Revered artists you just don't get

[rjpb]

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

 

I'll take your word on that, it did seem the X-Men only got bigger through the copper age, but i do remember being shocked walking into a comic store in 1981 and seeing GSXM #1 on the wall for $60. I hadn't paid attention to Marvel books for a few years, and when I asked the clerk about it he told me it was the hottest title running. So fan interest was clearly strong.

[Mephisto]

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.

 

Dave's art can be hit or miss. His noses on Luke and Leia often look a bit off. He once told me he worked in a more photorealistic style than fellow Dark Horse artist Hugh Fleming and I kind of chuckled in my head and respectfully disagreed in my head as well. Some of Hugh's stuff varies in quality as well but when he is on I found his art to be more photorealistic than Dave's and Hugh's art prices very reasonable...like 10 time cheaper than an Alex Ross.

[Bronty]

I think the second dorman piece is lovely, the first one is pretty average.

 

As for high school students drawing better - well, it's a painting. And I've seen high school paintings.

[SquareChaos]

I dislike his use of space in the second one, and there's a weird disassociation between Luke's head and body, but other than that it is technically quite good.

[Bronty]

I dislike his use of space in the second one, and there's a weird disassociation between Luke's head and body, but other than that it is technically quite good.

 

Yes - it's really quite good. I think in general people on this site pick on every little thing when it's a painting in a more realistic style and they let 10x as much go when it's line art. That's just a reflection that I think many here are comfortable when the art looks like what they know and overly picky when it's in a different medium or aesthetic.

 

When I look at some modern comic art frankly I can barely look at it with the way everyone is drawn like a 400 pound steroid abusing linebacker. Its a bit much and puts Boris to shame but it's line art so no one really looks at it critically.

[Readcomix]

Liefeld, Jim Lee, Larsen, McFarlane, Mignola, Chaykin

 

JRJr unless inked by Bob Layton....but that Iron Man run is a long time ago.....

[bronze_rules]

I think the second dorman piece is lovely, the first one is pretty average.

 

As for high school students drawing better - well, it's a painting. And I've seen high school paintings.

 

I thought I read that John Romita always regretted that he could not paint. His wife said something like, 'you already know how to draw, how hard could it be.' He replied something like it was worlds apart.

 

He later remarked that Alex Ross really honored him by telling him that the Son of Origins (wash?) cover inspired him as a kid.

 

I've tried to paint and I can certainly attest that it is extremely difficult to even copy a painted face and be able to make it look anything like the original.

 

I really, really love Earl Norem Painted covers BTW.

[Bronty]

I think the second dorman piece is lovely, the first one is pretty average.

 

As for high school students drawing better - well, it's a painting. And I've seen high school paintings.

 

I remember reading that John Romita always regretted that he could not paint. His wife said something like, 'you already know how to draw, how hard could it be.' He replied something like it was worlds apart.

He later remarked that Alex Ross really honored him by telling him that the Son of Origins (wash?) cover inspired him as a kid.

 

I've tried to paint and I can certainly attest that it is extremely difficult to even copy a painted face and be able to make it look anything like the original.

 

I really, really love Earl Norem Painted covers BTW.

 

Right, It's a whole different way of looking at things and rendering things. You don't paint what's there you paint in layers to eventually end up at what's there. I am not an artist - clearly - but that's what I've come to understand

[Bronty]

I dislike his use of space in the second one, and there's a weird disassociation between Luke's head and body, but other than that it is technically quite good.

 

As for use of space I assume it's for a wraparound cover. It's got that look.

[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

 

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.

 

Makes sense

[SquareChaos]

I dislike his use of space in the second one, and there's a weird disassociation between Luke's head and body, but other than that it is technically quite good.

 

As for use of space I assume it's for a wraparound cover. It's got that look.

 

Ah, good point, I see it.

[topofthetotem]

Me no likey Robert Crumb and Adam Hughes art.

[Cat]

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.

 

Keep in mind this is meant to be a few years post ROTJ, and she's also pregnant. That does help it a little.

 

Artists I'd add would be Tim Sale, later JRJR, anything Byrne after X-Men (especially anything he's written), Angel Medina (how can anyone look at his Hulk work and think that's okay to publish?), and either Joe Bennett or Joe Benitez (sorry to whichever one of those guys I've just falsely named). One of them had a horrid run on a DC book by Judd Winnick, Titans, I think? Their work was really bad, on a book that was also really bad, so it was a triple dose of bad. Ugh.

 

[Get Marwood & I]

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

 

That's a bit over the top isn't it Bronty? I like a lot of Kirby's work but some of it is not the best. Why would you want to say that I don't 'get' comics? That's mean spirited and nonsense.

 

If it's 'not even worth discussing' why did you make your post?

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

 

Nuff said.

 

 

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

 

I was posting half in jest, for a bit of fun. You should try it some time.

[Get Marwood & I]

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.

 

Some of those early Spider-Man v2 covers aren't great.

[comix4fun]

 

Nuff said.

 

 

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

 

I was posting half in jest, for a bit of fun. You should try it some time.

 

 

The other "half" came through a little stronger than you intended then.

[Get Marwood & I]

 

Nuff said.

 

 

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

 

I was posting half in jest, for a bit of fun. You should try it some time.

 

 

The other "half" came through a little stronger than you intended then.

 

Nuff said!

[FineCollector]

I think there are two discussions going on here. One is, I don't know why anyone likes that guy, and the other is, I don't know why everyone likes that guy.

 

Alex Ross has the chops. I get the about that period in the '90s and 2000's where everything had his work on it, but I needed to see his line drawn art before I appreciated him again.

 

In the "why does everyone like this" category, I'd say Schomburg Timelys. His painted stuff from Nedor is beautiful, and he drew a great Human Torch, but I've always found his Cap, Bucky, and Namor a bit off. The really busy scenes don't work for me either. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't understand the frenzy for his work over many of the others in the same era.

[Ken Aldred]

 

Nuff said.

 

Number 6 looks quite miserable there, a bit American Gothic.