August HA Auction 1 1

[zhamlau]

18 hours ago, tth2 said:

WAR is meaningless for Sal.  He was the theoretical average replacement.  He is the zero.

That's not to say he's bad, because then he'd be negative.  He is the benchmark of averageness against which all other artists are measured.

Come now, I don’t think even you think that

[zhamlau]

18 hours ago, mtlevy1 said:

This is the crux of my argument as well - he performed well for a long time but I don't feel he ever had a MVP season - That said, I own 48 pages of his art
(only 2 for sale in my gallery).  What was his MVP year - now who else was playing that year?

The stat line I laid out would never be MVP...but on consistent good play would be a 3000 hit 600 hr .300 hitter.

He was never number one in most eyes but he was of the really good artists for longer than just about anyone else who could work on multiple books and genres with multiple other artists and always make it work. 

 

[zhamlau]

9 hours ago, Bronty said:

Kane really did draw like every flipping cover for five years  Good use of his talents actually; he’s great as a cover man but the interiors didn’t always work

Haha my turn to play heel: always thought Kane was very over rated. I just hated looking at the figures he drew. I know others see greatness in him, I’m just not one of them.

[zhamlau]

Sorta on the “All Sal All The Time” discussion: who pencilled or inked the most complete issues in history? Would it be Sal or Kirby? Al Williamson or JRJR?

[grapeape]

6 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Haha my turn to play heel: always thought Kane was very over rated. I just hated looking at the figures he drew. I know others see greatness in him, I’m just not one of them.

On many interior pages Kane for me is like Cano limping to second base. He comes up a bit short.

Now Kane Green Lantern, Spiderman and John Carter Warlord of Mars. Sky high like JD’s game tying blast and Hum a na  hum a na rockets red glare like Pete’s laser into left field to decide a double header sweep!

 

[comix4fun]

Just now, zhamlau said:

Sorta on the “All Sal All The Time” discussion: who pencilled or inked the most complete issues in history? Would it be Sal or Kirby? Al Williamson or JRJR?

I wouldn't bet against Kirby as his career runs back to the 50's and he carried almost the entire main Marvel line doing something like 9,000 pages in the early to mid 60's.. And I wouldn't allow the altering of formats in the 70's..(one issue - one story) to eliminate all that kirby work in books that had two stories 8-10 pages in length or a main story with main characters and a 4-6 page backup story. 

[zhamlau]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

I wouldn't bet against Kirby as his career runs back to the 50's and he carried almost the entire main Marvel line doing something like 9,000 pages in the early to mid 60's.. And I wouldn't allow the altering of formats in the 70's..(one issue - one story) to eliminate all that kirby work in books that had two stories 8-10 pages in length or a main story with main characters and a 4-6 page backup story. 

I think I’m looking more in the “marvel” era when talking complete issues...maybe it would be better to do most overall pages either inked or pencilled?

[zhamlau]

12 minutes ago, grapeape said:

On many interior pages Kane for me is like Cano limping to second base. He comes up a bit short.

Now Kane Green Lantern, Spiderman and John Carter Warlord of Mars. Sky high like JD’s game tying blast and Hum a na  hum a na rockets red glare like Pete’s laser into left field to decide a double header sweep!

 

Well Mercury did come out of retrograde...

#LFGM

[batman_fan]

I see a lot of talk about the mediocrity of a lot of artist, so who is actually good?  

Miller?  Please, his stuff, especially Daredevil was very mediocre, it looks very unfinished, poor anatomy, just bad at all levels.  His Dark Knight stuff was only marginally better.

Gibbons?  His stuff is the poster child for mediocre, very flat, not dynamic at all.

[cstojano]

Once noted, the "stare eyes" cannot be unseen, much like the Dark Kingdom ball...

[Bronty]

14 hours ago, batman_fan said:

I see a lot of talk about the mediocrity of a lot of artist, so who is actually good?  

Miller?  Please, his stuff, especially Daredevil was very mediocre, it looks very unfinished, poor anatomy, just bad at all levels.  His Dark Knight stuff was only marginally better.

 

Never a big fan of DD either really except for some of the later issues, but it was his early work.   Anyways, its not really the "drawing" per se that sets Miller apart.    He's not trying to outdraw frazetta.    He's trying to use each frame to tell a story in the way a movie would.   8 panels of Kingpin smoking a cigar in the pitch black because that sets the mood as the shadowly underworld villain he's supposed to be.    Now maybe that's not your cup of tea but the point is, he's not trying to draw the most beautiful art he can.    He's trying to illustrate the most impactful story he can.   Those are very different things and he was extremely successful at creating impact, so much so that the impact went past the printed page and even changed the course of the industry.

Similar idea for Barks in that its not his drawing that sets him apart, its the writing, its the life the characters are infused with.     Same for Crumb - he can draw but its not the drawing.  Its the look into human nature with him.

In a way, its not fair to compare artists that are also writers to artists that purely illustrate but you can't really stop it from happening because writing often gets marginalized and a good --script can be ruined pretty quickly by bad art.   

Gibbons isn't special at all, but he illustrated Alan Moore.    If he had illustrated the writings of Joe Shmucklack neither one of us would even know his name.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Bronty

[tth2]

23 hours ago, delekkerste said:

23 hours ago, Bronty said:

Yeah fair point .   It’s really 75-79 or so that was generally the hot turd a couple artists excepted.

Agreed, though, I'd say more 1976-79. 

With a few exceptions, the 30, 35 and 40 cent cover price era was...sub-optimal. 

The downturn started in the 20 cent era.

BWS replaced by JB on Conan.

John Romita was at the end of his run on ASM, and was replaced by Ross Andru. 

The Buscema brothers on a host of titles.

Rich Buckler on FF.

Herb Trimpe on Hulk.

X-Men was a reprint title.

 

 

[tth2]

23 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

Always felt like the good stuff was the outlier.  My list of automatic buys included anything with art by Starlin, Ploog, Gulacy, Russell, Brunner, Golden, Mayerick, Grham and the like, mostly on Marvel's more fringey books.   

Exactly.  There were some decent artists, but they weren't trusted with any of the main titles.

23 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

Strangely, I wasn't at all into the art of Kirby's return in the mid 70's at all, so that was a massive dead zone for me.  

Same here, it was terrible and made even worse by his writing.  Anytime someone says that Kirby deserves more credit than Stan for the rise of Marvel, I just point them to the horrific plots and dialogue when Kirby was allowed to write.

[tth2]

23 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

What should be my nostalgic sweet spot is actually remembered as a less than inspired period artistically.

Once again, am totally 100% aligned.

[tth2]

15 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Gibbons?  His stuff is the poster child for mediocre, very flat, not dynamic at all.

+1

[batman_fan]

41 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Never a big fan of DD either really except for some of the later issues, but it was his early work.   Anyways, its not really the "drawing" per se that sets Miller apart.    He's not trying to outdraw frazetta.    He's trying to use each frame to tell a story in the way a movie would.   8 panels of Kingpin smoking a cigar in the pitch black because that sets the mood as the shadowly underworld villain he's supposed to be.    Now maybe that's not your cup of tea but the point is, he's not trying to draw the most beautiful art he can.    He's trying to illustrate the most impactful story he can.   Those are very different things and he was extremely successful at creating impact, so much so that the impact went past the printed page and even changed the course of the industry.

Similar idea for Barks in that its not his drawing that sets him apart, its the writing, its the life the characters are infused with.     Same for Crumb - he can draw but its not the drawing.  Its the look into human nature with him.

In a way, its not fair to compare artists that are also writers to artists that purely illustrate but you can't really stop it from happening because writing often gets marginalized and a good ---script can be ruined pretty quickly by bad art.   

Gibbons isn't special at all, but he illustrated Alan Moore.    If he had illustrated the writings of Joe Shmucklack neither one of us would even know his name.

I don’t think Miller’s terrible artwork helped his story telling. I think it actually detracted from it. I find Neal Adams artwork with the story far more appealing. The truly sad thing is I think Miller allowed a slew of crappy artist to take over the comic scene. 

[tth2]

44 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Gibbons isn't special at all, but he illustrated Alan Moore.    If he had illustrated the writings of Joe Shmucklack neither one of us would even know his name.

Yup.  And in fact the demand for his non-Watchmen pages is pretty tepid.

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I don’t think Miller’s terrible artwork helped his story telling. I think it actually detracted from it. I find Neal Adams artwork with the story far more appealing. The truly sad thing is I think Miller allowed a slew of crappy artist to take over the comic scene. 

Its clearly not your cup of tea, but ask yourself this.

Is Schulz an amazing artist?   I can make a case that he's amazing.   And I can make a case that he draws like a third grader with a broken hand.

And that's essentially what all of these conversations boil down to. 

(You like Schulz so you forgive the childlike nature of it, as do I, and as do most people.   But he's not trying to outdraw frazetta either.   There is really no genius in his hand.   Its the writing and the fact that he faced the drawing board every single day for 50 years despite being clearly out of gas the last 20.   The early stuff is magic, but you can't really call it amazing drawing.   Yet I'd call him a great artist.).

Edited August 7, 2019 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

Just now, tth2 said:

Yup.  And in fact the demand for his non-Watchmen pages is pretty tepid.

Wait...you mean to say that character, title, and subject matter are integral to demand and price in the comic art market?  

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Wait...you mean to say that character, title, and subject matter are integral to demand and price in the comic art market?  

So those Drektacular #1 pages I bought because Joe Schmucklack will be in fine art museums were a bad investment???