Unfairly Beating Up On Rob Liefeld...

[Koa]

I don't know any artist who would want people to always get the urge to barf up at the mention of their name or seeing their art.

 

Damien hirst seems to do alright with it. I'm not going to defend his work at all here but his comics still sell pretty well when he's on a book so the attention/infamy does serve him. Either by making his fans more militant or people picking up his books to complain about them, which i never understood.

 

In the Horror movie genre, Ed Wood Jr. produced and directed a movie called Plan 9 From Outer Space. Widely regarded as the worst movie (of any genre) ever made.

 

So bad, it's highly watchable for its sheer awfulness.

 

Maybe that's the same kind of effect Liefeld has on a comic-book audience?

 

But people who watch plan 9 don't do so out of hate. They actually like it.

[Nexus]

I totally understand why people would want to collect Rob's art out of nostalgia and fondness for that era. It clearly falls into "guilty pleasure" territory as far as comic art goes.

 

That said, I also understand the criticism directed toward his art - that steroidal Captain America cover and shrunken head Cable pin-up speak for themselves. Yes, there have been worse artists to grace the medium, but none that have reached the level of fame (infamy) and financial success that Rob did.

 

I also think a fair bit of the vitriol directed towards Liefeld is because his work does nothing to advance the cause of comic book art as a serious artistic medium (as opposed to one that is driven primarily by teenage nostalgia). I think many serious comic art collectors would not mind if Rob's work was quietly swept under the rug and kept out of the limelight so as not to distract from the "serious" comic artists out there.

 

I'd be perfectly OK if Liefeld's career never happened. But it did. More offensive to me than his art is whitewashing history.

 

And, anyway, good art or bad art...I'm glad we're not all collecting the same art.

 

 

[Nexus]

I don't know any artist who would want people to always get the urge to barf up at the mention of their name or seeing their art.

 

Damien hirst seems to do alright with it. I'm not going to defend his work at all here but his comics still sell pretty well when he's on a book so the attention/infamy does serve him. Either by making his fans more militant or people picking up his books to complain about them, which i never understood.

 

In the Horror movie genre, Ed Wood Jr. produced and directed a movie called Plan 9 From Outer Space. Widely regarded as the worst movie (of any genre) ever made.

 

So bad, it's highly watchable for its sheer awfulness.

 

Maybe that's the same kind of effect Liefeld has on a comic-book audience?

 

But people who watch plan 9 don't do so out of hate. They actually like it.

 

Whether you like Ed Wood's movies or not, is it subjective or objective to say he was an inept director?

 

So it goes with Liefeld...

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is nothing "unfair" about beating up on Rob Liefeld. The man is personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the comic book industry, on top of being an incompetent artist. That he still "draws a crowd" isn't a token of his artistic genius.

 

Britney Spears and Justin Bieber draw crowds, too.

 

Hey, I was caught up in 1990-1991, too. But then I grew up.

 

He's a charming guy, but it's not hard to be charming when you charge $1,000 to sign 50 books.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I really liked Rob Liefeld's art when i was 14-16 years old. I think everything his critics are saying here is probably correct but i also think it's probably why his work was so effective. Liefeld's artwork during the period that i enjoy it was bold and abrasive which that's probably why I and many other teenagers at the time liked it. I think the biggest problem with his work is that it lacked content not that he drew tiny heads and pointy feet.

 

His art clearly affects people and that's one of the things that validates something as art, is it not? Here we are 25 years later there's a 13 page thread expressing strong opinions regarding liefeld's artwork. When was the last time a discussion about Hal Foster or Alex Raymond took off this fast?

 

No. It's not his art that affects people, it's the overreaction that some, especially those who were exceptionally impressionable at the time he was "hot", have to his place in the industry.

 

His work wasn't effective...it was just bad, and always has been. And I say this as the owner of at least a longbox filled with Liefeld New Mutants.

 

Can anyone...anyone at all...tell me the basic plotline to any of the books that Rob Liefeld wrote and/or plotted? What happened in Youngblood #1? Brigade #1? What is the main thematic element to X-Force #1?

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

When was the last time a discussion about Hal Foster or Alex Raymond took off this fast?

Never, because a thread about their work would go like this:

 

OP: I think Hal Foster/Alex Raymond is great.

 

2nd poster: me too! I love his work on Prince Valiant/Flash Gordon!

 

3rd poster: +1

 

4th poster: this

 

5th poster: Hal Foster/Alex Raymond

 

end of thread

 

My comment wasn't a knock on raymond or foster nor was it an attempt to validate Liefeld's artistic merit. I completely agree with all of you, Rob cannot draw but his work is still evokes emotion from those who are familiar with it. His work..maybe just his name provokes hate. Many artists would kill to have that effect on people.

 

There may not be such a thing as "bad press", but there's certainly an equivalent here. People talk about Liefeld so much because there's a contingency of fans, many of whom were likely young and very impressionable, who continually attempt to justify or validate Liefeld's career or artistic merit, and they're doing it solely because of nostalgia.

 

There are just as many such threads on equivalent boards about Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, or the Star Wars second trilogy...because there are emotionally invested fans who were highly impressionable when the work came out, and feel like any honest evaluation of these "creators" and their work is a personal attack on their own experiences, as if it invalidates how they felt at the time.

 

I was 18 when I discovered Rob Liefeld's art (New Mutants #93, brand new.) I loved it. I thought it was exciting and new and...most importantly...I thought I could get in on the ground floor of "the next McFarlane." And, I did.

 

But then I grew up, and realized that, as exciting as the stuff was, the guy never got better, and he clearly didn't try. Not only that, but he did some immensely questionable things during this time in his career, things that did actual harm to actual people.

 

There's such a thing as being so bad, you're good. Keanu Reeves has made a career out of that. Liefeld was in the right place, at the right time, and hit lightning in a bottle, no doubt about it. And he managed to be just different enough to hold sway over precisely the type of people....teenage boys, who were the biggest consumers of the comics industry at the time...to propel him to "superstar" status.

 

There are plenty of artists who are just as bad as, and worse than, Rob Liefeld. But none of them managed to be in that right place at that right time, with just *enough* talent to carry them into that arena. But with the things Liefeld has done, and the terrible, terrible "art" he has produced, he has become the focal point for all that was bad in the industry in the 90's, and rightfully so....so yes, whenever someone comes along and says "Liefeld was super awesome fantasmo good!!!", you're going to get a strong reaction.

 

That publishers continue to hire him is, I think, out of habit, rather than a desire to really produce anything meaningful. And, of course, there is still that contingency, now grown men in their 30's, who will buy his work in the hopes of hanging on to the excitement they had in their teens. This isn't new. That's why funnybooks sell for millions of dollars in the first place.

 

But the furor has little to nothing to do with Liefeld "as an artist", unlike the arguments about Lichtenstein and Warhol.

 

It is about Liefeld "as a brand", and Liefeld as a "nostalgia factor."

 

It would be unwise to confuse those.

 

[Guest Grails]

And, anyway, good art or bad art...I'm glad we're not all collecting the same art.

 

Amen.

[gambron]

I collect Rob Liefeld's art (I also collect Kirby, Ditko, Adams, Miller, Byrne, Romita, etc) because seeing Cable with giant guns and or Deadpool with a zillion pouches instantly brings me back to being 14 during the height of the boom era. I even re-read his New Mutants and X-Force runs (I also re-read Watchmen and DKR annually) from time to time the same way I eat at Burger King once in a blue moon. Of course I much prefer filet mignon, but a whopper can still hit the spot provided i'm not hung up on complexity of flavor and or having an enlightening culinary experience. People talk about the guy like he's the anti-christ and or the worst artist in the history of the medium. For every infamously "horrible" page he drew there's 10 more like the one below and fans ate it up. The less talented and or less schooled he is, the more impressive his wild success actually is to me. And to take that a step further, I think tearing down Rob Liefeld and his accomplishments is essentially an attack on the taste and opinion of the common man--which is another (pretentious?) conversation completely.

 

I hope no one GOUGES THEIR EYES OUT from looking at the image below and if you do, well, f-ing get over yourself already. It was comics and it was supposed to be fun. It isn't Neal Adams but I find nothing offensive, insulting, or harmful about what Rob was doing. Simply looks like a friggin' comic book to me.

 

 

 

[Brian Peck]

No Feet! Its a Liefeld.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I collect Rob Liefeld's art (I also collect Kirby, Ditko, Adams, Miller, Byrne, Romita, etc)

 

 

Why the need to mention the other creators...? Because it is justification, to others and yourself, that you collect "good" art, as well as "bad" art, and therefore your opinion should be taken more seriously because you DO collect "better stuff too." Is it not so...? Otherwise, why mention them in the same sentence?

 

because seeing Cable with giant guns and or Deadpool with a zillion pouches instantly brings me back to being 14 during the height of the boom era.

 

Yes, and that goes straight to the point I made: nostalgia has clouded your ability to think clearly about Rob Liefeld and his work.

 

I even re-read his New Mutants and X-Force runs (I also re-read Watchmen and DKR annually)

 

Again, why the need to mention the very, very good with the very, very bad, if not the need to "prove" that your opinion is valid, because you also appreciate the best?

 

 

from time to time the same way I eat at Burger King once in a blue moon. Of course I much prefer filet mignon, but a whopper can still hit the spot provided i'm not hung up on complexity of flavor and or having an enlightening culinary experience. People talk about the guy like he's the anti-christ and or the worst artist in the history of the medium.

 

Hyperbole alert.

 

No one says, or has said that, or anything even approaching your first comparison. As to your second comparison...he's not the worst artist in the history of the medium, but he is *certainly* the worst artist who became rich and famous at it.

 

For every infamously "horrible" page he drew there's 10 more like the one below and fans ate it up.

 

That page is just as horrible, if not as infamous, as the rest. This is from #91, and when he was drawing it, #89 had just hit the stands, and Liefeld was not yet "famous." He was still making the attempt at draftsmanship, and Louise was holding his feet to the fire as much as she could.

 

Look at the page critically. In panel 1, how many fingers does Cable have, on either hand? (3) And why is his head not proportionate with his body? And why does his gun thing morph in size AND shape from one panel to the next? Why does Rahne look like a pig, rather than a wolf, in panel 2? Why does Boom Book look like a 90's Little Orphan Annie? (The reflection on her glasses is badly done.) What is pointing out of Caliban's left collarbone? Why are there no backgrounds of any kind? (Because they're difficult to draw.) Why does Liefeld attempt to hide his lack of backgrounds in panel 1 with speed lines? And, most importantly, can anyone tell what is going on, without reading the dialogue? That is the quintessential test of sequential art: does it tell the story without needing the dialogue balloons to do it? All we can see here is that they are walking in water, in what looks to be a sewer of some sort, and they then confront Caliban. And..?

 

And all of it with plenty of hashmarks and other squiggly lines galore, to give the impression on the eye of dynamism. But is it really?

 

I'll give this for Liefeld: he always did a great Warlock. But that was because Warlock never had an established set of rules to begin with.

 

The less talented and or less schooled he is, the more impressive his wild success actually is to me.

 

So, you're impressed because someone who didn't bother to learn the fundamentals of sequential art was successful? Justin Bieber doesn't know the fundamentals of music, and he's wildly successful. Is that impressive? I suppose to a lot of people, it is. But to whom, and why? Barney the dinosaur is wildly successful amongst 3-4 year olds, and has been for two decades. Does that mean Barney is artistically superior?

 

And to take that a step further, I think tearing down Rob Liefeld and his accomplishments is essentially an attack on the taste and opinion of the common man--which is another (pretentious?) conversation completely.

 

Again, hyperbole alert. What you call "tearing down", others might call honest analysis and critique. We live in an age where ANY criticism, no matter how valid, no matter how appropriate, is considered "tearing down" or "attacking" or otherwise harmful and negative.

 

What are Liefeld's "accomplishments", besides convincing millions of teenage (and not so teenage) boys to hand over their money to him by the bucketful? Is that really an accomplishment? Who points to anything Liefeld has done, or has had any hand in, and says "this...THIS is a pinnacle of comic art!"...?

 

And yet, George Perez did Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the Judas Contract, and Infinity Gauntlet, and the New Teen Titans. Totleben and Bissette made Moore's Swamp Thing live. Bolland crafted the Killing Joke. Miller redefined Batman AND Daredevil. Starlin did cosmic like nobody else. Even Jim Lee had Hush, and McFarlane had Amazing.

 

These are the facts: Rob Liefeld does not know, or care about, the fundamentals of sequential storytelling. Rob Liefeld got into the business to make splashy, pose-y pages that he could then sell. Rob Liefeld promised to create books for retailers that were either very late, or never showed up at all, forcing retailers who didn't have a substantial cash reserve to "float" payments to distributors that they could not make back because there was no product to sell, and many of them went out of business as a direct result. This caused real harm to real people, none of whom were ever compensated (or even considered for compensation) by Rob Liefeld. In fact, the distribution situation became so dire as a direct result of Image's failed deliveries on their promises, that the entire system had to be reorganized, and led to the eventual collapse of said system, with only one surviving distributor...Diamond...in control of the entire Direct Market. Rob Liefeld swiped hundreds, if not thousands, of pages and panels from other artists, with no credit or acknowledgement to them, and even some of his most famous "work" is a direct ripoff of what came before (New Mutants #87's cover, vs. Avengers #145.)

 

These are facts, and yet, to some folks, stating these facts is "tearing him down" and, even more hyperbolically, an "attack" on the "taste and opinion of the common man." Silly nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that "the common man" (whoever THAT is) can't, or shouldn't, appreciate better than Liefeld? Who's the snob in this conversation...?

 

No, it's a sound critique of the tastes and opinions of 14 year old boys, whose tastes and opinions should NEVER, at ANY TIME, be taken seriously, for ANY reason.

 

I hope no one GOUGES THEIR EYES OUT from looking at the image below and if you do, well, f-ing get over yourself already. It was comics and it was supposed to be fun. It isn't Neal Adams but I find nothing offensive, insulting, or harmful about what Rob was doing. Simply looks like a friggin' comic book to me.

 

It was supposed to be FUN, not atrocious. Lots and lots of artists manage to be the former, without being the latter.

 

If you find nothing "offensive, insulting, or harmful" about what Rob Liefeld has done, you are either ignorant of the facts, or choose to ignore them to preserve some sense of your 14 year old self's excitement. You are hyper-, over-the-top defensive, because you don't want to sully your memories and feelings of nostalgia.

 

I get it, truly.

 

However...I'll tell you a personal anecdote. When I was 8 or 9, I watched the Poseidon Adventure (1972) on Saturday afternoon TV one day. I thought it was the greatest movie ever made, full of action and adventure, suspense and intrigue. It was, in a word, awesome.

 

Fast forward to 1993-ish, and I'm in college, and at Costco, and see a VHS copy of this "greatest movie in the world" for sale. I buy it. I watch it.

 

Biggest mistake ever. See, what I hadn't learned at that point was that my childhood self had experiences and feelings that, as all children's are, were wildly exaggerated. What was simply awesome to my 8 year old mind could not compete with my now 22 year old intellect, and capacity to not suspend disbelief, because I now knew better.

 

In short: I grew up. I recognized that I had learned many things about life in the interim, things that I couldn't overlook because I was aware of them, and I saw what a claptrap of a movie it really was. And it is, a terrible movie, with plot holes you can drive a truck through, terrible special effects (even for 1972!) and acting so over-the-top melodramatic, it made me gag.

 

So, while I was terribly let down and disappointed, I learned to appreciate that my 8 year old self knew none of those things, and loved it, even if my adult self now knows that, as a piece of filmcraft, it was definitely on the very low end of the scale.

 

It's important for everyone to learn how to not let their nostalgia cloud their reason, and come to a place where they can say "yes, I thought Jar Jar Binks was the greatest creation ever made, but I was 9 when I thought that, and now I'm 24, and while I recognize that my 9 year old self loved and appreciated the character, I can now realize, without sullying my 9 year old self's memories and experiences, what a pathetic and awful creation that character really was."

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's important for everyone to learn how to not let their nostalgia cloud their reason, and come to a place where they can say "yes, I thought Jar Jar Binks was the greatest creation ever made, but I was 9 when I thought that, and now I'm 24, and while I recognize that my 9 year old self loved and appreciated the character, I can now realize, without sullying my 9 year old self's memories and experiences, what a pathetic and awful creation that character really was."

 

I still think Jar Jar is funny. And I'm 39! Peace.

 

Me-sa think you a little crazy for da tink dat Jar-Jar is-a funny!

 

[Eric Seffinga]

Hahaha. For me it wasn't Poseidon Adventure it would be Beastmaster. I mean come on. Dude talks to animals, kicks with a sword. Fights monsters, wizards and mess? Gold right? Oh man, finding it on DVD 10 years ago was the worst mistake. At 11 years old, seeing through the eyes of animals was killer. I still think some of the fantasy concepts kind of would be, but the movie? Holy mess is it bad.

 

Oh and Krull? Tee hee heeee.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hahaha. For me it wasn't Poseidon Adventure it would be Beastmaster. I mean come on. Dude talks to animals, kicks with a sword. Fights monsters, wizards and mess? Gold right? Oh man, finding it on DVD 10 years ago was the worst mistake. At 11 years old, seeing through the eyes of animals was killer. I still think some of the fantasy concepts kind of would be, but the movie? Holy mess is it bad.

 

Oh and Krull? Tee hee heeee.

 

I LOVED Beastmaster. I mean, it had James Evans! Haven't watched it since I was 12.

 

 

 

[Eric Seffinga]

Keep it that way. Seriously. Enjoy that memory intact.

[vodou]

"Everyone on their toes!"

[Eric Seffinga]

Oh mess, now that's unintentional humor at its best.

[1950's war comics]

this excellent post with multiple links deserves a bump

[gambron]

" RockMyAmadeus" all I can say is you can put Rob's work under a microscope all you want and hate until you're blue in the face but you'll never take the fun and fast-food-esque appeal out of it for me and millions of other fans. You've made your point loud and clear. You're a passionate, defensive, completely over-sensitive, Liefeld hater. You refer to me as over-sensitive and all I did was post a one paragraph response essentially saying that what he put onto the comic page was light-hearted, fun, and was appreciated by me and others on that level. There's NO valid rebuttal to that my friend. It's a subjective opinion shared by millions that I felt the need to express as a result of you speaking so vehemently in absolutes. I never really cared if the dude who was a vapor trail from the waist-down, busting out of the panel had an index finger longer than his middle finger. Apparently you do and that's fine, we agree to disagree.

 

Merry Christmas Guys

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eewwnuk]

Merry Christmas! !

[Raymondb0]

I have now read both threads about this gent and find all the thoughts interesting. At the end of the day for me I enjoyed New Mutants/X-Force and Rob taking a hand in creating Domino, Deadpool and Cable at that time was and is significant. His whole Image thing I never got into or really supported.

 

As some people have stated he was a great marketer and brand for a while. Just like Spears and Beiber. There have always been great marketers/brands in art that are not the best or at times even good. This is not just an original comic art situation.

 

I think the error with Liefeld is that people are expecting him to be more than he is. He was fun and dynamic for teenage boys at that time and did a great job. Never thought he was a great artist but I never expected him to be. Just like McDonalds with Fast Food or Spears in Music. They sell a ton of them and there is not a great deal of substance but at that time it was fun. I really think he is more of a 1/2 hit wonder. I would compare him to Vanilla Ice.

 

We are comparing him to some of the greats and to me it is like comparing Vanilla Ice to The Beatles. Why even start that conversation. No good will become of it and is there really any comparison?

 

Gambron I agree with much of what you say. RockMyAmadeus - Are there some other personal issues that you have with Rob as well? I got out after it all blew up but to me there is so much blame to throw around that almost everyone in some part did something that facilitated the mania back then. As some of my good friends know I have a ton of Turok #1's for wallpaper if anyone has a need.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Ray