Unfairly Beating Up On Rob Liefeld...

[gambron]

And one last addendum to my opinion on Liefeld's work and success is the notion of "artistic intent" which is often spoken about in art circles of all kinds. My point would be that artistic intent is broad and certainly not universal. Therefore art be it comic or otherwise, shouldn't be viewed through a universal, objective lens. I think things can be appreciated for their intent and judged accordingly. Of course things can be judged by any set of rules and or criteria but I think intent is as valid as any.

 

Rob Liefeld's intent was to be fun, hyperbolic, dynamic, and to sell comic books. At age 39 and 25 years later I can still appreciate him in that context even with all of the nostalgia stripped away. I could easily scoff at Watchmen for being visually quite static and lacking dynamism or DKR for being loaded with laughable anatomy and almost child-like rendering at times. But if I were to do so i'd be ignoring the intent of the creators which I think is one of the most important things to keep in mind when trying to understand whatever statement that they're trying to make.

 

K

[RockMyAmadeus]

" 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem you have is that you look at this critique as "hate." Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

This is very common these days, as people consider their feelings on any particular matter to be more important than reason. This is unproductive. You respond emotionally, as evidenced by your "You're a passionate, defensive, completely over-sensitive, Liefeld hater" line, which is made out of pure emotion, devoid of all reason. You mistake honest evaluation with "speaking vehemently in absolutes" (when there was neither.) This is emotion speaking.

 

I will point out: you were the one who posted that NM #91 page as an example of a "good" piece of art by Liefeld. If you are willing to overlook what are several glaring flaws, by all means, that's your right, and if it allows you to enjoy the page, great. Let me say that again, because it has been missed: if you are willing to overlook the flaws and enjoy the page, great, and you have every right to. No one is trying to take that away from you. As I pointed out earlier, I, too, enjoyed his art for what it was, at the time it was being produced. But because I recognize how widely flawed it was now, you can simply brush aside that fact, and just call me a "hater"? Again...lacking in reason.

 

But don't then hold up that page as an example of "what comics are supposed to be" when there are far, far superior contemporaneous works of comic art that were being produced, and are still being produced.

 

And...I'll have to take issue with your claim that "millions" appreciated his art, even at the time it was being produced. Even at the height of his career, I suspect you would have been hard pressed to find even 100,000 who agreed with you.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RockMyAmadeus - Are there some other personal issues that you have with Rob as well?

 

No. And nothing I've said could reasonably be concluded to construe that.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

 

Personally, I think Pigsbane has potential.

 

 

This is her first appearance! That's it, I'm buying 50 more copies...

 

[delekkerste]

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.

 

 

I'm glad we're not all collecting the same art as well! And, to be clear, I have zero issue at all with people collecting Liefeld's art or collecting out of teenage nostalgia in general - I've bid on Liefeld's art at auction and some of what I collect myself has everything to do with teenage nostalgia and my past experience as a comic book collector, and little to do with technical skill, artistic stature, etc. Not that I don't also collect for reasons other than nostalgia, but I certainly don't limit my collecting to pieces exhibiting great technical skill, beautiful aesthetics and/or are from series of great historical importance or critical acclaim.

 

That said, you and I both know collectors who would greatly like comic art to be appreciated as an art form that is appreciated on its own aesthetic/artistic merits with its own rich history. They tend to view Rob Liefeld NM art selling for big bucks (or Spidey/Hulk nut-punch covers or Herb Trimpe Hulk #180 pages) as not really advancing the dialogue of the hobby in the direction that they want it to go. But, to me, that's OK - this hobby, IMO, will never be a standalone art form in the way that painting or sculpture is. It will always be attached at the hip to the comic book hobby, and, as such, teenage nostalgia and other non-artistic factors will always play a prominent role in the motivation of OA collectors.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And one last addendum to my opinion on Liefeld's work and success is the notion of "artistic intent" which is often spoken about in art circles of all kinds. My point would be that artistic intent is broad and certainly not universal. Therefore art be it comic or otherwise, shouldn't be viewed through a universal, objective lens. I think things can be appreciated for their intent and judged accordingly. Of course things can be judged by any set of rules and or criteria but I think intent is as valid as any.

 

Rob Liefeld's intent was to be fun, hyperbolic, dynamic, and to sell comic books. At age 39 and 25 years later I can still appreciate him in that context even with all of the nostalgia stripped away. I could easily scoff at Watchmen for being visually quite static and lacking dynamism or DKR for being loaded with laughable anatomy and almost child-like rendering at times. But if I were to do so i'd be ignoring the intent of the creators which I think is one of the most important things to keep in mind when trying to understand whatever statement that they're trying to make.

 

K

 

Yes, but you'll never find Pigsbane in either Watchmen OR the Dark Knight.

 

 

And the road to hell is paved with.......

[gambron]

I think Pigsbane as you put it would fit right in on this page. Perhaps you should do a critical analysis (with the same set of criteria) of this page in a new thread.

 

[Nexus]

Not saying Miller is perfect, but this one's on Klaus. Published version has Miller redoing some of the panels. You'll find a lot of that throughout DKR.

 

Wonky inks aside, the page still works sequentially.

[gambron]

That's the point Felix. One gets so wrapped up in the mood and visual story-telling that we don't notice hands with 3 fingers, people without ears, and so on. The same way that Liefeld's fans are so absorbed in hyperbolic characters busting out of panels, kicking the out of each other, and jumping out at you to notice that they have small feet, fingers that aren't the right length etc.

 

I mean even on the 650k splash heard around the world one of Batman's arms is noticeably longer than the other. If that was Liefeld the piece would be in countless forums, blogs, and so on. I'm not comparing Frank Miller to Rob Liefeld because their intent couldn't have been more different. All i'm saying is that the same way we judge Miller for his intent (ground-breaking as it was), we should also judge Liefeld for his (light-hearted fun for teenage boys and not really ground-breaking at all). Lofty or not they both succeeded in their own way.

 

K

[RockMyAmadeus]

Not saying Miller is perfect, but this one's on Klaus. Published version has Miller redoing some of the panels. You'll find a lot of that throughout DKR.

 

Wonky inks aside, the page still works sequentially.

 

Yup.

 

Notice the significant lack of dialogue. Four balloons, 19 total words on the page, and you can tell pretty much what's happening.

 

There are almost as many words in the first balloon by Warlock as there are on the entire DK page.

 

There are (about) 137 words on the NM page. Not that words, in and of themselves, are bad...but when the art doesn't help move the story along, when it's just "cool poses", it serves no function in "sequential art."

 

Not that Miller is perfect...but there's just no comparison.

[gambron]

Certainly no comparison on many levels but if you champion Dark Knight Returns you are a hypocrite if you make a single disparaging remark about the anatomy on a Liefeld page (which you and many other DKR fans have made many). I'll buy an argument about the shallowness of his intent but don't talk to me about feet, wolves and hands not looking quite right, etc in the same breath as holding DKR up as the gold standard. Can't have it both ways my friend.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's the point Felix. One gets so wrapped up in the mood and visual story-telling that we don't notice hands with 3 fingers, people without ears, and so on. The same way that Liefeld's fans are so absorbed in hyperbolic characters busting out of panels, kicking the out of each other, and jumping out at you to notice that they have small feet, fingers that aren't the right length etc.

 

I mean even on the 650k splash heard around the world one of Batman's arms is noticeably longer than the other. If that was Liefeld the piece would be in countless forums, blogs, and so on. I'm not comparing Frank Miller to Rob Liefeld because their intent couldn't have been more different. All i'm saying is that the same way we judge Miller for his intent (ground-breaking as it was), we should also judge Liefeld for his (light-hearted fun for teenage boys and not really ground-breaking at all). Lofty or not they both succeeded in their own way.

 

K

 

I know what Liefeld's intent was, because he made it plain to his co-creators: to make splashy, pose-filled pages that would be published, so he could sell them for a lot of money.

 

Those are Louise Simonson's own words.

 

He didn't care about sequential art, he did not care about storytelling, he did not care about the artform...he just wanted to make money by drawing posters published in comic book form. That was his intent.

 

You attempt to re-write history by defending Liefeld, saying "he didn't INTEND to do serious comic art, he was just having lighthearted FUN! You can't take his work SERIOUSLY! He was clearly just doing it to impress the teens!"

 

No, he was doing it to make money (not that making money is a bad thing), and he didn't care one whit about doing something "fun" for the "fans." He just wanted those fans to spend their money on his work, good, bad, or otherwise.

 

You cannot excuse blatant incompetence as "don't take it so seriously! It was meant to be awful!" It was shoddy work then, and it remains shoddy work now, regardless of how one wishes to retcon.

 

Good is good, and bad is bad. Barney is not high art, but at least it doesn't pretend to be. Liefeld pretended to be. There are no "intended for immature readers" or "intended for younger audiences only" labels on any of the books he has done.

[Nexus]

That's the point Felix. One gets so wrapped up in the mood and visual story-telling that we don't notice hands with 3 fingers, people without ears, and so on. The same way that Liefeld's fans are so absorbed in hyperbolic characters busting out of panels, kicking the out of each other, and jumping out at you to notice that they have small feet, fingers that aren't the right length etc.

 

I mean even on the 650k splash heard around the world one of Batman's arms is noticeably longer than the other. If that was Liefeld the piece would be in countless forums, blogs, and so on. I'm not comparing Frank Miller to Rob Liefeld because their intent couldn't have been more different. All i'm saying is that the same way we judge Miller for his intent (ground-breaking as it was), we should also judge Liefeld for his (light-hearted fun for teenage boys and not really ground-breaking at all). Lofty or not they both succeeded in their own way.

 

K

 

Well, Frank noticed! It's why he redrew those panels and stopped working with Klaus.

 

Re: Liefeld, sounds like his comics had the same appeal as pro wrestling. I get that like I get the McDonalds analogy. It's salty and greasy and tastes good. But can we at least agree that McDonalds is total garbage?

 

I'm not a stickler for perfect anatomy from comic artists, but at least be able to tell a story in your chosen medium. I'll put it this way: If Miller drew figures EXACTLY like Liefeld (i.e. no feet et al.), but still retained his sequential storytelling skills, and still told his stories, there's no way the art would have the same reputation that Liefeld's does now. Because there's still something going on. Liefeld, like McDonalds, is just a lot of empty calories.

 

Having said that, I agree with Gene's last post 100%. We all have a lot of empty calories when it comes to nostalgia. I said that I'd be perfectly OK if Liefeld's career never happened...but if I was 10 years younger, I might want something from him, too. So I'm not judging you or anyone who likes Liefeld's art. We all like what we like.

[RockMyAmadeus]

We all have a lot of empty calories when it comes to nostalgia.

 

 

This is a great quote. I'm stealing it.

 

[gambron]

That's the point Felix. One gets so wrapped up in the mood and visual story-telling that we don't notice hands with 3 fingers, people without ears, and so on. The same way that Liefeld's fans are so absorbed in hyperbolic characters busting out of panels, kicking the out of each other, and jumping out at you to notice that they have small feet, fingers that aren't the right length etc.

 

I mean even on the 650k splash heard around the world one of Batman's arms is noticeably longer than the other. If that was Liefeld the piece would be in countless forums, blogs, and so on. I'm not comparing Frank Miller to Rob Liefeld because their intent couldn't have been more different. All i'm saying is that the same way we judge Miller for his intent (ground-breaking as it was), we should also judge Liefeld for his (light-hearted fun for teenage boys and not really ground-breaking at all). Lofty or not they both succeeded in their own way.

 

K

 

I know what Liefeld's intent was, because he made it plain to his co-creators: to make splashy, pose-filled pages that would be published, so he could sell them for a lot of money.

 

Those are Louise Simonson's own words.

 

He didn't care about sequential art, he did not care about storytelling, he did not care about the artform...he just wanted to make money by drawing posters published in comic book form. That was his intent.

 

You attempt to re-write history by defending Liefeld, saying "he didn't INTEND to do serious comic art, he was just having lighthearted FUN! You can't take his work SERIOUSLY! He was clearly just doing it to impress the teens!"

 

No, he was doing it to make money (not that making money is a bad thing), and he didn't care one whit about doing something "fun" for the "fans." He just wanted those fans to spend their money on his work, good, bad, or otherwise.

 

You cannot excuse blatant incompetence as "don't take it so seriously! It was meant to be awful!" It was shoddy work then, and it remains shoddy work now, regardless of how one wishes to retcon.

 

Good is good, and bad is bad. Barney is not high art, but at least it doesn't pretend to be. Liefeld pretended to be. There are no "intended for immature readers" or "intended for younger audiences only" labels on any of the books he has done.

 

This is starting to sound so desperate i'll allow it to speak for itself and not further the discussion.

[gambron]

 

Well, Frank noticed! It's why he redrew those panels and stopped working with Klaus.

 

Re: Liefeld, sounds like his comics had the same appeal as pro wrestling. I get that like I get the McDonalds analogy. It's salty and greasy and tastes good. But can we at least agree that McDonalds is total garbage?

 

I'm not a stickler for perfect anatomy from comic artists, but at least be able to tell a story in your chosen medium. I'll put it this way: If Miller drew figures EXACTLY like Liefeld (i.e. no feet et al.), but still retained his sequential storytelling skills, and still told his stories, there's no way the art would have the same reputation that Liefeld's does now. Because there's still something going on. Liefeld, like McDonalds, is just a lot of empty calories.

 

Having said that, I agree with Gene's last post 100%. We all have a lot of empty calories when it comes to nostalgia. I said that I'd be perfectly OK if Liefeld's career never happened...but if I was 10 years younger, I might want something from him, too. So I'm not judging you or anyone who likes Liefeld's art. We all like what we like.

 

Felix i'm with you bro. Contrary to what it sounds like I too would be fine if Liefeld never happened. All I was ever trying to say was that I casually appreciate him for what he was on a very light-hearted level. You know me and you know how I feel about Miller so we'll leave that at that.

 

Merry Christmas Bro!

 

K

[Nexus]

Merry Christmas, Ken!

 

Happy Holidays to everyone!

 

(I'm laid up with pneumonia, which sucks, but it's allowed me to catch up on my Netflix queue. One movie I watched is GOON, about a bouncer who gets recruited to a hockey team to be an enforcer. He has no hockey skills-- he can't even skate-- but he can fight. He can do one thing only, which is knock people out. An affront to hockey purists, but the crowd loves the violence. I just realized that Liefeld is kinda like that guy.)

[RockMyAmadeus]

Certainly no comparison on many levels but if you champion Dark Knight Returns you are a hypocrite if you make a single disparaging remark about the anatomy on a Liefeld page (which you and many other DKR fans have made many). I'll buy an argument about the shallowness of his intent but don't talk to me about feet, wolves and hands not looking quite right, etc in the same breath as holding DKR up as the gold standard. Can't have it both ways my friend.

 

You're trying to introduce a false dichotomy into the argument, that is, "you cannot disparage Liefeld's art if you don't also disparage the work of others, or you are a hypocrite." It doesn't work that way. It's not an either/or situation.

 

No one has said "Liefeld sucks! Everyone else is perfect!" as you imply here. No one held DK up as "the gold standard", and no one has said Miller is perfect, so your dichotomy necessarily fails. Again: YOU were the one who introduced a Miller DK page into the discussion. No one else posted it and said "look! THIS is perfection, see?" Who "championed" it as comic art perfection? Nobody.

 

I judge Liefeld's art against the standards of sequential art itself, not against other artists. One doesn't need to point out the errors in the work of other artists to effectively demonstrate the errors in Liefeld's work.

 

But even if they did, you can very much have it both ways: Miller's art, in every objective, quantifiable way, is far superior to Liefeld's. It's silly to state that "well, if you criticize Liefeld's art, you best be prepared to criticize everyone else's, too!" because that's a given, a granted...but not a necessity.

 

You think with your feelings.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(I'm laid up with pneumonia, which sucks,)

 

Does that mean you're not going to the Expo...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's the point Felix. One gets so wrapped up in the mood and visual story-telling that we don't notice hands with 3 fingers, people without ears, and so on. The same way that Liefeld's fans are so absorbed in hyperbolic characters busting out of panels, kicking the out of each other, and jumping out at you to notice that they have small feet, fingers that aren't the right length etc.

 

I mean even on the 650k splash heard around the world one of Batman's arms is noticeably longer than the other. If that was Liefeld the piece would be in countless forums, blogs, and so on. I'm not comparing Frank Miller to Rob Liefeld because their intent couldn't have been more different. All i'm saying is that the same way we judge Miller for his intent (ground-breaking as it was), we should also judge Liefeld for his (light-hearted fun for teenage boys and not really ground-breaking at all). Lofty or not they both succeeded in their own way.

 

K

 

I know what Liefeld's intent was, because he made it plain to his co-creators: to make splashy, pose-filled pages that would be published, so he could sell them for a lot of money.

 

Those are Louise Simonson's own words.

 

He didn't care about sequential art, he did not care about storytelling, he did not care about the artform...he just wanted to make money by drawing posters published in comic book form. That was his intent.

 

You attempt to re-write history by defending Liefeld, saying "he didn't INTEND to do serious comic art, he was just having lighthearted FUN! You can't take his work SERIOUSLY! He was clearly just doing it to impress the teens!"

 

No, he was doing it to make money (not that making money is a bad thing), and he didn't care one whit about doing something "fun" for the "fans." He just wanted those fans to spend their money on his work, good, bad, or otherwise.

 

You cannot excuse blatant incompetence as "don't take it so seriously! It was meant to be awful!" It was shoddy work then, and it remains shoddy work now, regardless of how one wishes to retcon.

 

Good is good, and bad is bad. Barney is not high art, but at least it doesn't pretend to be. Liefeld pretended to be. There are no "intended for immature readers" or "intended for younger audiences only" labels on any of the books he has done.

 

This is starting to sound so desperate i'll allow it to speak for itself and not further the discussion.

 

 

Okey dokey.

 

There's desperation somewhere, but I'm not so sure it rests with me.