Revered artists you just don't get

[Get Marwood & I]

I kinda like Wood but his stuff is so damned stiff.

 

[chrisco37]

Later Sal Buscema art, especially on Spiderman, JRJR, Linsner.

 

Sal was a competent, prolific, bullpen artist. Never great, but always solid. When he started inking himself with that thin pen (Spec Spidey 140-ish), he really went downhill. Just some horrible stuff for a guy that showed he had the chops to handle a 2nd tier Spidey book.

[KPR Comics]

I kinda like Wood but his stuff is so damned stiff.

What does that mean?

[kav]

I kinda like Wood but his stuff is so damned stiff.

What does that mean?

The figures look posed like action figures not fluid like say Frazetta

[Get Marwood & I]

I kinda like Wood but his stuff is so damned stiff.

What does that mean?

The figures look posed like action figures not fluid like say Frazetta

 

Oh. I thought it was a knob joke Kav

[kav]

[buttock]

Sam Kieth

 

Not a overly popular artist, but has quite the following, and a lot of you dunno why

 

Funny you post this particular image. I've never seen it before, and while the content may not be all that great, the technical component is really excellent IMO.

 

And I'll add another vote for Jim Lee. Show me a page where anyone isn't scowling or grimacing.

[rjpb]

Later Sal Buscema art, especially on Spiderman, JRJR, Linsner.

 

Was Sal ever "revered", I thought of him as one those journeymen illustrators that reliably cranks it out, but no one ever got excited about.

[rjpb]

Here's some blasphemy to many but I was not a fan Wally Wood's art for the most part. Even his EC paled to any of the EC artists (In My Opinion). There are a lot worse for me and it like he was unreadable from a visual perspective but there were lots of others that I liked ahead of him that do not seem to get enough respect, like Rudy Palais, Dan Zolnerowich, Maurice Whitman, e.g.

 

Can't agree with you on Wood, and Palias and Zolnerowich are interesting, but fall just a bit short of greatness for me, but I agree on Whitman, an under appreciated talent.

[bronze_rules]

Later Sal Buscema art, especially on Spiderman, JRJR, Linsner.

 

Was Sal ever "revered", I thought of him as one those journeymen illustrators that reliably cranks it out, but no one ever got excited about.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I really enjoyed his work on hulk, but don't know if peers would elevate him to genius status. In his autobiography, he seemed extremely greatful to even get work. He sure wasn't a diva.

[rjpb]

A related question... is it fair to add an artist to this opinionated list with the qualifier of "... after they got old"?

 

Is there some balancing act involved such that their body of work when they were in their prime is so great that a few sub par years at the end of the road saves them from the indignity, or should we just be able to say "I dislike this spotlighted era of so-and-so's work"?

 

Sure, add JRJR, but Frank Miller? I'm personally both saddened and even a little sickened by some of his recent work, but considering his body of work, does he belong here with the "... later work" qualifier?

 

 

I'd say artists who produced earlier or later inferior work shouldn't be part of the conversation, unless that work is part of what they are "revered" for. The focus should be on those artists whose peak work one still has trouble appreciating.

[kav]

Later Sal Buscema art, especially on Spiderman, JRJR, Linsner.

 

Was Sal ever "revered", I thought of him as one those journeymen illustrators that reliably cranks it out, but no one ever got excited about.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I really enjoyed his work, but don't know if peers would elevate him to genius status. In his autobiography, he seemed extremely greatful to even get work. He sure wasn't a diva.

I respect a Sal more than a diva any day

kneel atoms

[bronze_rules]

A related question... is it fair to add an artist to this opinionated list with the qualifier of "... after they got old"?

 

Is there some balancing act involved such that their body of work when they were in their prime is so great that a few sub par years at the end of the road saves them from the indignity, or should we just be able to say "I dislike this spotlighted era of so-and-so's work"?

 

Sure, add JRJR, but Frank Miller? I'm personally both saddened and even a little sickened by some of his recent work, but considering his body of work, does he belong here with the "... later work" qualifier?

 

 

I'd say artists who produced earlier or later inferior work shouldn't be part of the conversation, unless that work is part of what they are "revered" for. The focus should be on those artists whose peak work one still has trouble appreciating.

 

Yes. This. It's about why we don't get their legendary status of genius in their prime. Few artists can be expected to maintain peak quality forever.

[Cat]

I forgot a major one for me: Walt Simonson. His work doesn't repulse me, but it also doesn't excite me. It does nothing for me 99.99% of the time. Occasionally it does look off, but not offensively so, just enough to make me wonder how he became big, and question what it is I'm missing.

 

Unlike some of the other artists on this list, with Walt I really do feel it's my fault for not liking his work more.

[Bird]

I forgot a major one for me: Walt Simonson. His work doesn't repulse me, but it also doesn't excite me. It does nothing for me 99.99% of the time. Occasionally it does look off, but not offensively so, just enough to make me wonder how he became big, and question what it is I'm missing.

 

Unlike some of the other artists on this list, with Walt I really do feel it's my fault for not liking his work more.

 

It is no more your fault for not liking it as it is my fault for loving it. Taste is individual. Walt's stuff is the bee's knees. BWS and Linsner as well. I love these guys work. I could explain the other guys buy with walt it is harder. I just like his distinctive style, love his clean line and clear storytelling. But what EXACTLY I love about it, that is tough to pinpoint.

 

I don't love Neal Adams or John Byrne but get them I think. I don't get Turner or JSC at all - ridiculous body distortion, sketchy hair...I just don't get it at all. T&A artists are a dime a dozen but people seem to agree these guys are more than that, but yeah...don't get it.

 

 

[kav]

I like Darwin Cooke but I hate it when he draws those guys with flabby chins.

[Duffman_Comics]

Basil Wolverton.

 

This guy's popularity is a mystery to me.

 

I used to consider Don Heck a talentless hack until I saw some of his non-superhero (read: horror) stuff. Now simply regard him as being a square peg in a round hole during the Silver Age.

 

Fletcher Hanks. I can only "like" this guy in a "so bad he's good" fashion. Lots of fans however.

 

 

[Ssantoss]

I donät know how "revered" he is, but I'm having real problems with Simon Bisleys artstyle. Too blocky and rough for my taste, and seldom any life in the eyes of the characters. Slainé is the only work of his that I somewhat accepts and find good in some panels.

 

I also concur with the doubts about Frazetta, stale and rigid, almost posed character displays. When it comes to covers in that vein, I'd rather look at some of Luis Royos Heavy Metal-covers, more fluid intensity and photo-realism taken to a naughty peak.

[catman76]

Carl Barks

 

I always have liked Uncle Scrooge and Donald Duck comics, but I honestly can't even tell his work from other artists that have done them.

[kav]

Frazetta is the exact opposite of rigid.