FF1 new series Miller cover FS 2 2

[KirbyCollector]

On 9/24/2022 at 9:06 AM, Bird said:

comic book figures are not realistic, it is not just Liefeld or FM.

That is not true; comic art USED to be realistic. John Buscema, among others of his era, understood classical anatomy and properly used techniques like foreshortening to render figures akin to those in a photograph -- something I attribute to his formal training, a core component of which was life drawing classes. Liefeld, on the other hand, got his "training" via tracing comics and a few high school art lessons while Miller (to my knowledge) had no training at all. 

[Bird]

On 9/24/2022 at 9:25 AM, KirbyCollector said:

John Buscema, among others of his era, understood classical anatomy

yes he certainly did, how about Gene Colan though?

they are all making choices. Buscema's demons are where he gets funky and his 80s Avengers are to his earlier stuff what this Thing is to Ronin.

My point was about editors sending art back, striving for realism isn't a top priority on a cover.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Bird

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/24/2022 at 7:25 AM, KirbyCollector said:

That is not true; comic art USED to be realistic. John Buscema, among others of his era, understood classical anatomy and properly used techniques like foreshortening to render figures akin to those in a photograph -- something I attribute to his formal training, a core component of which was life drawing classes. Liefeld, on the other hand, got his "training" via tracing comics and a few high school art lessons while Miller (to my knowledge) had no training at all. 

Accurate illustrative representation that was the cornerstone of the illustration trade from clear back to penny dreadfuls and turn-of-the-century advertising went to something more...modern looking in the 90's (almost lowbrow in it's definition). I find it really fascinating - although I can appreciate the people who like John Byrne, Neal Adams are not big on that newer style.

You are probably right - the newer generation didn't have the formal training of years gone by because that formal training was a means to working a trade - when art was created for a marketing purpose. I think the technological changes in advertising in the 80's hamstrung (hamstringed?) the illustration trade, where photography and computer aided graphics took the forefront, eliminating a large need for traditional illustrators. There was still work for them, but it was specialized styles (like artists repped in publications like Black Book) - the days of the house illustrator in advertising agencies was going away, with the agency farming out specific creations to freelancers. This had to have had an effect on the amount of people in that field - and spilling over to the world of comics. Less people learning the trade meant less schools offering the courses - lower placement rates on illustration careers will kill a college program within a few years - paving the way for people like Liefeld learning on his own and editors giving these new styles a chance, not to mention the crazy marketing they undertook to promote the artists, which was a new, modern twist on Stan Lee's way of promoting the Marvel guys.

There is a underlying reason to why the style changed so drastically in the 90's - and I think it was that the world of illustration had changed. Style was chosen over anatomical accuracy. But the 90's gave us some really awesome new styles that just wouldn't have worked in the 50's or 60's because realistic illustrative ability was the whole reason an artist would have become an illustrator.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Dr. Balls

[buttock]

On 9/24/2022 at 7:25 AM, KirbyCollector said:

That is not true; comic art USED to be realistic. John Buscema, among others of his era, understood classical anatomy and properly used techniques like foreshortening to render figures akin to those in a photograph -- something I attribute to his formal training, a core component of which was life drawing classes. Liefeld, on the other hand, got his "training" via tracing comics and a few high school art lessons while Miller (to my knowledge) had no training at all. 

How about Kirby?  

[hmendryk]

On 9/24/2022 at 9:25 AM, KirbyCollector said:

That is not true; comic art USED to be realistic. John Buscema, among others of his era, understood classical anatomy and properly used techniques like foreshortening to render figures akin to those in a photograph -- something I attribute to his formal training, a core component of which was life drawing classes. Liefeld, on the other hand, got his "training" via tracing comics and a few high school art lessons while Miller (to my knowledge) had no training at all. 

I guess we have a different idea about what realistic art is. I would never consider John Buscema as realistic. For me, comic book art at it's best is not realistic, and that includes Buscema. It is those comic book artists that try to "render figures akin to those in a photograph" that I personally have little interest in.

[RBerman]

The reason there's a "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" is that Marvel had a specific visual language for their unrealism in the early Bronze Age. Proportions are skewed and joints improbably flexible. This is long before the infamous "broken back" poses of the Copper Age.

 

It's also why some people (not me) complain about the realism of Alex Ross, which hearkens back to the marketing illustrations of the 1950s and 1960s. Galactus does look like more of a weenie with normal human proportions if we're accustomed to seeing him Marvel-style.

[Chaykin Stevens]

On 9/24/2022 at 1:27 AM, drdonaldblake1 said:

How did the captain chest image get past the editors to be published?

I thought that image was unpublished.  A similar but slightly less egregious pose was used for the cover of Captain America #6.

Edited September 25, 2022 by Chaykin Stevens

[Chaykin Stevens]

Marvel Two-In One #51 was the zenith of Miller's Thing.  Like John Carter #18, it had the benefit of Bob McLeod's inking.

[Bronty]

On 9/24/2022 at 5:58 PM, buttock said:

How about Kirby?  

He could draw more traditionally if he wanted to, or at least, before developing his own style.    Refer to covers like Red Raven 1, Marvel Mystery 12.

[buttock]

On 9/25/2022 at 1:00 PM, Bronty said:

He could draw more traditionally if he wanted to, or at least, before developing his own style.    Refer to covers like Red Raven 1, Marvel Mystery 12.

Agreed, but his premise was that comic art used to be more realistic.  Kirby in his peak years was anything but realistic.  

[hmendryk]

On 9/25/2022 at 3:00 PM, Bronty said:

He could draw more traditionally if he wanted to, or at least, before developing his own style.    Refer to covers like Red Raven 1, Marvel Mystery 12.

I would contend that Kirby never drew realistic comic art. He certainly was capable of drawing realistic as seen in some of his sketches that accompanied letters home during the war. While the cover for Red Raven is in a style different from his later years, I would not call it more realistic.

Edited September 25, 2022 by hmendryk

[Bronty]

On 9/25/2022 at 4:56 PM, hmendryk said:

I would contend that Kirby never drew realistic comic art. He certainly was capable of drawing realistic as seen in some of his sketches that accompanied letters home during the war. While the cover for Red Raven is in a style different from his later years, I would not call it more realistic.

You'll notice I used the word "traditionally" as opposed to realistically - I agree with what you said, but I chose the word I chose for a reason.   

 

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Bronty

[Legion of Goom]

On 9/24/2022 at 9:30 AM, Bird said:

yes he certainly did, how about Gene Colan though?

they are all making choices. Buscema's demons are where he gets funky and his 80s Avengers are to his earlier stuff what this Thing is to Ronin.

My point was about editors sending art back, striving for realism isn't a top priority on a cover.

Gene's rendition of a suit of armor doing the splits and immediately regretting it, agonizing expression and all, I found to quite classical. I'd have the exact same expression if I tried that.

 

 

[hmendryk]

On 9/25/2022 at 5:29 PM, Bronty said:

You'll notice I used the word "traditionally" as opposed to realistically - I agree with what you said, but I chose the word I chose for a reason.   

 

 

Actually traditionally is a word I would never use for Kirby. Looking back after all these years we may fail to see how radical Kirby's art was at that time. But contemporary comic book artists took note and started to adopt some of his techniques (with varying degrees of success). His running figures from the period seem to generate excitement but are physically impossible. When he had figures throwing punches you can feel the force of the blow, but they are nothing like what one would see in a real fight. And anatomy? Don't try to identify all the muscles he depicted but they nonetheless seem to work.

[Timely]

Kirby meant for his art to be dynamic & exciting, not accurate. Accurate is boring. Comics are not meant to be boring. Comics are entertainment, and Kirby understood these concepts literally from day 1 in his art career.

[buttock]

On 9/26/2022 at 6:28 AM, Timely said:

Kirby meant for his art to be dynamic & exciting, not accurate. Accurate is boring. Comics are not meant to be boring. Comics are entertainment, and Kirby understood these concepts literally from day 1 in his art career.

Kirby was great for SA superhero books.  His style was perfect for the time and his audience and really established a way for comics to be viewed, both by those reading them and those on the outside.  But you can make great comics with accuracy as well.  Russ Heath & Joe Kubert had very contrasting styles, but both made great comics.  Murphy Anderson, Neal Adams, etc. could be dynamic, exciting, and accurate.  There is room for both.    

[J.Sid]

On 9/26/2022 at 5:28 AM, Timely said:

Kirby meant for his art to be dynamic & exciting, not accurate. Accurate is boring. Comics are not meant to be boring. Comics are entertainment, and Kirby understood these concepts literally from day 1 in his art career.

Are we talking about Kirby? or Liefeld? The answer is 'both'

[jjonahjameson11]

On 9/26/2022 at 8:28 AM, Timely said:

Kirby meant for his art to be dynamic & exciting, not accurate. Accurate is boring. Comics are not meant to be boring. Comics are entertainment, and Kirby understood these concepts literally from day 1 in his art career.

WTF are you talking about?

Heath, Williamson, Brunner, Adams, etc. were incredibly accurate yet never boring.

[Timely]

On 9/26/2022 at 11:14 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

WTF are you talking about?

Heath, Williamson, Brunner, Adams, etc. were incredibly accurate yet never boring.

What I’m talking about is back when Kirby started, 99.999% of the comic book artists drew stiff, boring art that was very 2 dimensional. They were trying to be accurate with regard to the human form and figure, but it did not translate well most of the time. Kirby’s art was fresh, dynamic, invigorating, and exciting. He focused more on motion and action, than precision correctness. I doubt he has any regrets about it!

[RockMyAmadeus]