Most new art looks the same 2 2

[KirbyCollector]

Went to my LCS yesterday to check a newer artist whose work I am considering buying, then decided to browse about 40 other books. Wow, is there a lot of bland, derivative gaming-type art out there right now, most of it some bastardized mix of watered down Jim Lee, manga and overdone digital effects. The last part is the most insidious; it's as if the artists are no longer trying to pencil complex expressions, but relying entirely on digital effects to fill the gap. The result is flattish and inhuman, akin to characters rendered in a video game -- which probably isn't a surprise, given every 30-something or younger creator was fed a steady diet of games in his or her youth. Whatever it is, it isn't pretty.

There are some unique talents out there -- I love Mike Perkins recent work on Swamp Thing, Marcio Takara's delicate lines on Poison Ivy, and Tradd Moore anything. The Dodsons still put out a look of beautiful art, too. But there is an awful lot of drek to contend with, sadly.

[Rick2you2]

Don”t forget that OA is commercial art—designed to sell a product (comics), not to be a standalone vision of beauty. If the art moves the product, and the publisher can get away with cheapened art at a cheaper price, that’s what you get. But, the “old masters” were in the same boat. That’s how Kirby got to use giant sound effects—they filled the page quickly and easily. Why do a sophisticated series of small panels if one large splash will do, and even earn the artist more when sold later? For pencilling complex expressions, older artists were also limited. Ever notice Sal’s limited expression range for his Hulk? So, instead of focusing on its limitations, take some pleasure at what it offers. The next round may be purely AI drawn.

 

[Hockeyflow33]

I did laugh at all the recent AI bashing from artists who all have the exact same bland style

[cstojano]

It's not just comic art. I have a hard to time differentiating the artists working on Magic cards and other fantasy based properties anymore. There are exceptions of course but for the most part the art all seems very "soft" to me. 

[Aahz]

I think you could make that argument for any period of comic art as well.  Sure the 90's had some artists that broke new ground style-wise, but there was also a lot of drawing to a specific style too.  I think you can still find a lot of interesting art and story telling.

[Unstoppablejayd]

I agree with a lot of what you say- but there are still gems out there with distinctive styles I really appreciate .

a couple that come to mind you should check out if you haven’t . Josh Cassara Declan Shalvey Robert Gill off the top of my head:

[gumbydarnit]

I’m often struck by how many covers just sit there, not jumping out at me, definitely not making me pick it up and flip through it… kinda sad for sure.

BUT on the positive side I keep going to the LCS searching.

Here’s my rough superstar list (your mileage may vary)

Kirby

Adams

Sternako

BWS

Byrne

Miller

Perez

Golden

Art Adams

Jim Lee 

McFarlane

After Lee and McFarlane, who came along a sparked the comic fans interest?!?

Sure there are new creators that comic art collectors like, but are there names that the general comic fans seek out and seek out everything they create like happened with Byrne and McFarlane… where are the new superstars? It’s been a while.

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by gumbydarnit

[jjonahjameson11]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:18 PM, gumbydarnit said:

I’m often struck by how many covers just sit there, not jumping out at me, definitely not making me pick it up and flip through it… kinda sad for sure.

BUT on the positive side I keep going to the LCS searching.

Here’s my rough superstar list (your mileage may vary)

Kirby

Adams

Sternako

BWS

Byrne

Miller

Perez

Golden

Art Adams

Jim Lee 

McFarlane

After Lee and McFarlane, who came along a sparked the comic fans interest?!?

Sure there are new creators that comic art collectors like, but are there names that the general comic fans seek out and seek out everything they create like happened with Byrne and McFarlane… where are the new superstars? It’s been a while.

 

 

 

David Finch, Frank Cho and Michael Turner to name but a few.

[s-man]

This is the same thing that's happened in the music industry.  Digitally enhanced art is akin to autotune, taking away much of the nuance and imperfections that make both artforms great.

[g-man]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:53 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

David Finch, Frank Cho and Michael Turner to name but a few.

Capullo, Tim Sale, Dodson, Timm....

[babsrocks31]

As another poster said, the "primary" style of every decade is similar. This has been the case for every decade since... Well ... Comics became a thing.

There is a plethora of good to great artists out there. Some are big names, many fly under the radar.  It's certainly up to taste to determine if you prefer the current "style" or more alternative approaches, or just prefer a style from the past... but don't sell modern artists short!

Edit: Just one example of a fantastic modern artist is Alvaro Martinez. And there plenty more of differing styles.

Edit again: I'm not sure what the OP means by "video game" inspired art, as games themselves have lots of different art directions. If they mean a lot of TNA... Well, that was the case in the 90s much worse than now. If they mean sort of animeish, that is a small fraction of video game style...

Edited February 13, 2023 by babsrocks31

[KirbyCollector]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:02 PM, babsrocks31 said:

As another poster said, the "primary" style of every decade is similar. This has been the case for every decade since... Well ... Comics became a thing.

That is not true at all. When I browsed the racks in the early 80s, I was confronted with a wide variety of very distinctive styles by artists such as Byrne, Art Adams, Aparo, Colan, Miller, Romita Sr, Romita Jr, Perez, Sienkiewicz, Sal Buscema, and Walt Simonson on monthly titles -- all artists whose work was instantly recognizable as theirs alone. You hated or loved artists at that time because their art made you care. I'm open to new art (neglected to mentioned I like Bilquis, who seems to have a good future), but right now most of what I see is a lot of bland, corporate art which doesn't induce me to plunk down my $4.

[babsrocks31]

On 2/12/2023 at 8:18 PM, KirbyCollector said:

That is not true at all. When I browsed the racks in the early 80s, I was confronted with a wide variety of very distinctive styles by artists such as Byrne, Art Adams, Aparo, Colan, Miller, Romita Sr, Romita Jr, Perez, Sienkiewicz, Sal Buscema, and Walt Simonson on monthly titles -- all artists whose work was instantly recognizable as theirs alone. You hated or loved artists at that time because their art made you care. I'm open to new art (neglected to mentioned I like Bilquis, who seems to have a good future), but right now most of what I see is a lot of bland, corporate art which doesn't induce me to plunk down my $4.

 In the 80's browsing the racks was essentially the only way to consume comics. Now, there are sooooo many titles from sooooo many publishers. Sure, if you just look at the main rack in a comic shop you might see a lot of the same, but if you dig deeper (and you won't really have to dig), you can find different stuff. 

If you want to say the 80s was one of the most versatile decades for art go for it, but that doesn't mean all modern art is the same. And most decades have had common characteristics amongst lots of the art. Maybe the 80s was different, but then that is the outlier, not modern art.

Heck, just thinking for ten seconds:

Mike Perkins, Bruno Redondo, Kyle Hotz, Paul Pelletier, Alvaro Martinez, Jorge Jimenez, Nathan Gooden, Joshua Cassara, Tim Seeley, Elsa Charretier, Otto Scmidt, Lucas Werneck, Casey Jones, Joshua Williamson, Dan Brereton, Fernando Blanco, Matteo Scalera, Sean Murphy, Amancay Nahuelpan... are all artists with at least semi distinct styles, some of which borrow a lot from the master's and some less.

And there are tons more waaay more unique.

 There's a ton of modern art out there so perhaps you are looking in the same spot and seeing the same stuff. 

You don't have to like modern art. It's probably not a coincidence that you don't mind Bilquis, who has a bit of a throwback style. Maybe that's more your thing. That's okay. 

I think this thread is a bit unfair to the hardworking artists of today, though.

 

Edit: I agree on corporate art (though bland is a matter of taste). But comics are a huge medium now. Of course lots of art looks similar, but lots also looks unique.

Edited February 13, 2023 by babsrocks31

[PhilipB2k17]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:53 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

David Finch, Frank Cho and Michael Turner to name but a few.

If you're talking covers, Stanley "Artgerm" Lau is also sought after.

[alexgross.com]

On 2/12/2023 at 8:18 PM, KirbyCollector said:

That is not true at all. When I browsed the racks in the early 80s, I was confronted with a wide variety of very distinctive styles by artists such as Byrne, Art Adams, Aparo, Colan, Miller, Romita Sr, Romita Jr, Perez, Sienkiewicz, Sal Buscema, and Walt Simonson on monthly titles -- all artists whose work was instantly recognizable as theirs alone. You hated or loved artists at that time because their art made you care. I'm open to new art (neglected to mentioned I like Bilquis, who seems to have a good future), but right now most of what I see is a lot of bland, corporate art which doesn't induce me to plunk down my $4.

oh i think it's true to some extent. at least in the seventies it was. for example, this is NOT neal adams. in the eighties there did seem to be more diversity of art styles with byrne, miller, simonson. i felt the same way you do now once the image guys showed up. i felt that everything looked the same at the start of the nineties. perhaps this feeling is common with each generation. not saying there isn't alot of truth to it. and i think one of the reasons many artists use digital shortcuts is that it saves time and money. i don't think page rates are very good these days.

 

[JC25427N]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection 

Don't be that guy

Edited February 13, 2023 by JC25427N

[justadude]

Most old art looks the same.

[RBerman]

I'm with the consensus here. As Sturgeon's Law says, "90% of everything is CR**" The sieve of time lets the old  CR** fall by the wayside and be forgotten. But if you look at the new stuff, you'll see 90% CR**, and 10% awesome work that we'll still be talking about years from now when someone is complaining about how boring the new stuff is.

As a collector, there's more new stuff I like than I can afford, even though it is less expensive than the old good stuff.

ETA: That vulgarity filter is hilarious.

Edited February 15, 2023 by RBerman

[KirbyCollector]

I went to the shop to browse with the intention of finding new artists whose work I could buy precisely because I am not wedded to the art of my youth. I never said a lot of newer work was boring or cr*p -- I find it competent, albeit not very beautiful, too derivative of Lee's work/manga, and rendered with an overreliance on digital effects.

I should note I mostly browsed the major publisher titles and came to my conclusion. Is there wonderful art being produced by Very Minor Publisher X on an erratic basis? I am sure there is, but the question becomes, Is it worth buying obscure comic art not connected to a major publisher or character? For me, the answer is no.

[vodou]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:43 AM, KirbyCollector said:

Is it worth buying obscure comic art not connected to a major publisher or character? For me, the answer is no.

Your loss. I do it all the time, it’s great