This cover is horrible, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! 5 5

[paqart]

On 6/30/2023 at 3:27 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Ta. It's over five years old now Andrew, and it's clear to me now that I was 'mucking about' with it somewhat, as I used to do back then very unsuccessfully (if the resulting moderation was any indicator).

I take your point, but it's the amalgamation of 'mistakes' on that ASM v2 #13, and general laziness from someone who should know better - and do better - that influences my dislike of it. I just find it a rotten, lazy depiction of Spidey, in the style of an artist whose style I dislike, by that artist. 

Again, I disagree. The Spidey #556 scene is pleasing to me. It's not necessarily realistic, just a pleasing image and as I said at the time I feel chilly myself looking at it. And there's a confidence to it given how many ASM covers around the time contained uninspiring shots of him in various cover filling positions which betrayed nothing of the story inside. 

I can see why you would attach more favour to the Byrne Alpha Flight than I think it deserves. There is an attempt at art, at style. At minimalism. Like blue and red blocks of colour on a white page, which tell us something about the struggle of humanity. What irks me is how badly the small, central image is rendered. Giraffe neck. Dematerialising arm. Extraordinarily bad hair moving against the wind. The inexplicably clumsy, totally unnecessary additional line work in the lower left leg that, once observed, can't be unobserved. Is it shade, or defining a muscle that extends to the kneecap? It's unclean in an otherwise clean image. Apart from the equally unclean lines, crashing into each other, that presumably are there to represent the right shoulder.

I used to draw, reasonably well. I know what it means to produce a satisfying piece, and then ruin it with one ill judged additional, usually unnecessary stroke. He's done it four times in this small, sparse image. And the three lazy, hesitant lines on the cloak. Why?

I get why it is liked, and I get your point about criticising individual elements. But I still hate* it. For me, it belongs in the background of a larger picture as it has a throwaway feel to it. Cheaply rendered because it's just a background addition. But it's not the background. It's the central bloody cover image. And it looks half-arsed. And it's by Byrne. 

*I say hate - hate is a big word. But in context, the context of a comic cover with pretensions towards high art, I hate it and it's singular nose representing dot. 

 

We have different tastes. One thing I used to tell my students was this: "The difference between a good artist and a bad one is the ability to distinguish a square from a very similar rectangle. The difference between what you like and what I like is that we each like what appeals to us. The way we breakdown the reasons is irrelevant because they are designed to support what we already know."

For instance, I like Gil Kane's work. He is well-known for having a solid understanding of anatomy. I agree with that assessment. However, I used to teach anatomy and can tell you he made many mistakes. One difference between Kane and McFarlane is that McFarlane's knowledge of anatomy is inferior to Kane's. Kane's knowledge looks very good but he made errors, it seems, for creative effect, as opposed to lack of knowledge. Anatomical knowledge alone does not make someone into a good cover or interior artist. Kane was also very good at coming up with dynamic, exciting compositions. His storytelling, however, was inferior to John Romita, whose anatomical knowledge was inferior to Kane's. John Romita jr is a blend of the best of his father and Kane. Then we have Walt Simonson. He made drawing mistakes all over the place but his confident inking and dynamic compositions made up for every error.

Byrne's strength is his storytelling in interior art. His covers can be excellent, but his interiors are always laid out beautifully compared to his peers. Anyone could work from his layouts and their work would immediately improve. Kirby was the same. Excellent storytelling, great dynamism, unrealistic drawings. Again, realism, or what passes for it in comics, does not appeal to me. My favorite comic artist/slash writer of all time is Carl Barks. If his work represented "100" on a 100 point scale, Second place would go to Will Eisner with a score of about 20, Harvey Kurtzman with a 17, Jack Kirby and John Romita a 15, and everyone else, a lower score. Looking at all this work that to me scores between a flat zero and about 0.5 is difficult because at this level, everything is so similarly flawed. 

Until I saw your post, it hadn't occured to me that anyone would like that ASM painted cover of Spider-Man in the snow. If I had taken it as a photo, I would have thrown it away and kept looking for a better shot. About the only time I would expect to see a composition like that is in a tween frame between two good compositions. You can see this in movies all the time if you stop the playback. You'll see that the storyboarded "key frames" are generally well-composed, but as the elements move, the composition is frequently awkward. This is hard to see because of the motion, but it is there.

Attached is another cover I dislike intensely. I have a couple thanks to my effort to put together a newsstand run of ASM #500-700. Along the way, I had to buy a lot of directs as part of group purchases. This is one of the discards.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by paqart

[Dr. Balls]

On 6/30/2023 at 1:27 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I can see why you would attach more favour to the Byrne Alpha Flight than I think it deserves. There is an attempt at art, at style. At minimalism. Like blue and red blocks of colour on a white page, which tell us something about the struggle of humanity. What irks me is how badly the small, central image is rendered. Giraffe neck. Dematerialising arm. Extraordinarily bad hair moving against the wind. The inexplicably clumsy, totally unnecessary additional line work in the lower left leg that, once observed, can't be unobserved. Is it shade, or defining a muscle that extends to the kneecap? It's unclean in an otherwise clean image. Apart from the equally unclean lines, crashing into each other, that presumably are there to represent the right shoulder.

I used to draw, reasonably well. I know what it means to produce a satisfying piece, and then ruin it with one ill judged additional, usually unnecessary stroke. He's done it four times in this small, sparse image. And the three lazy, hesitant lines on the cloak. Why?

I get why it is liked, and I get your point about criticising individual elements. But I still hate* it. For me, it belongs in the background of a larger picture as it has a throwaway feel to it. Cheaply rendered because it's just a background addition. But it's not the background. It's the central bloody cover image. And it looks half-arsed. And it's by Byrne. 

*I say hate - hate is a big word. But in context, the context of a comic cover with pretensions towards high art, I hate it and it's singular nose representing dot. 

 

I think Byrne doesn't like drawing her. She is poorly rendered on any cover she's on - which is odd, because that scalloped cape would provide lots of opportunity to get creative with flow and detail. A quick review of other covers shows he has no problems drawing draping cloth and capes - but for some reason, he really phones it in on Snowbird cover appearances (of which there are not many).

[paqart]

I totally forgot about the ASM/Obama cover until seeing it just now in the Books you never see in the wild thread. Badly drawn, badly composed, badly colored, bad joke, and uninteresting. There are others that are aesthetically just as bad in the run (or worse) but this one tops them all for its Colgate toothpaste ad quality. That is, it feels like an advertisement for something other than a comic book, as opposed to the story we want when we buy a comic.

This issue reminds me of the little kid named Ricky that suddenly started making appearances in the Partridge Family in the last season. He appeared every episode for ten episodes, and when he did, everything stopped so he could sing a song (badly) and the Partridge family could pretend to smile. Danny Partridge's smiles were particularly unconvincing in these scenes. They were not only foisted on the audience in an obvious attempt to appeal to people who would think Ricky was cute, but also on the main cast of the show, who didn't seem to appreciate his presence.

I have this comic because it is a newsstand edition, but every time I see it when rifling through my ASM issues is like turning a corner in my garden and seeing a giant tarantula. The ASM wedding cake cover evinces a similar reaction.

Edited July 1, 2023 by paqart

[Cat]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, paqart said:

I totally forgot about the ASM/Obama cover until seeing it just now in the Books you never see in the wild thread. Badly drawn, badly composed, badly colored, bad joke, and uninteresting. There are others that are aesthetically just as bad in the run (or worse) but this one tops them all for its Colgate toothpaste ad quality. That is, it feels like an advertisement for something other than a comic book, as opposed to the story we want when we buy a comic.

This issue reminds me of the little kid named Ricky that suddenly started making appearances in the Partridge Family in the last season. He appeared every episode for ten episodes, and when he did, everything stopped so he could sing a song (badly) and the Partridge family could pretend to smile. Danny Partridge's smiles were particularly unconvincing in these scenes. They were not only foisted on the audience in an obvious attempt to appeal to people who would think Ricky was cute, but also on the main cast of the show, who didn't seem to appreciate his presence.

I have this comic because it is a newsstand edition, but every time I see it when rifling through my ASM issues is like turning a corner in my garden and seeing a giant tarantula. The ASM wedding cake cover evinces a similar reaction.

I quite like the cover, I like the composition. 

[paqart]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:25 PM, Cat said:

I quite like the cover, I like the composition. 

Are you serious? I ask in all seriousness, btw. This cover (to me) looks like something made by a kid in high school, not a professional artist. I can even picture how it was made. Someone got a picture of Obama and traced it off using a light table. Then, the "artist" made a (bad) drawing of his own hand and used the light table to insert it in front of Obama. After that, the Spider-Man sketch was drawn into some open space in the background, without regard for perspective.

[Kramerica]

You guys all sound like my buddy criticizing Kirk Cousins of the Vikings every single play for every single game of the season. Y'all a buncha internet trolls. It's art. If you can't say something nice frag off.

 

Happy Friday.

Hugs.

It's finally the Summer of George.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Kramerica

[Flanders82]

On 6/30/2023 at 5:15 PM, paqart said:

I totally forgot about the ASM/Obama cover until seeing it just now in the Books you never see in the wild thread. Badly drawn, badly composed, badly colored, bad joke, and uninteresting. There are others that are aesthetically just as bad in the run (or worse) but this one tops them all for its Colgate toothpaste ad quality. That is, it feels like an advertisement for something other than a comic book, as opposed to the story we want when we buy a comic.

This issue reminds me of the little kid named Ricky that suddenly started making appearances in the Partridge Family in the last season. He appeared every episode for ten episodes, and when he did, everything stopped so he could sing a song (badly) and the Partridge family could pretend to smile. Danny Partridge's smiles were particularly unconvincing in these scenes. They were not only foisted on the audience in an obvious attempt to appeal to people who would think Ricky was cute, but also on the main cast of the show, who didn't seem to appreciate his presence.

I have this comic because it is a newsstand edition, but every time I see it when rifling through my ASM issues is like turning a corner in my garden and seeing a giant tarantula. The ASM wedding cake cover evinces a similar reaction.

It's not so bad. It looks like the mirror image of this mural that was painted outside Ben's Chili Bowl.

 

[paqart]

On 6/30/2023 at 9:42 PM, Flanders82 said:

It's not so bad. It looks like the mirror image of this mural that was painted outside Ben's Chili Bowl.

 

I prefer the mural. The colors are better.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/1/2023 at 1:48 AM, Kramerica said:

You guys all sound like my buddy criticizing Kirk Cousins of the Vikings every single play for every single game of the season. Y'all a buncha internet trolls. It's art. If you can't say something nice frag off.

 

Happy Friday.

Hugs.

It's finally the Summer of George.

Indeed. I don't think I was taking it too seriously when I started it...

...but you're right. I wish I hadn't bumped it now.

[Ken Aldred]

On 7/1/2023 at 1:48 AM, Kramerica said:

You guys all sound like my buddy criticizing Kirk Cousins of the Vikings every single play for every single game of the season. Y'all a buncha internet trolls. It's art. If you can't say something nice frag off.

Good or bad is subjective.

Eye of the beholder.

Sounds like I’m having a Ditko moment there.

[Ken Aldred]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:27 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Ta. It's over five years old now Andrew, and it's clear to me now that I was 'mucking about' with it somewhat, as I used to do back then very unsuccessfully (if the resulting moderation was any indicator).

I take your point, but it's the amalgamation of 'mistakes' on that ASM v2 #13, and general laziness from someone who should know better - and do better - that influences my dislike of it. I just find it a rotten, lazy depiction of Spidey, in the style of an artist whose style I dislike, by that artist. 

Again, I disagree. The Spidey #556 scene is pleasing to me. It's not necessarily realistic, just a pleasing image and as I said at the time I feel chilly myself looking at it. And there's a confidence to it given how many ASM covers around the time contained uninspiring shots of him in various cover filling positions which betrayed nothing of the story inside. 

I can see why you would attach more favour to the Byrne Alpha Flight than I think it deserves. There is an attempt at art, at style. At minimalism. Like blue and red blocks of colour on a white page, which tell us something about the struggle of humanity. What irks me is how badly the small, central image is rendered. Giraffe neck. Dematerialising arm. Extraordinarily bad hair moving against the wind. The inexplicably clumsy, totally unnecessary additional line work in the lower left leg that, once observed, can't be unobserved. Is it shade, or defining a muscle that extends to the kneecap? It's unclean in an otherwise clean image. Apart from the equally unclean lines, crashing into each other, that presumably are there to represent the right shoulder.

I used to draw, reasonably well. I know what it means to produce a satisfying piece, and then ruin it with one ill judged additional, usually unnecessary stroke. He's done it four times in this small, sparse image. And the three lazy, hesitant lines on the cloak. Why?

I get why it is liked, and I get your point about criticising individual elements. But I still hate* it. For me, it belongs in the background of a larger picture as it has a throwaway feel to it. Cheaply rendered because it's just a background addition. But it's not the background. It's the central bloody cover image. And it looks half-arsed. And it's by Byrne. 

*I say hate - hate is a big word. But in context, the context of a comic cover with pretensions towards high art, I hate it and its singular nose representing dot. 

 

I always thought that Byrne drew her in a way that was a bit Uncanny Valley, as an implication of her shapeshifting ability; not quite human.

[Cat]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:31 AM, paqart said:

Are you serious? I ask in all seriousness, btw. This cover (to me) looks like something made by a kid in high school, not a professional artist. I can even picture how it was made. Someone got a picture of Obama and traced it off using a light table. Then, the "artist" made a (bad) drawing of his own hand and used the light table to insert it in front of Obama. After that, the Spider-Man sketch was drawn into some open space in the background, without regard for perspective.

The idea is to promote Obama, and I think it does a decent job of highlighting him on the cover for the reader, while still drawing the eye to Spider-Man as intended. I think it's a good comic rendering of its subject. I certainly don't think it belongs in a worst cover thread. 

[Ken Aldred]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:39 AM, Cat said:

The idea is to promote Obama, and I think it does a decent job of highlighting him on the cover for the reader, while still drawing the eye to Spider-Man as intended. I think it's a good comic rendering of its subject. I certainly don't think it belongs in a worst cover thread. 

Yup. It’s middling, but not bad.

[Kramerica]

On 7/1/2023 at 12:11 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Indeed. I don't think I was taking it too seriously when I started it...

...but you're right. I wish I hadn't bumped it now.

No, no regrets. It's here. Now let's give it some real legs.

 

[buttock]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:31 AM, Cat said:

I can't work the bed out. It's like an Escher drawing. Why are the pillows at the feet,not at the headboard? 

The pillows are at the head.  What looks like the headboard is the footboard.  It's a little wonky, but makes more (not complete, but more) sense when you see it.  I'm more offended by her face than her leg. 

[Cat]

On 7/2/2023 at 3:57 AM, buttock said:

The pillows are at the head.  What looks like the headboard is the footboard.  It's a little wonky, but makes more (not complete, but more) sense when you see it.  I'm more offended by her face than her leg. 

Oh right, I see what you mean.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:08 PM, Kramerica said:

No, no regrets. It's here. Now let's give it some real legs.

 

Do we have to? 

Spoiler

 

[Kramerica]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:54 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Do we have to? 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Don't threaten me with a good time you rabble-rouser.

[paqart]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:39 AM, Cat said:

The idea is to promote Obama, and I think it does a decent job of highlighting him on the cover for the reader, while still drawing the eye to Spider-Man as intended. I think it's a good comic rendering of its subject. I certainly don't think it belongs in a worst cover thread. 

I guess you are serious then. The best celebrity covers I've seen integrate the celebrity seamlessly into a normal comic book cover. Think of Neal Adams' old Bob Hope covers, or Jack Kirby's Fourth World inclusion of Don Rickles (why him?). This image of Obama is over-rendered, too large, too pandering, and too oppressive. It takes up all of the real estate on the page, leaving next to nothing for Spider-Man. Of course, other ASM covers do the same thing, such as a couple of Campbell covers that feature Mary Jane. Spider-Man is there, but way off in the distance, even smaller than Obama in this cover. So, as a drawing, I don't like it (it looks like the kind of thing a high school would make in art class). As a comic book cover, I am amazed it was printed. I just don't see it as professional or appropriate to the subject.

[paqart]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:54 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Do we have to? 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

BTW, I showed my wife and daughter the Spider-Man in the snow ASM cover. They both liked it. I still don't understand why, but admit the color is better on the actual cover than the way it looked in your post.