Unfairly Beating Up On Rob Liefeld...

[MagnusX]

[font:Book Antiqua]

Rob Liefield is one of the top 3 Worst artist ever...[/font]

 

[J.Sid]

I think people are confusing "worst" with "over-rated."

 

Rob is far from the worst, and has drawn a lot of cool stuff in his day to go along with the lowlights on that "worst Liefeld panels ever" website.

 

When you factor in his having one of the top selling comics of all time, being one of the highest-earning comic creators of all time, and getting featured in a national Levis commercial*, you have to start comparing him to some other really talented artists, against whom he doesn't hold up.

 

Worst? Far from it.

 

Most over-rated? He's up there (though it's been a long time since he was thought of fondly)

 

 

*Anyone remember that one? They cut to him bragging about his "imagination" and the panel displayed in the background while he's saying it was a swipe from Miller's Ronin 1 DPS

[MagnusX]

I think people are confusing "worst" with "over-rated."

 

Rob is far from the worst, and has drawn a lot of cool stuff in his day to go along with the lowlights on that "worst Liefeld panels ever" website.

 

When you factor in his having one of the top selling comics of all time, being one of the highest-earning comic creators of all time, and getting featured in a national Levis commercial*, you have to start comparing him to some other really talented artists, against whom he doesn't hold up.

 

Worst? Far from it.

 

Most over-rated? He's up there (though it's been a long time since he was thought of fondly)

 

 

*Anyone remember that one? They cut to him bragging about his "imagination" and the panel displayed in the background while he's saying it was a swipe from Miller's Ronin 1 DPS

 

[font:Book Antiqua]No, there is not confusion,

Rob Liefield is ONE OF THE TOP 3 Worst artist ever...[/font]

 

[Brian Peck]

I compare Liefeld popularity to Roy Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein was a hack (and a poor artist) who ripped off other artists but became very famous and popular. Being popular doesn't translate to being a good artist.

[tth2]

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.

 

This thread seems to have become an exercise in logical reasoning.

 

An artist who draws in a very realistic manner can be a very good artist. But drawing realistically is not the end all and be all of being a good artist. I see too many comic fans denigrating an artist just because that artist does not draw in a realistic manner.

 

Ergo, while an artist who draws in a very realistic manner can be a very good artist, it does not necessarily mean that an artist who does not draw in a very realistic manner is a bad artist.

[theflashunc]

I prefer my artists not draw characters with 800 teeth in their head, or seven fingers on one hand with no thumb, or warped guns/swords whatever other odd quirks always crept into Liefeld's work. I think his Cap run epitomized the worst of his excesses imo.

[Pete Marino]

This thread has pretty much devolved into what I expected =)

 

It's like trying to a liberal trying to extol the virtues of a single payer healthcare system to a conservative .

 

(this is not talking politics, just using a metaphor!)

[comix4fun]

 

And I would put hellboy no where near the popularity of deadpool.

 

 

 

 

That's true.

 

 

Deadpool needs to have at least one, maybe two, major Hollywood films made around him in order to approach Hellboy's popularity.

[Rodey]

I feel like The Liefeld Debate should be a college class on the TV show Community along with Who Is The Boss: Tony vs. Angela.

[AKA Rick]

I think Rob Liefeld and other artists shouldn't be judged so harshly nor praised so highly, with fans or critics putting each other down for what they personally like and don't like.

 

I like Kirby art, but can see where many others like other artists styles like Jim Lee, etc. and vice versa.

 

Same goes with the works of Greg Land who has been panned for various reasons, whom I like the work of aesthetically.

 

I do recognize Rob Liefeld has a style, some feel isn't realistic in proportions, but if anybody wants real, then just be a fan of photography. It's not always about anatomy, but both storytelling and style.

 

I've seen many praise artwork and artists like Frank Miller. I like most of Miller's work, but his work on Dark Knight Strikes Again, to me isn't that aesthetic to my tastes, if not for having the "Frank Miller" name attached, and all of the godlike pomp and circumstance of "film noir" people defend his style by, I'd look at the page below and not see anything special about it and if anything maybe even criticize it as not being my cup of tea. I'd even dare say if the work was submitted to publishers they'd find more pans than praise.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch.asp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3Dfrank%2Bmiller%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26ItemType%3DCA&id=1011425

 

So, I do agree, its unfair to criticize both Rob and his fans for his artwork, whether liking it or not liking it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and enjoys what they want to enjoy, like any other creative or subjective outlet, be it music, movies, actors, actresses, writers, etc.

 

Let people enjoy what they want in peace.

 

[comix4fun]

I feel like The Liefeld Debate should be a college class on the TV show Community along with Who Is The Boss: Tony vs. Angela.

 

 

And

 

"Chrissy Snow vs. Cindi Snow vs. Terri Alden : Battle of the Three's Company Blonds"

 

"Furley vs. Roper: When Slumlords Collide"

 

"Create your Own Angel Dream Team: Which of Charlie's Ladies Will Win?"

[zhamlau]

The issue is simple: he couldn't tell a story. His pages were mish-mashed collections of tensed up action shots and gaping mouthed anguished screams. There was no nuance to how he laid out a panel. It was the same angles when they stood...same angles (and impossible body positioning) when they jumped, same peeling away angles when they ran. When he drew people sitting they looked like they were strapped into the chairs. Everyone in Liefelds world was the posture king or queen of the class. His character interactions ranged from angry to soulless. Just blank faces, on blank characters, in a blank world (which always had little to no background unless it was wildly inconsistent/every changing machinery banks or whispy vapors (which is a good way to describe his art style btw).

 

God I even hated "the spike man", and that was easily his most accomplished piece I've ever seen him do. It was the first time I can remember him drawing someone who didn't have that disgusting implied saliva everywhere in their mouth as it hung open in the middle of "action" poses/movement.

 

He was a bad artist who helped make image look stupid in those first years.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

I've heard this defense of Liefeld before. What does his being a nice guy have to do with his ability (or lack thereof) to draw?

[Jeffro.]

I understand the idea of judging his work in context. Did RL have the ability to amaze 12 year olds? Yeah, he did. However, just because something is popular and successful doesn't mean it's good. How many highly successful movies have been made that haven't been very good? Lots. Star Wars episodes 1-3 and the Transformers movies spring to mind.

[Bronty]

Kind of OT. But even back then, my perception was that the Liefeld books sold, (very) generally speaking, to the collector that was less informed about comics. None of my friends that actually collected and could spot a kubert from a kaluta thought much of Liefeld. The guys that bought into the Liefeld schtick seemed to me to be the guys that were very casual comic readers - not "really" collectors. The guys that got "into" comics in 1990 and left in 1991/2.

 

There were exceptions of course. But I think there's a wide swath of the more hardcore collectors that never liked him at any point in time.

 

This is not to say you can't be a hardcore comics reader or collector and like Liefeld but... I think there is/ was generally an inverse relationship between how many comics and creators a reader had been exposed to and how much they liked Liefeld

[Jeffro.]

I remember walking into my then LCS and having the owner show me a comic with a new, exciting artist. It was the first issue of the Hawk and Dove mini series, drawn by Rob.

Yes, it was different and I liked it (and I was about 20 years old!) However, I quickly grew tired of his work. It just wasn't very good.

[Bronty]

I remember walking into my then LCS and having the owner show me a comic with a new, exciting artist. It was the first issue of the Hawk and Dove mini series, drawn by Rob.

Yes, it was different and I liked it (and I was about 20 years old!) However, I quickly grew tired of his work. It just wasn't very good.

 

Which is to say that you were a hardcore collector and you quickly realized better. The first work of his I saw was the NM 87 cover, and I liked it (still do if I ignore the fact that its an uncredited swipe). But there were so many terrible pieces of work so quickly afterwards - that I quickly smartened up in just a couple months too Finding out the NM87 cover was 'stolen' just made it all make sense later. Couldn't figure out how he did a nice piece and then served up lukewarm vomit for years.

 

[Pirate]

I had hi-jacked another thread with this and thought it should be it's own.

 

I think this posting last night answered most of your questions: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1134966&GSub=157650

 

I lost all respect for the guy when I saw a gallery calling Liefeld a master.

 

Liefeld was simply a master at drawing and selling comics geared for teens as opposed to comics geared for "adults that used to be teen comic fans". In the grand scheme I almost consider what he and others like him were doing to be an exaggerated reaction to the "British Invasion" of more serious, adult-oriented comics that had taken off a few years earlier. 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.

 

Why should we knock artists that drew comics geared for an audience that we ourselves were part of when we fell in love with comics in the first place?

 

So the guy chooses not to draw perfect anatomy, use proper perspective and so on, but his layouts were dynamic, exciting, and he sold way more comics than almost everyone else at the time drawing second rate characters and titles.

 

Clearly he is no Neal Adams or Frank Miller but he certainly has his rightful place in Comicdom and we should respect that and his fans at least a little bit, no?

 

Or maybe i'm just nuts...

 

Ken

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

 

aww you made an entire thread about a post from little ole me!

[ComicConnoisseur]

I remember walking into my then LCS and having the owner show me a comic with a new, exciting artist. It was the first issue of the Hawk and Dove mini series, drawn by Rob.

Yes, it was different and I liked it (and I was about 20 years old!) However, I quickly grew tired of his work. It just wasn't very good.

I actually like that and New Mutants 87 to 100.

After that I just lost interest in his stories and art.

 

[Terry Doyle]

I remember walking into my then LCS and having the owner show me a comic with a new, exciting artist. It was the first issue of the Hawk and Dove mini series, drawn by Rob.

Yes, it was different and I liked it (and I was about 20 years old!) However, I quickly grew tired of his work. It just wasn't very good.

 

Which is to say that you were a hardcore collector and you quickly realized better. The first work of his I saw was the NM 87 cover, and I liked it (still do if I ignore the fact that its an uncredited swipe). But there were so many terrible pieces of work so quickly afterwards - that I quickly smartened up in just a couple months too Finding out the NM87 cover was 'stolen' just made it all make sense later. Couldn't figure out how he did a nice piece and then served up lukewarm vomit for years.

 

 

I have absolutely no knowledge about Liefield or his art (never read any of his books as I lost interest in superhero stuff during the 1970s).

 

Is this Captain America cartoon an example of his work?

 

Makes the Hulk look like a pantywaist . . .