• 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.

Worst modern covers ever
3 3

Started by Aweandlorder,

561 posts in this topic

SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Can you really separate objectivism in art? 

Generally, yes. People who are critiquing something should be able to tell when something is competently executed regardless of whether or not they don't particularly like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This thread is about understanding that we all dont think alike and find certain things in life to be artistically offensive whereas others find them to be gorgeous maserpieces

Or.... its just a thread showcasing really really really ridiculous commercial art pieces done with no thought in mind other than making a deadline

Have your pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ygogolak

ygogolak

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

Generally, yes. People who are critiquing something should be able to tell when something is competently executed regardless of whether or not they don't particularly like it.

Correct, I like what I like as do you. But there is no correct or incorrect as it is not a math problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of comic book readers and fans fall within a relatively well defined band when it comes to what they like (and don't like) - that is why we so rarely see a Cubist or Post Impressionist issue of Batman. As I've said a number of times, of course art is subjective and individual examples may mean different things to different people, but to act like tastes are subject to wildly swing from one randomly selected comic fan to the next? I don't think so. There is far more overlap in what people like and dislike; after all, comics are generally a commercial endeavor.

Comics are part of the 'popular culture' for many reasons, but an easily defensible core reason is because they service a relatively wide band of general interest with their art and stories. This isn't my attempt to say that everything is blandly filtered towards an industry norm, just that most things are. There are plenty of "acquired tastes" in comics, including some of the generally revered figures like Kirby, Steranko, and Liefeld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ygogolak

ygogolak

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of comic book readers and fans fall within a relatively well defined band when it comes to what they like (and don't like) - that is why we so rarely see a Cubist or Post Impressionist issue of Batman. As I've said a number of times, of course art is subjective and individual examples may mean different things to different people, but to act like tastes are subject to wildly swing from one randomly selected comic fan to the next? I don't think so. There is far more overlap in what people like and dislike; after all, comics are generally a commercial endeavor.

Comics are part of the 'popular culture' for many reasons, but an easily defensible core reason is because they service a relatively wide band of general interest with their art and stories. This isn't my attempt to say that everything is blandly filtered towards an industry norm, just that most things are. There are plenty of "acquired tastes" in comics, including some of the generally revered figures like Kirby, Steranko, and Liefeld.

Ha, OK. So why did you ask this question then because you are saying they are the same thing basically.

On 10/21/2017 at 10:55 PM, SquareChaos said:

So what is this thread about? Covers that specific individuals dislike, or covers that are objectively bad?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Ha, OK. So why did you ask this question then because you are saying they are the same thing basically.

 

Either I widely missed the mark in attempting to convey what I'm thinking or you're missing my point.

 

As simply as I can state it, there is such a thing as objectively bad; we don't each create our own art standards out of nothingness, unique to ourselves, however, people seem to enjoy acting like that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ygogolak

ygogolak

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SquareChaos said:

Either I widely missed the mark in attempting to convey what I'm thinking or you're missing my point.

 

As simply as I can state it, there is such a thing as objectively bad; we don't each create our own art standards out of nothingness, unique to ourselves, however, people seem to enjoy acting like that is the case.

I was definitely the first one to like Dell Otto's work. Then everyone else followed me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

I was definitely the first one to like Dell Otto's work. Then everyone else followed me.

That is the real power of a spectrum like this when talking about most commercial endeavors - you and I are most likely irrelevant as individuals ('most likely' as there is some possibility that you are a trend setter or market manipulator), our group think is what makes or loses the publisher money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing