Revered artists you just don't get

[kav]

There are plenty of comic artists that are broadly admired, but do little for me, and many others that I generally like but have their share of inferior work, and some that probably should have quit before they did, but Byrne is the one who comes to mind when this question is asked. . It don't dislike his work, but it always seemed somewhat generic to me. I've wondered if he had not been the long running X-Men artist when first blew up, would he be any more popular than Sal Buscema?

I know many artists are accused of using the same faces for everyone but Byrne really went overbored with this.

[jcjames]

I loved that Star Wars cover initially because its painted style is so different than what's usually on the stands. But your criticisms are valid. Put in that light, it pales compared to any of the Dark Empire covers Dave Dorman did 25 years ago.

I quite enjoyed the Dorman art, but everyone has good and bad days I suppose. The Luke and Leia in this first picture look significantly worse compared to his second piece.

 

 

I'd still take the Alex Ross SW over either of Dorman's DE's.

 

Leia is just wrong on the first, and Lando and Han's faces look "shifted" on the second. Errors like that just pop out on covers like that with such recognizable faces until that's all you see are the goofed faces even if the rest of it is good.

 

 

[AKA Rick]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

[Bronty]

Nah that's crazy . In the late 70s to mid 80s he was the man and not just because of xmen. FF was the run of his that was more significant to me anyways.

 

When I hear that criticism it sounds to me like you maybe started collecting after his best years were done? (Ie you started 1990ish or later)? Because the quality of his stuff against most of what was on the stands at the time in competition was very evident. Now when he went downhill he went downhill fast IMO but that's like most artists

[comix4fun]

 

Nuff said.

 

 

THAT is the example you think represents Kirby's body of work?

[Ken Aldred]

 

Nuff said.

 

 

THAT is the example you think represents Kirby's body of work?

 

There's quite a bit of material by Kirby, mid 60s and before, which he drew with much more realistic, less exaggerated proportions.

[Bronty]

No it's just the example he is hoping will prove his point, which nobody will buy.

 

It's not even worth discussing. No artist is perfect but if one doesn't get Kirby, one doesn't 'get' comics

[Logan510]

No it's just the example he is hoping will prove his point, which nobody will buy.

 

It's not even worth discussing. No artist is perfect but if one doesn't get Kirby, one doesn't 'get' comics

 

I tend to agree with that.

 

I was shocked to learn that so called "pros" would make fun of Kirby ( behind his back ) in the offices when he returned in the mid 70's, even coining the term "Jack the hack".

 

 

Oops, I made a comic related post

[oakman29]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

Sacrilage!

[Logan510]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

Sacrilage!

 

These threads almost always seem to devolve into one poster being stupefied by another posters "bad taste".

 

Just do what I do and quietly lose several respect points for anyone who doesn't like something you like

[SquareChaos]

OK, so Dell'Otto, Ross, Kirby, Miller, Frazetta, Quietly are bad.

 

Who do we like now? Ole Punching Bag Liefeld? Maybe Greg Land is a fan favorite this week?

 

Jokes aside...

 

I've never liked Larsen, Trimpe, or JSC.

[oakman29]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

Sacrilage!

 

These threads almost always seem to devolve into one poster being stupefied by another posters "bad taste".

 

Just do what I do and quietly lose several respect points for anyone who doesn't like something you like

 

Noted.

[Logan510]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

Sacrilage!

 

These threads almost always seem to devolve into one poster being stupefied by another posters "bad taste".

 

Just do what I do and quietly lose several respect points for anyone who doesn't like something you like

 

Noted.

 

And FYI I think Frazetta is a GOD

[SquareChaos]

- Tim Sale

- Geoff Darrow

- Howard Chaykin

- Michael Turner

 

 

Darrow?

 

His art always has such a feeling of vitality and underlying humor. But it is a definite style, so I can get how someone may not buy in to it.

 

 

[kav]

I loved that Star Wars cover initially because its painted style is so different than what's usually on the stands. But your criticisms are valid. Put in that light, it pales compared to any of the Dark Empire covers Dave Dorman did 25 years ago.

I quite enjoyed the Dorman art, but everyone has good and bad days I suppose. The Luke and Leia in this first picture look significantly worse compared to his second piece.

 

 

I'd still take the Alex Ross SW over either of Dorman's DE's.

 

Leia is just wrong on the first, and Lando and Han's faces look "shifted" on the second. Errors like that just pop out on covers like that with such recognizable faces until that's all you see are the goofed faces even if the rest of it is good.

 

That is the worst Leia I have ever seen high school art students draw better.

[bronze_rules]

Nah that's crazy . In the late 70s to mid 80s he was the man and not just because of xmen. FF was the run of his that was more significant to me anyways.

 

When I hear that criticism it sounds to me like you maybe started collecting after his best years were done? (Ie you started 1990ish or later)? Because the quality of his stuff against most of what was on the stands at the time in competition was very evident. Now when he went downhill he went downhill fast IMO but that's like most artists

 

re. Byrne.

I thought his attention to detail often reached staggering depths. Especially going back and looking at some black and white stuff on say star-lord or FF OA. And looking at his work on Avengers, or even Champions -- IMO, was like night and day, compared to the prior runs. Just my opinion. But yeah, I thought he was pretty awesome back then and could easily understand why other artists might respect him.

 

I could also completely imagine him getting burned out, similar to Wrightson at his peak. I think he may have jaded a lot of his peers and fans, by his cranky public comments.

 

As an aside, I enjoy and respect hearing some of the thoughts many have shared.

[Pitboss]

From the Original Art perspective in terms of what their artwork sells for an how highly revered they are, I personally don't think anything special of artwork by:

 

Mark Schultz

Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes"

Jeffery Jones

Frank Frazetta

Frank Quietly

Tony Moore's "The Walking Dead"

Alex Ross

Frank Miller's work after The 1980's

 

...but art appreciation is subjective, and that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Sacrilage!

 

These threads almost always seem to devolve into one poster being stupefied by another posters "bad taste".

 

Just do what I do and quietly lose several respect points for anyone who doesn't like something you like

 

Noted.

 

And FYI I think Frazetta is a GOD

 

He is

[SquareChaos]

Jae Lee

 

Mike Mignola

 

Alex Ross - I dont hate him I just dont think he is the cat's meow everyone thought he was in the 90s/00s.

 

What bother's you about Jae Lee's art? He seems pretty technically sound to me, at least in his more recent work. His earlier work definitely left a lot to be desired.

 

I can understand Mignola without asking - he's very stylistic.

[Logan510]

There are plenty of comic artists that are broadly admired, but do little for me, and many others that I generally like but have their share of inferior work, and some that probably should have quit before they did, but Byrne is the one who comes to mind when this question is asked. . It don't dislike his work, but it always seemed somewhat generic to me. I've wondered if he had not been the long running X-Men artist when first blew up, would he be any more popular than Sal Buscema?

 

 

Sales on X-Men did not "blow up" when JB was on the title. He claims that sales started to pick up a little towards the end of the Dark Phoenix saga, but they didn't really explode until around the time Paul Smith came aboard.

 

I know this has nothing to do with your taste, but just wanted to clarify things.

 

Also, Byrne was gaining popularity before getting the X-Men gig

[rjpb]

Nah that's crazy . In the late 70s to mid 80s he was the man and not just because of xmen. FF was the run of his that was more significant to me anyways.

 

When I hear that criticism it sounds to me like you maybe started collecting after his best years were done? (Ie you started 1990ish or later)? Because the quality of his stuff against most of what was on the stands at the time in competition was very evident. Now when he went downhill he went downhill fast IMO but that's like most artists

 

I started collecting well before Byrne, around 1970. But I did stop reading anything but undergrounds from about 1975-1984, so I wasn't paying attention to mainstream comics in Byrne's heyday. I don't doubt he was superior to much of what was on the stands, as one of the reasons I lost interest in superhero comics in the mid 70s was the inferior and forgettable art in most books. I only started showing interest again when I retroactively discovered Miller's DD run about a year after it had ended, but mostly retained an interest in more oddball stuff and less mainstream art styles, another reason why I probably don't fully appreciate guys like Byrne, Perez, Jim Lee and others who draw in a traditional superhero comic style, especially those who came after my youth. I probably like the work of earlier guys like John Buscema and John Romita more mainly because I have a fonder memory of their comics.