Steranko: The Greatest Comic Book Artist of the Late Silver Age?

[BillyBatson4360]

Steranko's Nick Fury #6 looks like Williamson could have drawn it.

 

Actually, Sal is quite correct. I've seen Steranko refer to that cover specifically as a Wally Wood tribute cover.

[tth2]

"I`ve never read any of Crumb`s work because I find his art style so horrific that I just could never get interested enough to check out his writing."

 

Wow! I find that amazing. I think Crumb has one of the most accessible styles in all of comics. To me, it just looks so inviting and easy to read.

 

Obviously, Crumb is working in a different field of comic art - the "big foot" or "funny" part of funny books. His most obvious influence is Basil Wolverton. Now, I love Wolverton (I highly recommended Theakston's "Wolverton Reader") If you don't care for Wolverton, you probably won't dig Crumb, either.

Maybe instead of horrific, I should have said grotesque. Clearly Crumb was a talented artist, but the way he chose to depict people, particularly women where his fetishes were very evident, is just not cup of tea. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Not surprisingly, I also dislike Wolverton.

[Silver Surfer]

Buscema's middle of the road style

 

Sorry I just can't get over your description of Buscema as just above average, journeyman and now middle of the road? How do you consider his style middle of the road when he was considered to be the best at a time when Marvel was at its absolute peak and many of his peers looked in awe at his work and ability? Even to this day he has drawn a number of characters that many if not most would agree that Buscema was best able to capture the essense of how we envision Thor, Sub-Mariner, Silver Surfer, etc to be. How can a guy be middle of the road and have so many cover works considered to be some of the best of that era if not all-time? I think you are in a severe minority on this one.

 

[october]

"I`ve never read any of Crumb`s work because I find his art style so horrific that I just could never get interested enough to check out his writing."

 

Wow! I find that amazing. I think Crumb has one of the most accessible styles in all of comics. To me, it just looks so inviting and easy to read.

 

Obviously, Crumb is working in a different field of comic art - the "big foot" or "funny" part of funny books. His most obvious influence is Basil Wolverton. Now, I love Wolverton (I highly recommended Theakston's "Wolverton Reader") If you don't care for Wolverton, you probably won't dig Crumb, either.

Maybe instead of horrific, I should have said grotesque. Clearly Crumb was a talented artist, but the way he chose to depict people, particularly women where his fetishes were very evident, is just not cup of tea. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Not surprisingly, I also dislike Wolverton.

 

You aren't alone. I don't care for his art style either, and grotesque is an appropriate descriptor.

[rjpb]

Ease of draftsmanship and speed of execution are attributes which would inevitably impress other artists, but would mean far less to consumers who look only at the final product. Buscema was above average no doubt, but for me he lacked a sense of style that would elevate him into the top ranks, but I will give him credit for taking a character identified strongly with Jack Kirby and making it his own - no easy feat. Buscema did have a talent for action poses, and while I'm not all that comfortable with multiple tiers of talent, I would liken him to Romita, another quality artist with a specific talent ( in this case drawing women), but who's style had a vaguely generic quality that

falls a bit short of exceptional. Obviously there is a definite apples and oranges quality to direct comparisons of most comic artists, and I am grateful for the variety of styles used to interpret the medium. We all have our favorites, and while I can say who makes the cut for me personally, I would find it impossible to rank those favorites individually.

 

For me Crumb is one of the true geniuses of comics, and a double threat being a talented writer as well, but I can understand he may not be for everyone, though I sometimes wonder if some fans are locked into

fairly narrow perceptions of what comic art should be.

[BillyBatson4360]

I think you are in a severe minority on this one.

 

Okay, add me to the "severe minority."

 

When Buscema first returned to Marvel, his work was poor (check out his first Hulk & SHIELD stories). Stan loaded him up with Kirby comics and said "Tell a story THIS way." And that's what Buscema did. He had excellent draftsmanship. He was prolific and reliable, but his way of story-telling was the Marvel "house style" - which is to say based on the work of Jack Kirby. Buscema innovated nothing. That does not mean he wasn't a very good artist; it just keeps him from reaching the very top in my book.

 

How do you consider his style middle of the road when he was considered to be the best at a time when Marvel was at its absolute peak and many of his peers looked in awe at his work and ability?

 

First of all, define "peak."

 

If you mean sales-wise, Marvel sold more comics during the time right before MacFarlane, Lee & Company jumped ship to start Image. They definitely sold more comics during the Golden Age when all comic book circulations were higher. If you mean creative peak. That's a totally subjective evaluation - usually depending on what age you were at during that time period. For me, I think the creative "peak" for Marvel lasted from FF# 1 until the line expanded to give Cap, Iron Man, etc. their own solo books. But I'm sure other fans would point to other periods. Not a problem.

 

Second, who are all these people who considered Buscema the best? I've seen people who liked Buscema's artwork, but I really can't recall anyone (until this thread) naming him the best. As the originator, Kirby got that label most of the time, even when his skills were in decline in the 70's. Following Kirby, the flashy young turks: Adams, Steranko, Smith, Kaluta, Starlin, & Ploog grabbed the accolades. They were followed much later by the Image boys. Understand, I don't ask to be a smart-aleck. I honestly would like to know who considered Buscema the best?

 

...many if not most would agree that Buscema was best able to capture the essense of how we envision Thor, Sub-Mariner, Silver Surfer, etc to be.

 

Well, here you and I definitely part company. I am an old fogey who generally feels that the creator of the character in most (if not all) cases is the one best able to capture the essence of that character. Hence, Jack Kirby was best able to capture the essence of Thor and the Silver Surfer (a character that was a 100% Kirby creation). Bill Everett drew the definitive Sub-Mariner. Jack Kirby was next best at Subby. John Byrne was after Kirby. Wally Wood after Byrne and Gene Colan after Wood. Then Buscema.

[FlyingDonut]

Perhaps one of the reasons this discussion is happening is the sheer amount of Buscema's work versus Sterankos. Steranko did what, maybe 150 books total, including covers (I particularly like his later Creatures on the Loose work and his Shanna covers, but that's a different story), while Buscema must have done thousands.

 

And, I like Wrightson's art over both of them . But what do I know. I prefer Ross Andru's Spider-Man.

[OldGuy]

I like Wrightson's art over both of them...

 

[rjpb]

I prefer Ross Andru's Spider-Man.

[ft88]

Let's get off Buscema please.

 

Wrightson vs Steranko

 

Both had a definitive style and were highly influencial.

Both "peaked" in the late 60's early 70's

Both sort of went off on their own outside of comics

Both would command $100k plus covers for their more classic work

Both seemed to only have short stints in comic books and had good to great interior work. But the covers... oh the covers.

Once was DC the other Marvel, we could almost revive this debate just by these two artists.

 

Please discuss, I'm feeling perclimpt

 

[rjpb]

The only books I saved from my original SA/BA collection were the Steranko ST/SHIELD comics and the Wrightson Swamp Things - so they obviously made the best impression on me. I have planned on completing a SA Steranko cover collection and getting started SA/BA Wrightson cover collection for years, but other books always seem to take my money first.

[october]

Wrightson v. Steranko

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FlyingDonut]

[Zonker]

Wrightson v. Steranko

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting choice, there! When I first saw this cover, I thought Wrightson was channelling Steranko on the figure of the girl in profile (Though the zombies are Bernie's pure Ghastly Ingles influence).

 

Anyone else have that reaction?

[october]

Ingels (and Frazetta) are obviously pretty big influences in Wrightson's work, but derivative or not, Wrightson is number one in my book for horror art. Actually, his interiors are just as wonderful as his covers. I highly recomment picking up one of his collections, they all tend to contain the same work.

[OldGuy]

[october]

[rjpb]

While the Ingels influence is undeniable in Wrightson's work - to the point where at times it seems merely imatative, I have to say I prefer Wrightson to Ingels - his inking is cleaner and his composition superior.

[BillyBatson4360]

Well, at least the debate has shifted to artists who actually made their debut in the late Silver Age.

 

I love Wrightson. I own his superb hardcover, "A Look Back." I have his Monster coloring book. I have two of his Frankenstein portfolios as well as the book itself.

 

However - to me, Wrightson is more of an illustrator than a comic book artist. That's why I prefer his covers and his spot illustrations to his actual stories. He does not match Steranko in terms of innovative page layouts, use of color, etc.

 

He also is more of a "One-Note Charlie" than Steranko. Wrightson is great in the horror genre, but not that great outside of it. Steranko got famous with a hi-tech spy strip (Nick Fury is really not a super-hero). Did a bang-up job on super-hero stories with the X-Men and Captain America. Produced a nice horror story in "At the Stroke of Midnight" (maybe not as nice as Wrightson's horror work, but how would Wrightson have handled Nick Fury?), and a superb love story.

 

Add to that the great comic covers, the outstanding paperback covers (expecially for the Shadow) and his spot illustrations. And you have the more complete artist and the better artist for interior comic book work.

[goldust40]

how would Wrightson have handled Nick Fury?)

 

I don't know how Wrightson could've handled that character, but his rendition of Batman in Swamp Thing 7 proved that he could have made a damn fine superhero artist if he'd wanted to be.