This cover is horrible, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! 6 6

[B2D327]

On 5/14/2024 at 12:43 AM, MR SigS said:

It looks painful having this head. 

 

You win

[paqart]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:19 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I don't see anything wrong with that Spidey wedding cake topper cover. I think the art is very nice and it's a neat concept with the bloody knife.

What bothers me is the awful color, bland lighting, timid brushwork, and boring composition. Of course, among modern comics, there is a wealth of bad to choose from.

[Dave2739]

On 5/15/2024 at 4:14 PM, paqart said:

What bothers me is the awful color, bland lighting, timid brushwork, and boring composition. Of course, among modern comics, there is a wealth of bad to choose from.

To be fair, bad art is not limited to modern books.

[paqart]

On 5/15/2024 at 4:40 PM, Dave2739 said:

To be fair, bad art is not limited to modern books.

No, but I may notice it more because the coloring is, on average, much worse. This is thanks to modern printing technology, which provides considerably more flexibility to be bad. Until around 1990, almost all comics (absent special arrangements) had a very limited palette of colors to choose from. Because of this, it was almost impossible to go wrong. It limited how good the colors could be, but it was very hard to go below an acceptable level of aesthetic appeal. Now, they can be much better than in the past, but can also be much worse. My impression is that most modern colorists working in the comic book industry are atrocious at their job. There are a few exceptions, like Cliff Chiang, Richmond Lewis, and Chris Samnee, but most are awful.

Then there are the painted covers, yet hardly any comic book artists can paint very well. They've spent their careers learning how to draw in black and white and have zero sensitivity to paint. Again, there are exceptions: Frank Frazetta, C.C. Beck, Richard Corben, Moebius (Jean Giraud), Berni Wrightson (watercolor only), Barry Smith, and Alex Ross (sometimes). Even in this group, most aren't up to the standard of a normal illustrator, though Frazetta and C.C. Beck meet that standard. Most, even skilled black and white artists like John Romita and John Buscema are very weak painters and color illustrators.

Painted covers are more common now because printing technology allows them, but I wish it didn't, because the output is repulsively bad in most cases. The few that are good aren't enough to make up for the profligate horror shows all over, and I include some artists who are popular in that group. Luckily for the artists involved, many collectors are just as naive about painted covers as the artists who make them, so their errors go unnoticed.

Edited May 15 by paqart

[batmiesta]

On 5/15/2024 at 9:40 PM, Dave2739 said:

To be fair, bad art is not limited to modern books.

Just most of it. 

[Chip Cataldo]

I'm curious, given your critiques on comic art since I've first seen you posting @paqart, what your take is on these guys...

1. Bruce Timm
2. Alex Ross
3. John Byrne
4. George Perez
5. Adam Hughes

If you have the time, thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[paqart]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:51 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I'm curious, given your critiques on comic art since I've first seen you posting @paqart, what your take is on these guys...

1. Bruce Timm
2. Alex Ross
3. John Byrne
4. George Perez
5. Adam Hughes

If you have the time, thanks in advance for your thoughts.

1) Bruce Timm: A good artist, though I prefer Darwyn Cooke for this type of style. Timm allows his interest in drawing sexy girls overpower his storytelling abilities. Cooke's work generally remains focused on storytelling and visual invention, and at a very high level. I'd put Cooke in the pantheon greats, and Timm as a solid craftsman.

2) Alex Ross: Despite his popularity, I am not fond of most of Ross's work. He has done a few things I liked, such as a pencil drawing for the cover of Hulk. I was surprised to discover it was by Ross, because it was so unlike the work I was familiar with. I find Ross's compositions boring, though a few work that way. My main quibble though is his coloring, which often relies too much on heavy blacks. His interior painted style doesn't work well for me. This is likely because of the time it takes to execute and his over-reliance of photo reference. In combination, he has very little flexibility with his compositions, making them very stiff. This, btw, is a general criticism I have for all artists who draw directly from photo reference, starting as far back as Mac Raboy. There is a big difference between copying a photo (or near-tracing it) and using it as reference for the appearance of an object, and then redrawing it from a different camera angle. Jack Davis and any of the better artists do the latter, but Ross does the former. Frazetta, btw, although he has made excellent covers, was not very strong at drawing interiors for the same reason it is a weakness for Ross: too reliant on his source photo reference.

3) John Byrne: I like John Byrne and at one time owned about a dozen pages of his original art from Wonder Woman and Next Men. He is a terrific storyteller and has become a very interesting inker. His drawings are usually quite solid. He makes drawing errors, as do most comic book artists, even the best: Gil Kane, Walt Simonson, Johnny Romita Jr., etc. The errors, however, such as the ones pointed out in the first post in this thread, are made up for with quality storytelling. Byrne does rush a job sometimes, and those are usually not as well done due to lack of finish as others, but he hits a very high standard overall as a comic book artist. With a few exceptions, I do not think of him as an "illustrator" the way Frazetta, Wrightson, or Dave Gibbons are illustrators. The exceptions are Byrne's OMAC, Wonder Woman, and Next Men. There may be others I don't know about, but Byrne put a tremendous effort into those titles and raised the bar for his own art.

4) George Perez: He made some very good covers for the Avengers and is perfectly good at interiors as well. He isn't my favorite artist, but he is good at what he does, so I have no serious complaints. If I had a choice between a Perez original or an Alex Ross, I'd take the Perez. Between Byrne and Perez, though I much prefer Byrne, I might go for Perez, depending on what the art is. If it was one of the Avengers covers vs. a Next Men cover, I'd go for Perez. If it was an Avengers interior or a Next Men interior (or Omac), I'd take the Byrne.

5) Adam Hughes: Hughes is a significantly better colorist than Ross. Put another way, Hughes is a good colorist. Overall, I think Hughes has much better-developed art skills than Ross. However, I find most of Hughes' work to be uninteresting and far too reliant on his photo reference. Unlike Ross, Hughes apparently has better quality reference. The "sexy girl looking sexy while posing in a sexy way in a sexy outfit" genre is not my favorite. For this kind of work, I prefer the Dodsons, because they usually manage to add some story detail to their images (or at least, more often than Hughes). One thing Hughes does very well is organize the tones of the colors in his images. Ross is not very good with this and ends up with very high contrast value differences that are inappropriate and jarring. Hughes gets the contrast levels either right or at least more comfortable than Ross and almost every other painter/colorist working in comics. If I had to pick an original by Ross or Hughes, I'd probably go for Ross, though I think Hughes is a better artist. The reason is that I like the golden age feel of Ross' work more than the cheesecake feel of Hughes, which often crosses the line between tasteful and tacky.

Keep in mind what comic books are and what they aren't. They are a storytelling medium utilizing sequentially-arranged panels. Artists that think they will improve on the medium by making laboriously drawn hyper-realistic panels miss the point. If you are too realistic, as many modern artists are or try to be, they lose the dynamism that make comics fun or interesting to read. The best blend of realism and storytelling I've ever seen is by Mazzuchelli in the Daredevil "Born Again" storyline, as well as "Batman: Year One." Neal Adams, by the way, I don't count as very realistic because of his frequent use of odd panel shapes and extremely wide virtual "lenses" that distort his drawings. It was an interesting look, but I wouldn't call it realistic.

I've never seen Byrne try to do anything in color, so I have no idea if he knows how to color, if he's any good at it, or if he can paint. The same is true of Perez. The other three artists, Timm, Ross, and Hughes have some painting/color skills, with Hughes being the standout best of the group. However, the primary advantage Hughes has over Timm, Ross, and other color artists is that he understands value structure. The other two are aware of it, but not as adept at handling it. That said, I might prefer an original by Timm or Ross over a Hughes, and would definitely prefer a Byrne or Perez over any of the other three. 

Once you get into painted covers, I start looking at illustrators who paint. There a lot who do and who are much better at it than almost all illustrators who have ever worked in comics. So when I look at Ross, Hughes, Suydam, and other comic book artists who paint, I tend to compare them to Norman Rockwell, Howard Pyle, Jon Whitcomb, the Leyendecker brothers, and the brothers Hildebrandt. These other artists are so much better than their counterparts in comics that it is unfair to compare them. There is some crossover, but not much. The Hildebrandts have done a limited amount of work in comics, as has Frazetta, but there isn't much after those two. Also, as great as Frazetta is, he doesn't hold a candle to Rockwell. 

The area where comic book artists can, and often do, have a signific aesthetic advantage over painter illustrators is in dynamic composition. This is because comic book artists have to make so many compositions every day that if they are any good, they become extremely good at it. They create a kind of mental flexibility with camera angle choices and character poses that Norman Rockwell would find nearly impossible to imitate. This is where artists like Frank Miller, Jack Kirby, Darwyn Cooke, John Byrne, John Romita (sr), and others excel.

It's interesting to me that the "popular" artists at any given time are often the flashiest but not the most solid. I would take Gil Kane, John Romita Sr., Don Heck, or Mike Ploog over Jim Starlin any day of the week. The same goes for Frank Miller, John Byrne, Mazzuchelli over Ross, Hughes, Dodsons, or Suydam. Richard Corben and Robert Crumb are both a couple of oddballs that are each extremely good at what they do, but the subject matter puts me off, so I woudn't be interested in anything they did. Frank Thorne also, now that I think of it.

Here are a few of my favorite comic book artists:
1) Carl Barks
2) Curt Swan
3) C.C. Beck
4) Johnny Craig
5) Joe Kubert
6) John Romita Sr.
7) GIl Kane
8) Frank Springer (inking himself)
9) Jack Kirby
10) Darwyn Cooke
11) David Mazzuchelli
12) Frank Miller 

13) Harvey Kurtzman (war titles at EC)

Also, in case you are curious, I draw comics myself from time to time. You can see my work on my website, www.paqart.com

Edited May 16 by paqart

[Chip Cataldo]

On 5/16/2024 at 12:40 PM, paqart said:

Also, in case you are curious, I draw comics myself from time to time. You can see my work on my website, www.paqart.com

Thank you for your thorough analysis and insight. I'll re-read the post again later on when I'm home and it's quiet since the first read when I'm at work is probably rushed though I probably don't realize it. Lol

I've seen your website, and it's no surprise that when I first saw your more comic-style work I immediately thought of Darwyn. It's a great style and you do it very well. Your paintings are amazing in their own right.

Do you do commissions at all?

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 5/16/2024 at 5:40 PM, paqart said:

1) Bruce Timm: A good artist, though I prefer Darwyn Cooke for this type of style. Timm allows his interest in drawing sexy girls overpower his storytelling abilities. Cooke's work generally remains focused on storytelling and visual invention, and at a very high level. I'd put Cooke in the pantheon greats, and Timm as a solid craftsman.

2) Alex Ross: Despite his popularity, I am not fond of most of Ross's work. He has done a few things I liked, such as a pencil drawing for the cover of Hulk. I was surprised to discover it was by Ross, because it was so unlike the work I was familiar with. I find Ross's compositions boring, though a few work that way. My main quibble though is his coloring, which often relies too much on heavy blacks. His interior painted style doesn't work well for me. This is likely because of the time it takes to execute and his over-reliance of photo reference. In combination, he has very little flexibility with his compositions, making them very stiff. This, btw, is a general criticism I have for all artists who draw directly from photo reference, starting as far back as Mac Raboy. There is a big difference between copying a photo (or near-tracing it) and using it as reference for the appearance of an object, and then redrawing it from a different camera angle. Jack Davis and any of the better artists do the latter, but Ross does the former. Frazetta, btw, although he has made excellent covers, was not very strong at drawing interiors for the same reason it is a weakness for Ross: too reliant on his source photo reference.

3) John Byrne: I like John Byrne and at one time owned about a dozen pages of his original art from Wonder Woman and Next Men. He is a terrific storyteller and has become a very interesting inker. His drawings are usually quite solid. He makes drawing errors, as do most comic book artists, even the best: Gil Kane, Walt Simonson, Johnny Romita Jr., etc. The errors, however, such as the ones pointed out in the first post in this thread, are made up for with quality storytelling. Byrne does rush a job sometimes, and those are usually not as well done due to lack of finish as others, but he hits a very high standard overall as a comic book artist. With a few exceptions, I do not think of him as an "illustrator" the way Frazetta, Wrightson, or Dave Gibbons are illustrators. The exceptions are Byrne's OMAC, Wonder Woman, and Next Men. There may be others I don't know about, but Byrne put a tremendous effort into those titles and raised the bar for his own art.

4) George Perez: He made some very good covers for the Avengers and is perfectly good at interiors as well. He isn't my favorite artist, but he is good at what he does, so I have no serious complaints. If I had a choice between a Perez original or an Alex Ross, I'd take the Perez. Between Byrne and Perez, though I much prefer Byrne, I might go for Perez, depending on what the art is. If it was one of the Avengers covers vs. a Next Men cover, I'd go for Perez. If it was an Avengers interior or a Next Men interior (or Omac), I'd take the Byrne.

5) Adam Hughes: Hughes is a significantly better colorist than Ross. Put another way, Hughes is a good colorist. Overall, I think Hughes has much better-developed art skills than Ross. However, I find most of Hughes' work to be uninteresting and far too reliant on his photo reference. Unlike Ross, Hughes apparently has better quality reference. The "sexy girl looking sexy while posing in a sexy way in a sexy outfit" genre is not my favorite. For this kind of work, I prefer the Dodsons, because they usually manage to add some story detail to their images (or at least, more often than Hughes). One thing Hughes does very well is organize the tones of the colors in his images. Ross is not very good with this and ends up with very high contrast value differences that are inappropriate and jarring. Hughes gets the contrast levels either right or at least more comfortable than Ross and almost every other painter/colorist working in comics. If I had to pick an original by Ross or Hughes, I'd probably go for Ross, though I think Hughes is a better artist. The reason is that I like the golden age feel of Ross' work more than the cheesecake feel of Hughes, which often crosses the line between tasteful and tacky.

Keep in mind what comic books are and what they aren't. They are a storytelling medium utilizing sequentially-arranged panels. Artists that think they will improve on the medium by making laboriously drawn hyper-realistic panels miss the point. If you are too realistic, as many modern artists are or try to be, they lose the dynamism that make comics fun or interesting to read. The best blend of realism and storytelling I've ever seen is by Mazzuchelli in the Daredevil "Born Again" storyline, as well as "Batman: Year One." Neal Adams, by the way, I don't count as very realistic because of his frequent use of odd panel shapes and extremely wide virtual "lenses" that distort his drawings. It was an interesting look, but I wouldn't call it realistic.

I've never seen Byrne try to do anything in color, so I have no idea if he knows how to color, if he's any good at it, or if he can paint. The same is true of Perez. The other three artists, Timm, Ross, and Hughes have some painting/color skills, with Hughes being the standout best of the group. However, the primary advantage Hughes has over Timm, Ross, and other color artists is that he understands value structure. The other two are aware of it, but not as adept at handling it. That said, I might prefer an original by Timm or Ross over a Hughes, and would definitely prefer a Byrne or Perez over any of the other three. 

Once you get into painted covers, I start looking at illustrators who paint. There a lot who do and who are much better at it than almost all illustrators who have ever worked in comics. So when I look at Ross, Hughes, Suydam, and other comic book artists who paint, I tend to compare them to Norman Rockwell, Howard Pyle, Jon Whitcomb, the Leyendecker brothers, and the brothers Hildebrandt. These other artists are so much better than their counterparts in comics that it is unfair to compare them. There is some crossover, but not much. The Hildebrandts have done a limited amount of work in comics, as has Frazetta, but there isn't much after those two. Also, as great as Frazetta is, he doesn't hold a candle to Rockwell. 

The area where comic book artists can, and often do, have a signific aesthetic advantage over painter illustrators is in dynamic composition. This is because comic book artists have to make so many compositions every day that if they are any good, they become extremely good at it. They create a kind of mental flexibility with camera angle choices and character poses that Norman Rockwell would find nearly impossible to imitate. This is where artists like Frank Miller, Jack Kirby, Darwyn Cooke, John Byrne, John Romita (sr), and others excel.

It's interesting to me that the "popular" artists at any given time are often the flashiest but not the most solid. I would take Gil Kane, John Romita Sr., Don Heck, or Mike Ploog over Jim Starlin any day of the week. The same goes for Frank Miller, John Byrne, Mazzuchelli over Ross, Hughes, Dodsons, or Suydam. Richard Corben and Robert Crumb are both a couple of oddballs that are each extremely good at what they do, but the subject matter puts me off, so I woudn't be interested in anything they did. Frank Thorne also, now that I think of it.

Here are a few of my favorite comic book artists:
1) Carl Barks
2) Curt Swan
3) C.C. Beck
4) Johnny Craig
5) Joe Kubert
6) John Romita Sr.
7) GIl Kane
8) Frank Springer (inking himself)
9) Jack Kirby
10) Darwyn Cooke
11) David Mazzuchelli
12) Frank Miller 

13) Harvey Kurtzman (war titles at EC)

Also, in case you are curious, I draw comics myself from time to time. You can see my work on my website, www.paqart.com

Great analysis.  Never really considered how much photo referencing goes on.  

[paqart]

On 5/16/2024 at 2:15 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Great analysis.  Never really considered how much photo referencing goes on.  

Thanks.

Keep in mind that all artists use photo reference. It's the way they use it that is important. Some artists slavishly trace it, or freehand copy it, which is essentially the same thing. Once you've got a little practice, almost any artist can transfer a 2D image pretty easily even without tracing. The better artists understand 3D and perspective. With that knowledge, they can examine a photo, estimate the dimensions of the objects, and then redraw those same objects from a different point of view (camera angle) and lighting.

Some artists understand 3D well but are also tied to their photo reference because of the amount of detail they want. This usually isn't an issue with mechanical or architectural subjects, but is a problem with faces in particular, because of the compound complex curvature combined with facial muscles that can deform the skin in unpredictable ways. I believe Hughes is capable of using photo reference to extract 3D measurements, but because he wants these perfect facial expressions, he pretty much traces them off of photos. This usually creates a weird, static look. 

Norman Rockwell didn't have that problem because he was a skilled draughtsman before he ever started using photos. After he started using photos, he usually made caricatures in charcoal first, then made up the colors from live models (his reference photos were always black and white). By combining his exaggerated drawings with directly observed color, he got a very realistic look that was lively and unforced.

My favorite example of this is a pair of covers by C.C. Beck and Mac Raboy for Fawcett. The subjects are very similar, but it is easy to see that Raboy, unlike Beck, doesn't understand perspective. Raboy has a photo of a battleship and has essentially traced it. One of the dead giveaways is that there is a lot of structural detail hidden by shadows. If Raboy understood perspective and lighting better, he would have been able to extract that structural information so it wasn't lost. Another problem is that the figure of Captain Marvel Jr is not in the same perspective as the battleship. It's like he's been pinned to a glass slide placed in front of a photo on the wall behind him.

Beck, on the other hand, draws Captain Marvel and the landscape below him in the same 3D space. The giveaway here is how one side of his body tilts away from the camera. Raboy gets most of the attention for his feathery inking style and, I hate to say, extremely badly placed shadows, but Beck is the superior artist. In the Beck cover, though tiny, the gun placement on the island below Marvel is drawn perfectly. He couldn't have done this without a solid understanding of perspective and the ability to understand the structure of objects. One of my favorite examples of this is another Beck, where Captain Marvel has twisted some train tracks. Those twisted tracks and drawn very well, and in a way that lesser artists would find very difficult.

[Senormac]

They both look good to me 

[s-man]

Byrne is pretty much my favorite cover artist, but not every one he's done is a gem 

[Larryw7]

[Ken Aldred]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:46 AM, Larryw7 said:

Having just Googled her, that’s a terrible caricature.

[Ken Aldred]

On 5/17/2024 at 5:33 AM, s-man said:

Byrne is pretty much my favorite cover artist, but not every one he's done is a gem 

Still far from being the worst modern era Superman cover I’ve seen.

Looks to me like he’s simply tensing against a hail of shrapnel fragments.

Edited May 17 by Ken Aldred

[F For Fake]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:18 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Having just Googled her, that’s a terrible caricature.

Yes, I think she has a defamation case if she'd like to pursue it. Um, from beyond the grave, I suppose.

[Dave2739]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:18 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Having just Googled her, that’s a terrible caricature.

For comparison.

[paqart]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:20 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Still far from being the worst modern era Superman cover I’ve seen.

Looks to me like he’s simply tensing against a hail of shrapnel fragments.

Getting back to the original post, the ASM 13 cover may not be one of Byrne's best, but there are much worse covers out there. Also, although all of @Get Marwood & I's criticisms are valid, I wouldn't say it makes the cover "horrible." There are some Superman covers from the 1970's by (I think) Kurt Schaffenberger that are very weak. One, Action 464, is similar to the horrible Iron Man drawing earlier in this thread, though not as bad.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:29 PM, paqart said:

Getting back to the original post, the ASM 13 cover may not be one of Byrne's best, but there are much worse covers out there. Also, although all of @Get Marwood & I's criticisms are valid, I wouldn't say it makes the cover "horrible." There are some Superman covers from the 1970's by (I think) Kurt Schaffenberger that are very weak. One, Action 464, is similar to the horrible Iron Man drawing earlier in this thread, though not as bad.

I only started the thread for a laugh Paq, and six years later it's still going!  You're right though. That Byrne (the house down) Spidey 13 isn't horrible at all. It's the quintessence of sht.

[Larryw7]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:18 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Having just Googled her, that’s a terrible caricature.

I agree. She was actually rather pretty. Blame Wally Wood. He usually had an eye for nice looking women.