With technology scattering pop culture like never before... 1 1

[Nexus]

If OA needed lettering to enjoy it, someone better tell the owner of the complete G.I. JOE #21!

 

I do understand where you're coming from. But I'll take 1/5 or 1/6 of a storyline I LIKE over 1/1 of a story I'm "eh" about.

 

As it is, I've sold over 30 complete issues of various indie titles in the last couple of years. No complaints yet!

 

Yes, that's it. But also, the "limitations" really are mostly (maybe only?) perceived by us older collectors, who know the difference. For the new fan, all that matters is that it's the art to a book they like. We can all point to older art that looks "better" because of this or that, but if that art isn't something they know or care about, then why would they care?

 

There's a difference between a story designed to be told without words, and just zapping all the narration & dialogue out of a story! Yes, older collectors have biases', but I think it's being a bit overblown here. The reality is that Modern OA is simply less complete than vintage in portraying the finished product. Comics are words + pictures, not just pictures. Can you imagine if strip art OA was missing the dialogue because it was lettered digitally? I don't think one has to be steeped in older OA to miss the absence of narration and dialogue on the Modern OA board and recognize that it is a limitation on its appeal. Anyone who reads a modern comic is going to see that the art is missing a lot of vital components from the published material. Sure, if you love the source material enough, it won't matter - definitely not disputing that. But, I do think it limits the appeal, because not everyone will fully accept the limitations.

 

Also, I'm not surprised that you've sold so many complete Modern indie books. I feel that fact actually bolsters my argument! Yes, when you buy a complete Modern story, you're still missing the words, but, over the course of 22 pages, you have something that feels more substantial and is easier to both present and contextualize. I was looking over the Paper Girls art you posted the other day (someone gave me the first TPB as a Christmas gift). I'm sure there are many younger fans, and those who don't have lots of money to spend on this hobby, who would just like the best piece of the series that they can afford. But, I consider myself to be a reasonably serious OA collector - if I just want to get one example from a particular run or series, I want something that presents well, is very representative, works well as a standalone, something I can be happy with as a "one-and-done" example. It is simply very hard to find that in Modern OA interiors due to the nature of decompressed storytelling, and I think the Chiang art you posted was not an exception. Which is why I think owning a complete book helps alleviate a lot of that problem - while it may be hard to find one page that encapsulates everything you'd want in an example of a Modern title, owning a whole book usually does the trick!

 

Of course, in a perfect world, (with the few exceptions that Eric noted) OA pages would have the published lettering. That's the ideal. I just don't believe that some random '70s page by a fill-in-the-name Bullpen clock-puncher is automatically superior and more desirable than say, a textless modern Mignola HELLBOY page. Because the former has word balloons and the story isn't decompressed (but mostly because it's from the right era).

 

Just gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

(Not saying that's your position, either...just how some of the posts in this thread have read to me.)

[MyNameIsLegion]

If OA needed lettering to enjoy it, someone better tell the owner of the complete G.I. JOE #21!

 

I do understand where you're coming from. But I'll take 1/5 or 1/6 of a storyline I LIKE over 1/1 of a story I'm "eh" about.

 

As it is, I've sold over 30 complete issues of various indie titles in the last couple of years. No complaints yet!

 

Yes, that's it. But also, the "limitations" really are mostly (maybe only?) perceived by us older collectors, who know the difference. For the new fan, all that matters is that it's the art to a book they like. We can all point to older art that looks "better" because of this or that, but if that art isn't something they know or care about, then why would they care?

 

There's a difference between a story designed to be told without words, and just zapping all the narration & dialogue out of a story! Yes, older collectors have biases', but I think it's being a bit overblown here. The reality is that Modern OA is simply less complete than vintage in portraying the finished product. Comics are words + pictures, not just pictures. Can you imagine if strip art OA was missing the dialogue because it was lettered digitally? I don't think one has to be steeped in older OA to miss the absence of narration and dialogue on the Modern OA board and recognize that it is a limitation on its appeal. Anyone who reads a modern comic is going to see that the art is missing a lot of vital components from the published material. Sure, if you love the source material enough, it won't matter - definitely not disputing that. But, I do think it limits the appeal, because not everyone will fully accept the limitations.

 

Also, I'm not surprised that you've sold so many complete Modern indie books. I feel that fact actually bolsters my argument! Yes, when you buy a complete Modern story, you're still missing the words, but, over the course of 22 pages, you have something that feels more substantial and is easier to both present and contextualize. I was looking over the Paper Girls art you posted the other day (someone gave me the first TPB as a Christmas gift). I'm sure there are many younger fans, and those who don't have lots of money to spend on this hobby, who would just like the best piece of the series that they can afford. But, I consider myself to be a reasonably serious OA collector - if I just want to get one example from a particular run or series, I want something that presents well, is very representative, works well as a standalone, something I can be happy with as a "one-and-done" example. It is simply very hard to find that in Modern OA interiors due to the nature of decompressed storytelling, and I think the Chiang art you posted was not an exception. Which is why I think owning a complete book helps alleviate a lot of that problem - while it may be hard to find one page that encapsulates everything you'd want in an example of a Modern title, owning a whole book usually does the trick!

 

+1- I've been saying pretty much the same things as Gene all day, he's just nicer about it, and I've had more caffeine than sleep so I'm not sugar coating anything (but I'm not especially annoyed with anyone either, it's still a fun debate)

[stinkininkin]

I will also continue to beat this one dead horse however, because it's the most relevant detail in this entire discussion IMO. Modern OA as compared to older OA. The page you saw as a kid in that comic cannot be experienced in the same was as it once was by purchasing the OA. I have sequential pages of multiple books, and I can pretty much read the entire story just from the OA, just like reading a Marvel Essential or a DC Showcase in B&W.

 

Try doing that with Modern OA. Do you collect the pencils, with the inked blue line, and then xerox a page from the comics to see WTF was going one? Not to mention the digital color effects that were added, so most of the backgrounds in the OA are blank? That's what I mean by soulless. It's just . Let's not mince words. It's a novelty at best. Maybe some 25 year old will drop 200 bucks on a page or two, but they are never going to amass the sorts of collections some of us have, because they didn't start with collecting boxes and boxes of comics. They are consumers of content, not collectors. They read them on their phone. It's disposable entertainment. Fleeting, like Gene's bad Chinese food.

 

 

 

My goodness, it's a wonder *any* modern art sells at all!

 

It's not for you. We get it.

 

But not everyone collects for the same reasons you do. I don't buy OA so I can read the story in a larger format (which appears to be very important to you). Sequences are nice, but I've never collected soley so I could put together multiple consecutive pages.

 

Not all modern art is how you describe it, either.

 

It may still be to you, but sorry to say, the majority of comics is . The majority of everything is . I find it somewhat amusing that '70s Marvel/DC OA is placed on a pedestal, because the page has word balloons and the action isn't decompressed. Which, in the vast majority of cases, just means there's more hacky writing, and more editorially-mandated superhero wheel-spinning, to endure in the art.

 

I suspect this is mostly coming from someone who hasn't read many new comics in the last 20 years, and overall, is mostly limited to Big 2 fare. Nothing wrong with that. But it's an incomplete picture of comics. And not enough experience to make these sort of blanket statements.

 

 

Oh my goodness, I don't recall ever reading this sentiment here (see bold). My peak comic period was the the 70's (I was 10 years old in 1970), and for a year or two, about 1972-1974, I bought EVERYTHING, and it didn't take me long to realize there was magic on those spinner racks, but that 90% of it was CR@P. So yeah, every comic era is awash in garbage. And every era has true gems. Seek out the good stuff. Ignore the rest. That is all.

 

Scott

[SquareChaos]

The more I read here the more I realize many may have an idolized view on compressed story telling. As I'm sure we are all aware, compressed comics are artificial creatures, the practice was editorially imposed and has business and financial considerations as it's roots. Compressed story telling is not an artistic natural law, it comes about as the result of the mandate that a funny book story should fit inside 22 pages - make it so.

 

It seems as if many of us, myself sometimes included, are struggling to form an argument centered around the premise that this accident of compressed story telling results in superior collectibles because... they tick off all of the components necessary to be identified as an example of compressed story telling?

 

Decompressed techniques arguably only exist because creators have gained more creative control. If compressed comics are the superior format, then why aren't there more modern comics created in the compressed style? Can you tell a long form, complex story in a compressed way without severely lowering the bar on the scripting side? While we all may love comics from the Silver Age, I would be surprised if we can't all agree that the writing, in general, failed to match the quality and narrative complexity found in your average modern story arc.

 

Opinions may differ, but I personally don't believe that we see many of the high watermarks of this medium without a fundamental shift in thinking towards longer form storytelling, and I think that shift inevitably leads to decompression.

 

[SquareChaos]

If OA needed lettering to enjoy it, someone better tell the owner of the complete G.I. JOE #21!

 

I do understand where you're coming from. But I'll take 1/5 or 1/6 of a storyline I LIKE over 1/1 of a story I'm "eh" about.

 

As it is, I've sold over 30 complete issues of various indie titles in the last couple of years. No complaints yet!

 

Yes, that's it. But also, the "limitations" really are mostly (maybe only?) perceived by us older collectors, who know the difference. For the new fan, all that matters is that it's the art to a book they like. We can all point to older art that looks "better" because of this or that, but if that art isn't something they know or care about, then why would they care?

 

There's a difference between a story designed to be told without words, and just zapping all the narration & dialogue out of a story! Yes, older collectors have biases', but I think it's being a bit overblown here. The reality is that Modern OA is simply less complete than vintage in portraying the finished product. Comics are words + pictures, not just pictures. Can you imagine if strip art OA was missing the dialogue because it was lettered digitally? I don't think one has to be steeped in older OA to miss the absence of narration and dialogue on the Modern OA board and recognize that it is a limitation on its appeal. Anyone who reads a modern comic is going to see that the art is missing a lot of vital components from the published material. Sure, if you love the source material enough, it won't matter - definitely not disputing that. But, I do think it limits the appeal, because not everyone will fully accept the limitations.

 

Also, I'm not surprised that you've sold so many complete Modern indie books. I feel that fact actually bolsters my argument! Yes, when you buy a complete Modern story, you're still missing the words, but, over the course of 22 pages, you have something that feels more substantial and is easier to both present and contextualize. I was looking over the Paper Girls art you posted the other day (someone gave me the first TPB as a Christmas gift). I'm sure there are many younger fans, and those who don't have lots of money to spend on this hobby, who would just like the best piece of the series that they can afford. But, I consider myself to be a reasonably serious OA collector - if I just want to get one example from a particular run or series, I want something that presents well, is very representative, works well as a standalone, something I can be happy with as a "one-and-done" example. It is simply very hard to find that in Modern OA interiors due to the nature of decompressed storytelling, and I think the Chiang art you posted was not an exception. Which is why I think owning a complete book helps alleviate a lot of that problem - while it may be hard to find one page that encapsulates everything you'd want in an example of a Modern title, owning a whole book usually does the trick!

 

Sequential art is words + image, but it is primarily a visual medium... otherwise I think modern OA would be dead in the water, or some paste up solution would be more common.

 

The lack of narrative does make me pickier when I shop modern art, absolutely, but I also have not yet had trouble finding a purely visual page that told a section of story that was easily understood... it isn't as difficult as some may think to accomplish this. Of course, I don't really buy anything from the Big Two, so almost everything I look at that is modern, is indie. YMMV.

[Nexus]

Kidding and poking fun, but serious too... if we are going to use the old metrics then it's worth mentioning that even with the dialogue and trade dress taken away, modern covers are often the 'perfect shot' that yesterday's collector would want.

 

Yes, if we are strictly evaluating the art on aesthetics alone. But so much more to consider, including nostalgia...which, in the thread, is the greatest variable of all. I'm just not sure how many realize it, or will admit it?

 

 

I absolutely acknowledge nostalgia, in fact it's the basis of my argument- because the physical object has changed, and the storytelling style has changed, and the method of telling and selling the stories has changed - all those factors combined with the point of this thread (technology fragmenting pop culture) result in Modern OA, more so than any previous era of comic collecting) NOT producing the same potential nostalgia quotient that would make a 12 year old in 2005 now covet that issue and remember it fondly and seek out the art in 2025, because that "art" will not resonate on a fundamental level in the same manner or degree as a 12 yr old kid looking at a comic in 1995, 1985, 1975, 1965, 1955, or 1945 would have.

 

Two separate discussions. I absolutely agree that the conditions in the market and hobby have greatly morphed since we first got into comics. But those conditions were NOT shaped by how OA, as a physical object, has changed.

 

The fact that there may not be as many OA collectors in the future ISN'T because modern OA is , but because readership has fundamentally changed. For the most part, 12 year old kids just aren't reading comics anymore!

 

Your earlier posts seemed to suggest that the limitations of modern OA (which you have totally overstated) are to blame for the coming decline of the OA hobby. I don't believe that's true. It's all about the changing demographic of the readership. Values are unlikely to skyrocket as before, when there is no longer a base of potential buyers who read the comics when they were 12.

 

Still, I'll bet that for any 12 year old kids who've been reading WALKING DEAD, the art will eventually be interesting to some of them. EVEN IF the art is small, with no lettering, with pencils and inks on separate boards, etc. And that unfamiliar page from an earlier era that has all your favorite superficial bells and whistles? Total indifference.

 

This isn't about my particular set of rose colored glasses that think modern OA is . I also thought most GA art was from a purely aesthetic POV. I think modern OA is because of the object itself and how it is produced. You are completely sidestepping that reality, choosing the wear your own rose colored glasses. If modern OA was penciled and inked much like it was the last 50 years I would buy it (and I have bought some, and I have lots of art without word balloons, look at my gallery, much of the Marvel Magazine art has the type on an overlay) My point about consecutive pages with lettering was simply to make a point- you can read the damn thing. Give me an entire issue of OA for a modern book and I can't tell WTF is going on- mostly people standing around looking constipated or concerned.

 

Your issue is with CERTAIN modern art, that's pencil-only, or blue-line, or what not. My issue is that's not ALL modern art. Your premise is that it is, therefore, it's all . That's just not true.

 

There's quite a bit of modern art that's still pen/ink. I sell a lot of it! The one thing you can say is that they don't have word balloons. But everything else you find objectionable doesn't exist across the board.

 

And for the record, I've read a decent amount of modern comics, and having recently processed a 30,000 issue comic collection from late 50's to 2015 I've seen it all. Aesthetically, modern OA is far superior to the average art produced in the early to mid- 90s, especially by the big 2. I think DC now has the most consistent and stable content and standards, but man, did it drift every which way for 10 years. Comics are far most sophisticated now. Nevertheless, that does not mean a kid will drop 5k on a panel page in 25 years. The odds are against it. Odds are they wouldn't even recognize it if you held it six inches from their face.

 

How many non-Big 2 comics have you read? Of the 38 comics in that "Best of 2000 decade" list I just posted, how many have you read?

 

I do agree about the odds, however.

 

now get off my lawn!

 

Sadly, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you...so you get off mine!

[Nexus]

+1- I've been saying pretty much the same things as Gene all day, he's just nicer about it, and I've had more caffeine than sleep so I'm not sugar coating anything (but I'm not especially annoyed with anyone either, it's still a fun debate)

 

It's all good with me!

 

(Especially since I'm right! )

 

[delekkerste]

The more I read here the more I realize many may have an idolized view on compressed story telling. As I'm sure we are all aware, compressed comics are artificial creatures, the practice was editorially imposed and has business and financial considerations as it's roots. Compressed story telling is not an artistic natural law, it comes about as the result of the mandate that a funny book story should fit inside 22 pages - make it so.

 

It seems as if many of us, myself sometimes included, are struggling to form an argument centered around the premise that this accident of compressed story telling results in superior collectibles because... they tick off all of the components necessary to be identified as an example of compressed story telling?

 

Decompressed techniques arguably only exist because creators have gained more creative control. If compressed comics are the superior format, then why aren't there more modern comics created in the compressed style? Can you tell a long form, complex story in a compressed way without severely lowering the bar on the scripting side? While we all may love comics from the Silver Age, I would be surprised if we can't all agree that the writing, in general, failed to match the quality and narrative complexity found in your average modern story arc.

 

Opinions may differ, but I personally don't believe that we see many of the high watermarks of this medium without a fundamental shift in thinking towards longer form storytelling, and I think that shift inevitably leads to decompression.

 

I don't have a problem with decompressed storytelling. I have read and do read tons of comics published over the past 15 years, both Big Two superhero and indie (incl. Vertigo). Literally dozens of titles - my bookshelves, short boxes and digital library are jam-packed with modern books. Dozens of titles from dozens of publishers, the reading of which informed my opinions expressed here.

 

I think in many respects decompressed storytelling offers a better reading experience. I'm certainly not arguing for a return to compressed storytelling (though, it would be nice to see some more done-in-ones and shorter stories mixed in as well with the multi-issue story arcs). Where I disagree is that I feel decompression contributes to a less satisfying collecting experience. Between the decompressed form and lack of dialogue and narration, there's simply...less on the page. It looks and feels incomplete. Case in point:

 

Vintage page: There's some talking. Then there's some fighting. More characters then get involved. Lots happening on the page. Narration and dialogue adding context to the story. Very easily understandable and presentable

 

Modern page: Somebody says something in panel 1. Middle three panels are slightly different facial reaction shots of the person he's talking to. Bottom panel shows the back of that character's head facing the guy who said something. Presumably he's responding to what was said in panel 1, but we don't know WTF he's saying because THERE ARE NO WORDS

 

If you're reading the comic, great! There's more of a progression which adds depth to the storyline and dialogue. From an OA point of view, though, it's not so good unless you are such a huge fan that you have already memorized all the lines that aren't showing up on the page and are willing/able to buy multiple pages to capture a representative slice of the storyline that you might have gotten from a good singular vintage page. But, it's still not contextually understandable to anyone who isn't, which affects its presentability. See what I mean?? That's not to say that Mignola Hellboy is worse than Don Heck Ka-Zar. This is not a judgment on the quality of the content; it's a judgment on the format and its limitations.

[delekkerste]

The fact that there may not be as many OA collectors in the future ISN'T because modern OA is , but because readership has fundamentally changed. For the most part, 12 year old kids just aren't reading comics anymore!

 

Your earlier posts seemed to suggest that the limitations of modern OA (which you have totally overstated) are to blame for the coming decline of the OA hobby. I don't believe that's true. It's all about the changing demographic of the readership. Values are unlikely to skyrocket as before, when there is no longer a base of potential buyers who read the comics when they were 12.

 

At the end of the day, we both agree on this. I do think Modern OA would be bigger but for the limitations I've cited. But, it still would be nowhere near enough to overcome the financial, cultural, technological, demographic, etc. hurdles that were stated at the outset. That's the overriding takeaway; I'm not even sure how we got so far off on this tangent about Modern OA!

[SquareChaos]

The more I read here the more I realize many may have an idolized view on compressed story telling. As I'm sure we are all aware, compressed comics are artificial creatures, the practice was editorially imposed and has business and financial considerations as it's roots. Compressed story telling is not an artistic natural law, it comes about as the result of the mandate that a funny book story should fit inside 22 pages - make it so.

 

It seems as if many of us, myself sometimes included, are struggling to form an argument centered around the premise that this accident of compressed story telling results in superior collectibles because... they tick off all of the components necessary to be identified as an example of compressed story telling?

 

Decompressed techniques arguably only exist because creators have gained more creative control. If compressed comics are the superior format, then why aren't there more modern comics created in the compressed style? Can you tell a long form, complex story in a compressed way without severely lowering the bar on the scripting side? While we all may love comics from the Silver Age, I would be surprised if we can't all agree that the writing, in general, failed to match the quality and narrative complexity found in your average modern story arc.

 

Opinions may differ, but I personally don't believe that we see many of the high watermarks of this medium without a fundamental shift in thinking towards longer form storytelling, and I think that shift inevitably leads to decompression.

 

I don't have a problem with decompressed storytelling. I have read and do read tons of comics published over the past 15 years, both Big Two superhero and indie (incl. Vertigo). Literally dozens of titles - my bookshelves, short boxes and digital library are jam-packed with modern books. Dozens of titles from dozens of publishers, the reading of which informed my opinions expressed here.

 

I think in many respects decompressed storytelling offers a better reading experience. I'm not arguing for a return to compressed storytelling, not at all. Where I disagree is that I feel decompression contributes to a less satisfying a collecting experience. Between the decompressed form and lack of dialogue and narration, there's simply...less on the page. Case in point:

 

Vintage page: There's some talking. Then there's some fighting. More characters then get involved. Lots happening on the page. Narration and dialogue adding context to the story. Very easily understandable and presentable

 

Modern page: Somebody says something. Middle three panels are slightly different facial reaction shots of the person he's talking to. Bottom panel shows the back of that character's head facing the guy who said something. Presumably he's responding to what was said in panel 1, but we don't know WTF he's saying because THERE ARE NO WORDS

 

If you're reading the comic, great! There's more of a progression which adds depth to the storyline and dialogue. From an OA point of view, though, it's not so good unless you are such a huge fan that you have already memorized all the lines that aren't showing up on the page. See what I mean?? That's not to say that Mignola Hellboy is worse than Don Heck Ka-Zar. This is not a judgment on the quality of the content; it's a judgment on the format and its limitations.

 

I'm a fan of having the various artifacts all in place on the page when possible, but it just isn't as big of a deal for me as it seems to be for many others. I've never bought a page I didn't already know intimately - if it had dialog, I know what it said, and I wouldn't say my experience is lessened by the absence.

 

Blue lines remain the worse culprit of modern technique in my book, but again, it's something I put up with since I don't have a choice.

[SquareChaos]

The fact that there may not be as many OA collectors in the future ISN'T because modern OA is , but because readership has fundamentally changed. For the most part, 12 year old kids just aren't reading comics anymore!

 

Your earlier posts seemed to suggest that the limitations of modern OA (which you have totally overstated) are to blame for the coming decline of the OA hobby. I don't believe that's true. It's all about the changing demographic of the readership. Values are unlikely to skyrocket as before, when there is no longer a base of potential buyers who read the comics when they were 12.

 

At the end of the day, we both agree on this. I do think Modern OA would be bigger but for the limitations I've cited. But, it still would be nowhere near enough to overcome the financial, cultural, technological, demographic, etc. hurdles that were stated at the outset. That's the overriding takeaway; I'm not even sure how we got so far off on this tangent about Modern OA!

 

I think this is because, mostly, there is a general agreement that the hobby may have seen, or be near, it's height.

[Nexus]

I will also continue to beat this one dead horse however, because it's the most relevant detail in this entire discussion IMO. Modern OA as compared to older OA. The page you saw as a kid in that comic cannot be experienced in the same was as it once was by purchasing the OA. I have sequential pages of multiple books, and I can pretty much read the entire story just from the OA, just like reading a Marvel Essential or a DC Showcase in B&W.

 

Try doing that with Modern OA. Do you collect the pencils, with the inked blue line, and then xerox a page from the comics to see WTF was going one? Not to mention the digital color effects that were added, so most of the backgrounds in the OA are blank? That's what I mean by soulless. It's just . Let's not mince words. It's a novelty at best. Maybe some 25 year old will drop 200 bucks on a page or two, but they are never going to amass the sorts of collections some of us have, because they didn't start with collecting boxes and boxes of comics. They are consumers of content, not collectors. They read them on their phone. It's disposable entertainment. Fleeting, like Gene's bad Chinese food.

 

 

 

My goodness, it's a wonder *any* modern art sells at all!

 

It's not for you. We get it.

 

But not everyone collects for the same reasons you do. I don't buy OA so I can read the story in a larger format (which appears to be very important to you). Sequences are nice, but I've never collected soley so I could put together multiple consecutive pages.

 

Not all modern art is how you describe it, either.

 

It may still be to you, but sorry to say, the majority of comics is . The majority of everything is . I find it somewhat amusing that '70s Marvel/DC OA is placed on a pedestal, because the page has word balloons and the action isn't decompressed. Which, in the vast majority of cases, just means there's more hacky writing, and more editorially-mandated superhero wheel-spinning, to endure in the art.

 

I suspect this is mostly coming from someone who hasn't read many new comics in the last 20 years, and overall, is mostly limited to Big 2 fare. Nothing wrong with that. But it's an incomplete picture of comics. And not enough experience to make these sort of blanket statements.

 

 

Oh my goodness, I don't recall ever reading this sentiment here (see bold). My peak comic period was the the 70's (I was 10 years old in 1970), and for a year or two, about 1972-1974, I bought EVERYTHING, and it didn't take me long to realize there was magic on those spinner racks, but that 90% of it was CR@P. So yeah, every comic era is awash in garbage. And every era has true gems. Seek out the good stuff. Ignore the rest. That is all.

 

Scott

 

Well, this line:

 

modern art is inherently an inferior object compared to GA/SA/BA/CA art

 

pretty much sums up how some feel about the subject. That would include '70s Marvel/DC art.

 

There's also the even more succinct "It's all " (in reference to modern art).

 

I don't agree, hence the back-and-forth.

 

Man, there's been so much posting about how modern art sucks, and why older art (including '70s art) is so much better, that I'm not sure which thread you've been reading!

 

I do agree with the rest, of course, as it's basically what I was saying as well.

[Bronty]

Lahdy is this horse ever beat to death!

[delekkerste]

modern art is inherently an inferior object compared to GA/SA/BA/CA art

 

Again, I love modern comics and would never argue that the content is inherently inferior (much of the time it's just the opposite). That said, I would not hesitate to label the modern OA format as inherently inferior.

 

Consider the OA to the following:

 

- a George Herriman Krazy Kat strip

- a Jack Davis Tales from the Crypt page

- a Jack Kirby Fantastic Four page

- a Frank Miller Daredevil page

- an Alan Moore Watchmen page

- an Adrian Tomine Optic Nerve page

 

Now picture the OA with all traces of text/lettering removed. Aside from a tiny # of exceptions (like Eric cited), almost no comic art is improved by the removal of the narrative/dialogue/sound effects. Not that people can't like/prefer modern OA because of the content, but the newer format is inherently worse than the older - I just proved it with the simple argument above. No discussion of decompression or blue lines necessary! Again, not that the hobby's future would be secure if only new art had lettering, but I really think the incomplete feeling you get from the modern format is a very real limiting factor (among others) to new art's potential.

 

Science. Bad.

 

Words. Good.

 

[Bronty]

I'm picturing a modern page. Clean, perfect condition, no oil stains, no white out, no ugly margin notes. Obviously all modern art is better than all vintage art as a result. Thus endeth the lesson

[Nexus]

Consider the OA to the following:

 

- a George Herriman Krazy Kat strip

- a Jack Davis Tales from the Crypt page

- a Jack Kirby Fantastic Four page

- a Frank Miller Daredevil page

- an Alan Moore Watchmen page

- an Adrian Tomine Optic Nerve page

 

Consider the OA to this:

 

- a Todd McFarlane-WRITTEN McSpidey page

 

I'll take it without the lettering. Thank you.

 

Words. Good.

 

Not always:P

[Bronty]

yes! I like Todd, but his writing is the absolute drekkiest of drek

[Nexus]

Just kidding around;)

 

As I've said before, and just repeated, ideally, OA would include the intended word balloons (McSpidey notwithstanding).

 

I don't agree, however, that older art has a better "middle class" as LEGIONISMYNAME believes, and that that art is always going to be better than ANY modern art, because it's got lettering, compressed storytelling, et al.

 

And ultimately, if quality is equal, and the older page has lettering, and the newer page doesn't, the new reader will still want what's familiar to him. The fact that there are these differences in how the art has been created across eras, only really matters to those of use who have collected over these eras. The new guy, who only knows about new books, and is only interested in new art, doesn't care.

 

I just don't agree with imposing our values on collectors of new art, or on the art itself, for that matter. Our rules don't apply here.

[John E.]

I'm picturing a modern page. Clean, perfect condition, no oil stains, no white out, no ugly margin notes. Obviously all modern art is better than all vintage art as a result. Thus endeth the lesson

 

24-year old collector receives his "vintage" art purchased off eBay in the mail: "Cool, word balloons. Wait. Why are are half of them peeling off? This one just fell off. Oh man, why are the panels all yellow? I wish the seller had written in the description that these paste-ups were falling off. So do I glue them back on? Is that allowed? Do I use Elmer's glue? Where do I buy rice paste? Do I hire a professional? How much would that cost? Where do I find a professional? Is this conservation or alternation? If I leave it as is, does it affect the value of my art? If I paste the balloons back on, does it affect the value of my art? Do I have to come clean about it or will the Boards tar and feather me if I don't? Oh. I knew I should have bought that wordless Manhattan Projects page."

 

[Bronty]

Exactly. And let's forget "coollines said this was a draft cover. Why is it dated a year after it was published? Weird."