]

Gene is right. X-Men was on the verge of cancellation before Byrne put his stamp on it. It's been at (or very near) the top ever since. The Claremont/Byrne run is up there with Kirby and Ditko contributions to the Marvel Universe.

 

As far as his storytelling contributions go, give Byrne credit for Wolverine's ascent to superstardom. For the last 25 years, he's been the 4th biggest superhero, behind Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. Before Byrne took an interest in him during the X-Men run (fellow Canadian) he was a sideshow clown with a minimal role in storylines.

 

 

 

And if Cockrum stayed on in full capacity was headed to being cut from the team...In many ways I feel Byrne is more important to the "creation" of Wolverine as we know him than Trimpe. But hell I even give more credit to Kane for altering his now famous mask.

[Koa]

I actually say give Todd credit for his then-groundbreaking layouts and storytelling. He was doing things in a way no one else prior to him was doing them, and to this day many storytelling techniques he pioneered are used by other artists.

 

Todd took was Miller was doing with DKR fragmented imagery building to a splashy image and combined it with Marvel style staging and MTV video influenced quick cutting and made it into his own (IMO). Before anyone has an aneurysm, I'm not comparing the content of Spider-man "torment" to The dark knight returns or anything else Miller wrote just citing the very apparent influence.

[Koa]

You still seem to equate great art with being different. I never thought Miller's art was groundbreaking, his writing is much better than his art. The style changed sometimes for good sometimes bad. Mcfarlane is different, his writing isn't that good , his art is better. But his style is a bit cartoony for my taste also more dynamic but anatomy is weak.

John was a better story teller than McFarlane ever was. A comic book artist is more than flashy pictures.

 

I was not comparing content, just saying that Mcfarlane used visual techniques developed or popularized by miller in combination with others to gain incredible popularity just like byrne did with Neal Adams or jack kirby. John was a better storyteller, but John also worked with Chris Claremont for several years, not David Micheline.

 

Frank Miller is my favorite cartoonist working in comic books but his writing wasn't particularly brilliant. Very entertaining and presented in a way that was completely unlike anything being published before he changed (along with pothers) the direction of superhero comics with DKR. He was mostly bringing themes and influences which were popular at the time in adult crime fantasy from 1970's crime cinema and earlier crime novels. to a younger audience who didn't have access to such stuff. Frank went back further and into much more obscure corners for his comic book influences as well. His first DD story introducing Elektra was a rehashed Spirit/San Serif story. had the internet existed as we know it today or the readership been older and more well versed he probably would have been torn to pieces as happens in today.

[Rodey]

I agree. Todd was working in a more visual world than Byrne/Claremont. Hulk 340 cover is forever in my brain. TV/MTV generation (such as myself) was greatly influenced buy those stories.

[Silver Surfer]

Byrne was top dog when the business was strong, lots of great art and storylines. McFarlane was the best of the worst in an awful era and IMO he couldn't hold a candle to Bryne. Funny how we always hear the impact on the industry argument for guys whose art work is viewed as either love it or hate it. Personally I can't stand McFarlane's art, the Spawn work was good but Spider-Man and his bread stick arms and legs was attrocious.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

I agree. Todd was working in a more visual world than Byrne/Claremont. Hulk 340 cover is forever in my brain. TV/MTV generation (such as myself) was greatly influenced buy those stories.

 

It's understandable that you feel that way, but I don't really agree. Comics have always been visual. Todd had a clean look when his peers were spitting out chicken scratch. His work would've never stood out if his peers had been better.

 

DG

[Koa]

I agree. Todd was working in a more visual world than Byrne/Claremont. Hulk 340 cover is forever in my brain. TV/MTV generation (such as myself) was greatly influenced buy those stories.

 

It's understandable that you feel that way, but I don't really agree. Comics have always been visual. Todd had a clean look when his peers were spitting out chicken scratch. His work would've never stood out if his peers had been better.

 

DG

 

Todd Mcfarlane's visual approach still appeals to a certain demographic, that's why he's been so successful outside of comics in recent years as an artist.

[Brian Peck]

He still draws? I thought he just sold toys.

[Bronty]

You still seem to equate great art with being different. I never thought Miller's art was groundbreaking, his writing is much better than his art. The style changed sometimes for good sometimes bad. Mcfarlane is different, his writing isn't that good , his art is better. But his style is a bit cartoony for my taste also more dynamic but anatomy is weak.

John was a better story teller than McFarlane ever was. A comic book artist is more than flashy pictures.

And there's where Frank Miller shines. .

 

Amen

[Bronty]

He still draws? I thought he just sold toys.

 

ditto