• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Masters of Anatomy

Started by Davenport,

75 posts in this topic

PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
This is what a concerned MJ looks like

tumblr_maltz81r4F1qcgagno1_400.png

 

Actually that is only one artist's (guessing Ditko but may be wrong) rendition of what a concerned MJ looks like. Does concern show itself the same always? In your example MJ is talking to someone else and is feeding off the conversation. She is talking, verbally expressing her concern. And verbal expression lend itself to a different set of facial profiles than does the Campbell work.

 

In the Campbell art MJ (is that MJ?) is alone and retrospective. She is withdrawn into herself. She is not emoting outward but emoting inward. A very different dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
The fact you thought that was Ditko wins me this artistic debate lol

 

The only reason I thought it was Ditko was the man's face. Very Ditkoish. But who cares. That is not the issue. This is not an artist debate. If you actually feel my incorrect identification of an artist makes my points meaningless, then this whole conversation is meaningless. Because the conversation is not about who drew what.

 

This is is a human debate dealing with how emotions are expressed and represented under different circumstances.

 

You selected a circumstance to demonstrate an emotion that was the polar opposite of the Campbell drawing. You seem totally unaware of that.

 

So I will grant you your knowledge of this artist for this panel is superior. Now how about the core of the conversation after you posted the MJ pic. To recap:

 

In your example MJ is talking to someone else and is feeding off the conversation. She is talking, verbally expressing her concern. And verbal expression lend itself to a different set of facial profiles than does the Campbell work.

 

In the Campbell art MJ (is that MJ?) is alone and retrospective. She is withdrawn into herself. She is not emoting outward but emoting inward. A very different dynamic.

 

I am interested in your take on this, which is which is what the actual conversation is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted

well part of a comic artists job is to exaggerate to tell a story. The MJ on couch just looks blase, not an exaggerated expression of concern. Taken out of context if you saw that panel and the word balloon was 'yeah make me some pancakes' it would not seem disjointed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
well part of a comic artists job is to exaggerate to tell a story. The MJ on couch just looks blase, not an exaggerated expression of concern. Taken out of context if you saw that panel and the word balloon was 'yeah make me some pancakes' it would not seem disjointed.

 

Well, to me, "Make me some pancakes" would make me be "Huh? What?" in regards that panel.

 

I admit a poor artist will always exaggerate to tell a store. A good artist will use nuance and subtly as much if not more than exaggeration. Must every raised eyebrow be 4 inches above the brow line? Or is a slightly raised eyebrow more effective?

 

Exaggerated poses/renderings are insulting to the reader. They say "You are too stupid to get this. So let me make it even clearer for you."

 

Or they speak to the artist and say "I, as an artist, lack the insight to convey subtler emotions so I'll just nag it out here. OH YEAH!!! That's COOL!!!"

 

The same goes for writing as well. It is what makes some storylines really effective and others feeling like an Intro To Writing class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted

By this logic Kirby sucked-bad

And, an artist who always draws the same facial expression with only tiny changes like slightly raised eyebrows is a GENIUS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
You're C. Thomas Howell.

 

:frustrated: Macchio vs Howell. Howell was SUCH an over-actor in things like KINDRED: THE EMBRACED as Frank Kohanek (which, yeah, I have on DVD although they screwed the music which was better in the oringnal VHS) but he toned down his acting as he got older. So now I am not sure what is happening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted
By this logic Kirby sucked-bad

 

Will you just address the freaking point that emotions expressed in a conversation with another person extrovertedly can be portrayed very differently than emotions expressed when alone and introvertedly?

 

Gawd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dupont2005

dupont2005

Posted
Posted
In that case her face doesn't match the pose. It looks unconcerned.

 

Arched eyebrows. Down-turned mouth. A pensive and concerned look. But while I know nothing of any modern Spiderman stories (around the 20 centers is when I stopped except for a brief foray into the 252 black costume bit) my assumption is she has an interest in Spidey. She is wearing a Spidey t-shirt. And the pic on the wall - no idea but it could be her and Parker (or whoever Spidey is today).

 

So if she does have an interest in him, real or just imagined, she seems concerned for him.

Nothing says concern like squeezing your tits together and staring blankly at the wall
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
In that case her face doesn't match the pose. It looks unconcerned.

 

Arched eyebrows. Down-turned mouth. A pensive and concerned look. But while I know nothing of any modern Spiderman stories (around the 20 centers is when I stopped except for a brief foray into the 252 black costume bit) my assumption is she has an interest in Spidey. She is wearing a Spidey t-shirt. And the pic on the wall - no idea but it could be her and Parker (or whoever Spidey is today).

 

So if she does have an interest in him, real or just imagined, she seems concerned for him.

Nothing says concern like squeezing your tits together and staring blankly at the wall

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dupont2005

dupont2005

Posted
Posted
well part of a comic artists job is to exaggerate to tell a story. The MJ on couch just looks blase, not an exaggerated expression of concern. Taken out of context if you saw that panel and the word balloon was 'yeah make me some pancakes' it would not seem disjointed.

 

Well, to me, "Make me some pancakes" would make me be "Huh? What?" in regards that panel.

 

I admit a poor artist will always exaggerate to tell a store. A good artist will use nuance and subtly as much if not more than exaggeration. Must every raised eyebrow be 4 inches above the brow line? Or is a slightly raised eyebrow more effective?

 

Exaggerated poses/renderings are insulting to the reader. They say "You are too stupid to get this. So let me make it even clearer for you."

 

Or they speak to the artist and say "I, as an artist, lack the insight to convey subtler emotions so I'll just nag it out here. OH YEAH!!! That's COOL!!!"

 

The same goes for writing as well. It is what makes some storylines really effective and others feeling like an Intro To Writing class.

Yeah, J Scott Campbell is all about subtlety because he's such a great artist. I mean, every woman he draws has a completely unique face and body. It's totally not the same chick in different outfits or anything.

 

His layouts to Danger Girl are hard to get past. It's jarring to the eyes, almost unreadable. In fact, I had to put that TPB down twice before I slugged through it. I see why he only does covers now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing