Unfairly Beating Up On Rob Liefeld...

[5ive]

I dare anyone to ask a 12 year old to flip through an issue of X-Force, an issue of Watchmen, and or Dark Knight Returns and ask them which they like better.

But that`s why we don`t place too much value in the opinions of 12 year olds. If we did, then Liefeld`s musical contemporaries from the 1990s, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears, who were among the biggest selling artists in that period, would be considered the best music of the 1990s.

 

The true test is those artists who can appeal to a 12-year old AND years later still appeal to that 12-year old when he`s 24 years old, and then 36 years old, etc. Jack Kirby passes that test. Neal Adams passes that test. Rob Liefeld does not pass that test.

 

Like a 35 year old looking at the Hanson record in his collection and wondering what the hell was he thinking.

 

I completely disagree. Like music, comics at that time (and now of course) began to have a broader more diverse audience. Because of this I think we should judge the creators in context and on their respective ability to reach and excite the audience that they were intending to reach. When I was 12 and reading Rob Liefeld, Jim Lee, and Todd McFarlane's comics I was also buying Motley Crue records. Now that i'm in my 30's and read Watchmen and listen to Radiohead should I look back and say, "Man I had horrific taste when I was 12!" The truth is I wouldn't have been able to appreciate all the wonderful subtlety of WM when I was 12 and Radiohead would have been almost unlistenable to me. Should that detract from the genius of Thom Yorke and or Alan Moore?

 

Rob Liefeld is no Neal Adams or Jack Kirby, but just because his work doesn't appeal to older comic fans doesn't mean he should be vilified. Not to respect and accept him IN CONTEXT is simply ignorant and or pretentious. I guess my point is that by the late 80's comics no longer had a universal audience, so the creators shouldn't be judged universally.

 

Ken

 

great summary.

[tth2]

Now that i'm in my 30's and read Watchmen and listen to Radiohead should I look back and say, "Man I had horrific taste when I was 12!"

In some respects, yes. We all liked some stupid things when we were 12. Just because they were great for a 12 year old doesn`t mean that they really were great. There`s nothing wrong with admitting that some things we liked when we were 12 are now cringeworthy.

 

The truth is I wouldn't have been able to appreciate all the wonderful subtlety of WM when I was 12 and Radiohead would have been almost unlistenable to me. Should that detract from the genius of Thom Yorke and or Alan Moore?

That`s completely opposite my point. Just because something can`t be appreciated by a 12 year old doesn`t mean it`s not great. And the corollary of that is just because something CAN be appreciated by a 12 year old doesn`t mean it IS great.

 

I guess my point is that by the late 80's comics no longer had a universal audience, so the creators shouldn't be judged universally.

I don`t get your point here at all. Prior to the 1980s, one could argue that ALL comics were targeted at 12 year olds. And yet, Kirby and Adams and the other top artists could appeal to a 12 year old (they had to) AND their work still stood the test of time when revisited by that 12 year old 20 years later.

 

The fact that in the 1980s some comics were now targeted to mature audiences while some comics were still targeted to 12 year olds doesn`t mean that we should give a complete pass to the creators of those comics targeted to 12 year olds. Bad art is bad art, just like bad music is bad music, even if a 12 year old doesn`t know enough to know the difference. But as a 30 year old, you should now be able to look back and acknowledge that there WAS a difference.

[gambron]

Now that i'm in my 30's and read Watchmen and listen to Radiohead should I look back and say, "Man I had horrific taste when I was 12!"

In some respects, yes. We all liked some stupid things when we were 12. Just because they were great for a 12 year old doesn`t mean that they really were great. There`s nothing wrong with admitting that some things we liked when we were 12 are now cringeworthy.

 

The truth is I wouldn't have been able to appreciate all the wonderful subtlety of WM when I was 12 and Radiohead would have been almost unlistenable to me. Should that detract from the genius of Thom Yorke and or Alan Moore?

That`s completely opposite my point. Just because something can`t be appreciated by a 12 year old doesn`t mean it`s not great. And the corollary of that is just because something CAN be appreciated by a 12 year old doesn`t mean it IS great.

 

I guess my point is that by the late 80's comics no longer had a universal audience, so the creators shouldn't be judged universally.

I don`t get your point here at all. Prior to the 1980s, one could argue that ALL comics were targeted at 12 year olds. And yet, Kirby and Adams and the other top artists could appeal to a 12 year old (they had to) AND their work still stood the test of time when revisited by that 12 year old 20 years later.

 

The fact that in the 1980s some comics were now targeted to mature audiences while some comics were still targeted to 12 year olds doesn`t mean that we should give a complete pass to the creators of those comics targeted to 12 year olds. Bad art is bad art, just like bad music is bad music, even if a 12 year old doesn`t know enough to know the difference. But as a 30 year old, you should now be able to look back and acknowledge that there WAS a difference.

 

I'm curious if you understand the concept of appreciating or judging something "in context"?

 

First of all no one is giving Rob Liefeld or anyone else for that matter a free pass. Creators like Kirby, Adams, The Beatles, and Led Zepplin indeed have universal appeal which is probably why they are considered true giants of their respective fields. No one is calling Rob Liefeld a giant.

 

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. This in spite of the fact that he excited his audience to the point of record sales and massive profits. Yes Liefeld's work has many defects and hasn't aged well in a broad sense, but in the context of drawing comics for 12 year olds in 1990 (his intention by the way) he was great and people should at least be able to respect him a little bit for that.

 

That's all i'm saying.

 

Ken

[tth2]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

[Claudio]

I don't think he gets beaten up unfairly. He had his limitations artistically but I think the scorn he gets comes from his personality. I hear he is pleasant it talk to nowadays. However, a lot of people remember him allegedly cheating his image partners out of money, copying others artwork and ideas, and manipulating publishers. He just seemed like a jerk back in the day and since he wasn't a superior talent, his reputation suffered.

 

Sure, you can compare his art to others but that is not the sole reason why he is ridiculed.

[gambron]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

 

Ok so if I understand you correctly. Then the dynamic, stylized almost expressionistic style of Jack Kirby (who I absolutely LOVE), which is also FULL of horrible almost laughable anatomy at times, should be dismissed as patronizing 12 year old's?

 

Can't have it both ways my friend.

 

 

[stinkininkin]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

 

Ok so if I understand you correctly. Then the dynamic, stylized almost impressionistic style of Jack Kirby (who I absolutely LOVE), which is also FULL of horrible almost laughable anatomy at times, should be dismissed as patronizing 12 year old's?

 

Can't have it both ways my friend.

 

Oh boy. I think you may have crossed a bridge too far with this analogy Ken. Purposeful exaggeration and disregard for art/drawing rules that come from a basis of knowledge is not the same thing as the disregard of rules from the basis of not knowing the rules.

 

Scott

 

 

 

 

[5ive]

You can't judge someone by their rep, you have to meet them. I've met him several times, very nice guy who loves comics and loves his fans. Any convention he's at he has one of the longest lines.

[gambron]

Agreed Scott. I guess I used the naive "Picasso Excuse" to defend Rob Liefeld, haha. I can't believe that i'm spending my father's day defending him, but I guess it just bothers me that the guy gets zero respect from many people and I think he deserves a little. Not a lot, but perhaps just a little especially when viewed in the context of the time and in the context of his intention which was to excite a rabid fan-base and sell comics.

 

Ken

[stinkininkin]

Agreed Scott. I guess I used the naive "Picasso Excuse" to defend Rob Liefeld, haha. I can't believe that i'm spending my father's day defending him,

Ken

 

Agreed!

 

 

[Bronty]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

 

Or five year olds. Carl Barks is the perfect example here. A five year old can appreciate his writing and art and so can an 80 year old.

[Brian Peck]

I don't think he gets beaten up unfairly. He had his limitations artistically but I think the scorn he gets comes from his personality. I hear he is pleasant it talk to nowadays. However, a lot of people remember him allegedly cheating his image partners out of money, copying others artwork and ideas, and manipulating publishers. He just seemed like a jerk back in the day and since he wasn't a superior talent, his reputation suffered.

 

Sure, you can compare his art to others but that is not the sole reason why he is ridiculed.

 

I have never met rob personally and it's his total lack of artistic skill.

[zhamlau]

New Mutants was far and away my favorite book growing up. It meant more to me growing up then any comic I have ever read with the exception possibly of TDK. When they killed Cypher it changed the way I looked at comics and how attached I got to characters, but I still hung with the book...then they handed it over to liefeld...and I stopped collecting and loving comics with that same passion. His books were impossible collections of posed impossible anatomy at the expense of story and scene. His faces looked identical, his legs were impossibly long or muscled depending on gender, and no one drew more soulless dead eyes with the exception of Jim Lee maybe. He stabbed comics and story telling in the face, and he did it on the book I grew up reading that got me into collecting/reading.

 

"Spoon" that clown, "spoon" his influence on cheapening comics as an art, and "spoon" what he did to New Mutants.

 

 

But I'm sure he's a nice guy and wish him all the best on his future endeavors.

[Bronty]

[elove]

Here's a positive post about Rob Liefeld. He's better than Humberto Ramos. Now how he still draws comics is a mystery to me.

[Brian Peck]

But Humberto Ramos will draw feet.

[tth2]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

 

Ok so if I understand you correctly. Then the dynamic, stylized almost expressionistic style of Jack Kirby (who I absolutely LOVE), which is also FULL of horrible almost laughable anatomy at times, should be dismissed as patronizing 12 year old's?

 

Can't have it both ways my friend.

 

At no point have I ever indicated that "good art" equals "anatomically correct art". Quite the opposite, I believe too many comic fans (who I would guess don't draw themselves) place too much emphasis on ability to render "realistic" images.

 

On the other hand, "anatomically incorrect art" also does not necessarily equal "good art".

[tth2]

He stabbed comics and story telling in the face

[buttock]

But by your logic anyone who creates art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD.

No, what I`m saying is that anyone who creates BAD art geared for a less mature, less enlightened audience should be deemed BAD. Bad is bad, regardless of the context.

 

I expect artists creating for a less mature, less enlightened audience to still create GOOD art, and I think everyone should expect (nay, demand) artists to strive to achieve that goal. It`s possible. To expect less is to patronize 12 year olds.

 

Ok so if I understand you correctly. Then the dynamic, stylized almost expressionistic style of Jack Kirby (who I absolutely LOVE), which is also FULL of horrible almost laughable anatomy at times, should be dismissed as patronizing 12 year old's?

 

Can't have it both ways my friend.

 

At no point have I ever indicated that "good art" equals "anatomically correct art". Quite the opposite, I believe too many comic fans (who I would guess don't draw themselves) place too much emphasis on ability to render "realistic" images.

 

On the other hand, "anatomically incorrect art" also does not necessarily equal "good art".

 

I don't know. I grew up drawing extensively and part of the reason I admire Russ Heath so much is the fact that I can appreciate how much effort it takes to get the subtleties of realism down (something I couldn't ever do well). That doesn't mean I don't appreciate other non-realist artists (I love Everett, Wolverton, Simon, and a whole slew of other more cartoonish artists who clearly had an unreal stylism all their own). But to get the actual form of an arm while throwing a baseball is what separates the boys from the men. I've heard the same thing said about Alex Raymond.

 

Heath has admitted he took several days to draw this splash . Looking at it up close, the shading on the wheels and barrel of the tank are photorealistic and every link in the tread is in its right place. And the only white out on the whole page is on the borders of the top panels to make them fit better in the fold. He's admitted this wasn't the best business decision, but he took enough pride in his work that it mattered to him.

 

 

[elove]

But Humberto Ramos will draw feet.

 

Badly. When it comes to feet, Liefeld owns Ramos. But no one else.