Artist producing low quality work today... 2 2

[PhilipB2k17]

I think people get touchy about this stuff because they may have invested a lot of money into art by a particular artist. So, if he (or she) gets criticized on this board, which is the most prominent discussion board for OA collectors, it could harm the value of their pieces. Or, on a more basic level, they consider it a criticism of themselves, because art they enjoy is being attacked, and it it is an implicit criticism of their taste or choices.

But, this hobby is so subjective in so many ways, I see no reason to attack other artists. I am very willing to say what I do like, and that I do not prefer some artists, but I would never criticize their art, because it is a subjective thing. My preferences are just that; mine. Someone else may, and probably does, disagree.

I think its fair to say WHY you like a particular artists, an why you think her or she may be underappreciated. But, again, you might not convince many others of that idea. 

There is art from a modern book I am collecting right now that I think is fantastic, and it is by a name artist who just came off a highly regarded run on a book by one of the Big Two, where this artist drew a major character. I believe this art is a bargain where it is currently priced at, for various reasons I won't go into. But, it is not selling out like some other modern books. (Again, for reasons that have to do with marketing, availability, and speculation, more than the quality of the art, IMHO).

But, I am super happy with what I have, and expect that within a year or two, pages from this series and artist will explode in value. But, I bought them because I really love the art! So, if they go up, great. If not, oh well! 

[SquareChaos]

There is a difference between a critique and an attack on an artist's work - some ridiculously high percentage of posts claiming to be critiques are likely just shortly stated opinions. I think that perceived history is a valid reason why this community tends to react so strongly against this particular type of thread.

Of course, as @PhilipB2k17 states, the money may also be a factor, but that is a reason I respect far less - I'd suggest people with such a motivation to their bias have no valid reason to silence someone else's good faith discourse on a topic.... but that is really the issue isn't it? How many times have we seen a good faith, detailed (with examples), thought provoking thread suggesting that an artist's style has moved in the wrong direction, that include an explanation detailing why the poster believes that to be the case? I've seen a handful in the years that I've lurked and posted here, but most such topics are more along the lines of a virtual punching gallery.

[WoWitHurts]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 9:53 AM, Pirate said:

JRJR is the worst artist out there and it's not close in my opinion.  How an editor can look at that and still publish it is beyond me.  I avoid everything he touches like the plague.  His older stuff is fine, but now ugh.

I love his old stuff.  When he got teamed up with Klaus Janson (sp) it took a dive. I don't know if he was trying to modernize his style but it is not very good in my opinion.

[rocket1312]

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the quality of various artists' work.  That's kind of why we're here.  I just don't care for the way this particular thread was presented.  In my mind there's a big difference between asking the board's opinion of Kevin Nowlan's (or any other artist's) work and starting a thread that basically boils down to "List artists that suck.  Number one on my list is Kevin Nowlan."

Edited August 1, 2017 by rocket1312

[Kevin76]

I wouldn't say Kevin Nowlan is producing bad art now, however the cover is less than steller (imo) and that does happen, they all can't be great. However, I do blame the editors today since they are the ones who approve which cover is to be used. An artist will sketch out a few different covers and the editor will pick the one he feels best suits the story inside, and most editors pick the wrong one. Just cause the artist doesn't "draw pretty" doesn't mean they are bad comic book artist, the main objective of a comic book artist is to tell a story through pictures in a sequence so the story will move. That's what makes Frank Miller so good. Do you really think the art in The Dark Knight Returns looked good?  Not really, but everything else was awesome.  

[stinkininkin]

Just curious.  Would advocates for this thread be as comfortable making their opinions on the failings of a given artist known in such blunt fashion in the company of said artist?  Call me old fashioned, but I consider that concept before I post ANYTHING on a PUBLIC message board, which I think is a completely different beast than sharing opinions in a PRIVATE conversation.  

Scott

[SquareChaos]

3 minutes ago, stinkininkin said:

Just curious.  Would advocates for this thread be as comfortable making their opinions on the failings of a given artist known in such blunt fashion in the company of said artist?  Call me old fashioned, but I consider that concept before I post ANYTHING on a PUBLIC message board, which I think is a completely different beast than sharing opinions in a PRIVATE conversation.  

Scott

Anyone doing skill-based work at a professional level must be open to some amount of criticism, especially if that work is artistic. What they do not have to be open to is outright verbal (or written) battery. 

I have once (within the past year actually) found myself commenting on the work of an artist in a way that I felt would be too aggressive if the conversation had taken place in person, and as soon as I found myself thinking about that, I felt like a real and got out of the conversation. That exchange is actually why I've spent the time thinking about this, and responding in this thread.

I want to talk about art - the good and the bad - but in my experience, we just can't really do that as a group on the internet, it almost always devolves. 

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, stinkininkin said:

Just curious.  Would advocates for this thread be as comfortable making their opinions on the failings of a given artist known in such blunt fashion in the company of said artist?  Call me old fashioned, but I consider that concept before I post ANYTHING on a PUBLIC message board, which I think is a completely different beast than sharing opinions in a PRIVATE conversation.  

Scott

 

1 hour ago, SquareChaos said:

Anyone doing skill-based work at a professional level must be open to some amount of criticism, especially if that work is artistic. What they do not have to be open to is outright verbal (or written) battery. 

I have once (within the past year actually) found myself commenting on the work of an artist in a way that I felt would be too aggressive if the conversation had taken place in person, and as soon as I found myself thinking about that, I felt like a real and got out of the conversation. That exchange is actually why I've spent the time thinking about this, and responding in this thread.

I want to talk about art - the good and the bad - but in my experience, we just can't really do that as a group on the internet, it almost always devolves. 

 

I don't think Scott is saying that creative professionals should be immune from criticism. I think he's saying that anyone criticizing creative professionals should do so in a manner here or elsewhere that is the consistent with the manner that they would criticize that creator to their face or directly. 

Personally, if someone would not speak or write their words directly to the person they are critiquing then I can agree that they probably shouldn't be aired them at all. 

Or if that person wouldn't be willing to stand behind their critique directly before the person they are critiquing then the weight of that opinion becomes lessened to a great degree. 

[F For Fake]

Time for my seemingly bi-monthly statement of support for JRJr. I like his stuff, including the recent stuff with Jansen. I had a few pages from their Cap run and loved them. His stuff is kinetic, has a lot of energy. I know it's not for everyone, but I like it. Anyone wanting to dump some JRJr pages dirt cheap, be sure to hit me up!

[SquareChaos]

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

 

 

I don't think Scott is saying that creative professionals should be immune from criticism. I think he's saying that anyone criticizing creative professionals should do so in a manner here or elsewhere that is the consistent with the manner that they would criticize that creator to their face or directly. 

Personally, if someone would not speak or write their words directly to the person they are critiquing then I can agree that they probably shouldn't be aired them at all. 

Or if that person wouldn't be willing to stand behind their critique directly before the person they are critiquing then the weight of that opinion becomes lessened to a great degree. 

I believe he and I agree... at least I do not disagree with anything he said, and if I did, I'd likely have to examine that belief more closely since he is obviously much, much closer to this topic than I am. My statement at the top of my reply was mostly just to explicitly state how I feel about it since it sounds like some people just think we shouldn't talk about the topic at all.

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

 

 

I don't think Scott is saying that creative professionals should be immune from criticism. I think he's saying that anyone criticizing creative professionals should do so in a manner here or elsewhere that is the consistent with the manner that they would criticize that creator to their face or directly. 

Personally, if someone would not speak or write their words directly to the person they are critiquing then I can agree that they probably shouldn't be aired them at all. 

Or if that person wouldn't be willing to stand behind their critique directly before the person they are critiquing then the weight of that opinion becomes lessened to a great degree. 

What would be the point of criticizing a professional - or any - artist's work to their face unless you had some kind of professional obligation to do so, such as you are an editor, etc?

Now, a gray area may be where you have paid them good money for a commission, and laid out certain expectations for the piece. At that point, they have entered into a contract with you to perform a service and produce a product. You, as the buyer, should expect a certain minimum professional standard in that product, within the parameters of a creative medium. 

Other than that scenario, why would I go out of my way at a convention, or a restaurant, or in the men's room to tell an artist whose work I do not like that his work is crappy, and why can't he draw like he used to? Other than a complete a-hole, who does that?

Edited August 1, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

What would be the point of criticizing a professional - or any - artist's work to their face unless you had some kind of professional obligation to do so, such as you are an editor, etc?

Now, a gray area may be where you have paid them good money for a commission, and laid out certain expectations for the piece. At that point, they have entered into a contract with you to perform a service and produce a product. You, as the buyer, should expect a certain minimum professional standard in that product, within the parameters of a creative medium. 

Other than that scenario, why would I go out of my way at a convention, or a restaurant, or in the men's room to tell an artist whose work I do not like that his work is crappy, and why can't he draw like he used to? Other than a complete a-hole, who does that?

It's not whether you have a reason to confront them to their face, it's if the words you choose and the way you present your criticism is something you'd still do if you were in the room with the person as opposed to on a semi-anonymous message board without any real human interaction with the target of your words. 

 

[PhilipB2k17]

13 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It's not whether you have a reason to confront them to their face, it's if the words you choose and the way you present your criticism is something you'd still do if you were in the room with the person as opposed to on a semi-anonymous message board without any real human interaction with the target of your words. 

 

My point is, why criticize them to their face - even politely - at all? What's the point, unless you have some kind of professional or transactional reason to do so? What purpose is served by it? Unless, of course, they specifically ASK you for your opinion, in which case by all means give it, albeit in a respectful manner. 

Do we critique and criticize art and artists between ourselves? Sure. I bought a page from one artist at a convention, and when I was talking to another about buying one of their pages, they asked to see my other piece. At which point, they proceeded to critique it. Now, the second artist is well known for being pretty outspoken and opinionated on many things. So, this wasn't out of character. Most of the time an artist would just say: "That's nice," or praise it. You know, professional courtesy in front of the fans. 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[comix4fun]

7 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

My point is, why criticize them to their face - even politely - at all? What's the point, unless you have some kind of professional or transactional reason to do so? What purpose is served by it? Unless, of course, they specifically ASK you for your opinion, in which case by all means give it, albeit in a respectful manner. 

Do we critique and criticize art and artists between ourselves? Sure. I bought a page from one artist at a convention, and when I was talking to another about buying one of their pages, they asked to see my other piece. At which point, they proceeded to critique it. Now, the second artist is well known for being pretty outspoken and opinionated on many things. So, this wasn't out of character. Most of the time an artist would just say: "That's nice," or praise it. You know, professional courtesy in front of the fans. 

 

My point was that word choice should be consistent. Whatever would be said about someone's ability, lack of ability, or effort or skill should not vary between an online (even if perceived to be behind the creator's back) and in person. People should be the same person in personal interaction that they are on a message board. 

Simply, if you can't say it to the person directly then whatever is being said should probably not be said. If it's the "why say that to an artist?" thing is your sticking point then just apply it to life in general. 

[SquareChaos]

4 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

My point is, why criticize them to their face - even politely - at all? What's the point, unless you have some kind of professional or transactional reason to do so? What purpose is served by it? Unless, of course, they specifically ASK you for your opinion, in which case by all means give it, albeit in a respectful manner. 

 

I think different people in this conversation are imagining extreme versions of conversations with the imaginary creator of this thought experiment.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking an artist about their process, or inquiring about certain decisions or changes they may have made in that process over the years. It is even fine to do so if the fan in question liked the work better at some date in the past. The key point to all of this is having enough social conditioning and grace in order to have the conversation like an actual human being that has legitimate interest and good will towards the person you're speaking with. Don't be a jerk, don't use aggressive or highly critical language. It doesn't seem so hard.

[comix4fun]

25 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I think different people in this conversation are imagining extreme versions of conversations with the imaginary creator of this thought experiment.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking an artist about their process, or inquiring about certain decisions or changes they may have made in that process over the years. It is even fine to do so if the fan in question liked the work better at some date in the past. The key point to all of this is having enough social conditioning and grace in order to have the conversation like an actual human being that has legitimate interest and good will towards the person you're speaking with. Don't be a jerk, don't use aggressive or highly critical language. It doesn't seem so hard.

I agree, asking about process and discussing evolution is totally fine. 

My posts were in the context of the thread entitled "Artist producing low quality work today..."

Not "different" or "evolved" or even "varying from a preferable style".....it was characterized as "low quality" and in the first post (not trying to pick on Magnus, it's an example) " not even trying anymore". 

Which is why I stated what I did, which you seem to be agreeing with, write about people here in the same way and manner as you would when speaking to them directly. 

 

[Brian Peck]

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

 

 

I don't think Scott is saying that creative professionals should be immune from criticism. I think he's saying that anyone criticizing creative professionals should do so in a manner here or elsewhere that is the consistent with the manner that they would criticize that creator to their face or directly. 

Personally, if someone would not speak or write their words directly to the person they are critiquing then I can agree that they probably shouldn't be aired them at all. 

Or if that person wouldn't be willing to stand behind their critique directly before the person they are critiquing then the weight of that opinion becomes lessened to a great degree. 

Too many on the board hide behind fake names. So I don't see them be able to talk face to face to the respective artists with the same criticisms. 

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

My point was that word choice should be consistent. Whatever would be said about someone's ability, lack of ability, or effort or skill should not vary between an online (even if perceived to be behind the creator's back) and in person. People should be the same person in personal interaction that they are on a message board. 

Simply, if you can't say it to the person directly then whatever is being said should probably not be said. If it's the "why say that to an artist?" thing is your sticking point then just apply it to life in general. 

Which is why I questioned the point of criticizing a nartist's work at all. Critiquing is different. We all make subjective value judgments about things all the time. But just panning someone's effort unless there is some legitimate relationship involved where that criticism is not inappropriate, if warranted, seems to me a waste of time and pointless. 

[Matches_Malone]

The discussion of disliking a specific work of art without irritating someone can sometimes be challenging.   Yes, both the title of the thread and first post are in need of some tact as history shows the topic can be quite delicate.  But I don’t think we should completely withdraw from the discussion. Personally I like to read why a person likes and equally dislikes a work of art.  Not everybody sees the same thing. Art is subjective.  If the OP feels in this specific example Kevin Nowlan is not producing quality work, I would like him to elaborate on it, not shut him down.   I’m sure there’s a better choice of word than quality, but Im willing to look beyond that just for the sake of the discussion.  Just keep it civil….and productive. 

[fsumavila]

All I'll say on this thread is that JRR's art is STELLAR, IMHO. It has pop, it has impact, and he knows how to tell a story. Not a big group of guys out there who can combine a unique, instantly recognizable style with rock-solid storytelling chops. But that's just me.