Most new art looks the same 2 2

[Rick2you2]

.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Rick2you2

[Rick2you2]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:15 AM, RBerman said:

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.

No question the vulgarity filter is funny. Try inputting Richard Giordano or Richard Dillon by their nicknames.

The thing about crud is that it isn’t always crud. The definition can change with the times. Are there things on eBay, for example, which I doubt will ever be admired? Sure. Some by any standard are awful. Are there breakthrough artists whom you know it when you see it? Yup. Look at The Spirit. But in my view, a lot of what we like or dislike is a matter of current taste which can change with time. Go look at great-grandma’s old brown furniture for example. It is, for the most part, ugly by modern standards. But, great- grandma probably loved its baroque lines. A lot of people love Silver Age Marvel art. While I recognize some of it as excellent, I don’t care for a lot of it. What we people think as terrific in 50 years is anybody’s guess, although there are worthy and unworthy candidates for each category. Bottom line: buy it if you like it and keep your own counsel as the best counsel.

[Rick2you2]

On 2/14/2023 at 2:35 AM, justadude said:

Most old art looks the same.

There is something to that...

[justadude]

On 2/15/2023 at 4:56 PM, Rick2you2 said:

There is something to that...

It's true!

But in seriousness, these kinds of posts are so tiring and these sentiments are so pervasive among the collecting community. People are so blinded by their nostalgia, and lack even the most basic terms to describe art, that not only are most members of the community unable to discuss art on its own merit, they're incredibly dismissive of anything they don't like. Personal opinions =/= criticism. As a younger collector, it's quite off-putting to join a community that's essentially made up of 50+-year-old fan boys bashing new comics, new comic art, new anything, because they didn't pick it up off the general store rack for 25 cents. It's almost like *gasp* not everything is made for that demographic, and yet members of that demographic are consistently surprised by this. Not only that, but they run their mouths as if they were the official tastemakers of anything when in reality they probably should have put that first comic on the rack, bought a lollipop instead, and saved us all the hassle of having to listen to their incredibly naive and poorly formed thoughts on why art and comics from their childhood are naturally superior to art and comics made at any other period in time.

They're often the same people lamenting about how the comic collecting and comic art communities are dwindling and there won't be collectors in the future. Duh. Instead of shoving your opinions down our throats and acting from a scarcity mentality, we can instead create a community that allows for appreciation and intelligent discussion not on what superhero is depicted on a page, but how lines, dynamism, contrast, panel composition, etc. are working.

It's frustrating because this forum isn't the right place for this discussion, and yet, there is on place for this discussion. There's this "soundbyte" mentality where everything is a hot take or quick opinion with no real thought or analysis to it. I think we should demand more from our communities.

 

This isn't really for anyone but myself. I know nothing will change. Maybe someone will appreciate this. Most likely they will not.

[grapeape]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:53 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

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

Especially Michael Turner.

[grapeape]

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.

Bilquis is brilliant. 

[Rick2you2]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:01 PM, justadude said:

It's true!

But in seriousness, these kinds of posts are so tiring and these sentiments are so pervasive among the collecting community. People are so blinded by their nostalgia, and lack even the most basic terms to describe art, that not only are most members of the community unable to discuss art on its own merit, they're incredibly dismissive of anything they don't like. Personal opinions =/= criticism. As a younger collector, it's quite off-putting to join a community that's essentially made up of 50+-year-old fan boys bashing new comics, new comic art, new anything, because they didn't pick it up off the general store rack for 25 cents. It's almost like *gasp* not everything is made for that demographic, and yet members of that demographic are consistently surprised by this. Not only that, but they run their mouths as if they were the official tastemakers of anything when in reality they probably should have put that first comic on the rack, bought a lollipop instead, and saved us all the hassle of having to listen to their incredibly naive and poorly formed thoughts on why art and comics from their childhood are naturally superior to art and comics made at any other period in time.

They're often the same people lamenting about how the comic collecting and comic art communities are dwindling and there won't be collectors in the future. Duh. Instead of shoving your opinions down our throats and acting from a scarcity mentality, we can instead create a community that allows for appreciation and intelligent discussion not on what superhero is depicted on a page, but how lines, dynamism, contrast, panel composition, etc. are working.

It's frustrating because this forum isn't the right place for this discussion, and yet, there is on place for this discussion. There's this "soundbyte" mentality where everything is a hot take or quick opinion with no real thought or analysis to it. I think we should demand more from our communities.

 

This isn't really for anyone but myself. I know nothing will change. Maybe someone will appreciate this. Most likely they will not.

I think you have drifted off into hyperbole when discussing some legitimate points. First, I am firmly in the 50+ segment of collectors, but I have regularly expressed my appreciation of newer artists and newer design approaches which have come a long way from the old 6 panel layout. There are quite a few people who have. But you haven’t paid attention to the fact that a lot of people here knowingly evaluate based on financial value, and that is mostly a function of nostalgia. They also recognize in many cases that “quality” is distinct from pricing, while diverging on what qualifies as quality, and that can be a matter of taste. Notice the debate involving Sal B? 

“Wretched excess” is a common thread in lots of areas. There is no good reason to pay for a rare, clear, flawless diamond to use as jewelry when cubic zirconium is at least as good (the main visibility difference involves single vs. double refraction)(unless you also want to use it for grinding, in which case, take an industrial grade diamond). They are both sparkly, and similarly sparkly. And I still can’t figure out why someone would want a house with a dozen bedrooms—except to show off their wealth—unless they are housing “Cheaper by the Dozen” kids. Do I think the purely artistic merit of much OA justifies the price or the gasps of praise? No. It is all about supply and demand, and the demand for people to buy what they grew up with. Which they still love.

By all means, start a thread on page composition, or inking lines, or panel borders. You will get a fair number of comments. Just bear in mind that some people here don’t buy many new comics, not even with the Phantom Stranger in them, so don’t be surprised if responses often relate to older pieces. 

[Carlo M]

Justadude raises some interesting points.  I think most people on this board appreciate contemporary art as well.  I certainly do, most my 2022 acquisitions were art from the 2000s.  There are several reasons why newer artists do not maybe resonate as much as older pieces or do not elicit the same level of passionate debate.  Nostalgia (and you can'to do much about that) and the fact that a lot of new artists are digital only probably weigh more than relative artistic qualities.  As a Marvel only guy, I would add the fact that Marvel is spreading its franchise characters over some many titles, minis, trade paperbacks, etc. that it is difficult to associate one artist with one character or memorable storyline.  And some of the best talents today seem to prefer to focus on covers only (when was the last significant run penciled by Yu or McNiven?).  But rest assured that from my end I would never say that people like Larraz, Andrade, Quitely and Bachalo (just to name a few) "all look the same".

[Twanj]

I mean, there's a lot of junk out there as far as TV shows, movies, books, music, comics.

I'm not interested in these as a whole, I want the top %. Only the best stuff that resonates with me.

[justadude]

On 2/16/2023 at 6:31 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I think you have drifted off into hyperbole when discussing some legitimate points. First, I am firmly in the 50+ segment of collectors, but I have regularly expressed my appreciation of newer artists and newer design approaches which have come a long way from the old 6 panel layout. There are quite a few people who have. But you haven’t paid attention to the fact that a lot of people here knowingly evaluate based on financial value, and that is mostly a function of nostalgia. They also recognize in many cases that “quality” is distinct from pricing, while diverging on what qualifies as quality, and that can be a matter of taste. Notice the debate involving Sal B? 

“Wretched excess” is a common thread in lots of areas. There is no good reason to pay for a rare, clear, flawless diamond to use as jewelry when cubic zirconium is at least as good (the main visibility difference involves single vs. double refraction)(unless you also want to use it for grinding, in which case, take an industrial grade diamond). They are both sparkly, and similarly sparkly. And I still can’t figure out why someone would want a house with a dozen bedrooms—except to show off their wealth—unless they are housing “Cheaper by the Dozen” kids. Do I think the purely artistic merit of much OA justifies the price or the gasps of praise? No. It is all about supply and demand, and the demand for people to buy what they grew up with. Which they still love.

By all means, start a thread on page composition, or inking lines, or panel borders. You will get a fair number of comments. Just bear in mind that some people here don’t buy many new comics, not even with the Phantom Stranger in them, so don’t be surprised if responses often relate to older pieces. 

I absolutely drifted off into hyperbole. Generalizations, by nature, are false, so in making sweeping summaries, I will of course be wrong on many accounts and should qualify those statements with "many," "often," etc.

The financial value of art is something I avoided because not only do many see price = quality, but they forget the relationship this kind of art has to the market. It's a commercial art, which means the product is very much the finished page, not the art used in making it. And I totally agree with you in that artistic merit has little to no impact on pricing of OA. Pricing is mostly about which character is represented and how big that character is on the page. I also find that odd in that the most valuable pages are often covers or splashes in a medium defined by its interrelated nature of panels, gutters, and the movement of the eye across the page. Instead, collectors often want the biggest depiction they can find of their favorite character. Which is totally fine, but it doesn't make it good art as it's not even an honest representation of the very medium it comes from.

I also don't mind that most discussion is about older art, but to continually bash new art just because it's new and doesn't resonate with you is totally self-defeating. If people want this niche community to grow (which is incredibly small even among comic collectors), the way to do that isn't by disparaging things you aren't interested in. Art can be good that we don't like. It seems so fundamental in saying that, but fandom often has this point of view to where if they don't like it, it can't be good. I just think art, especially, should be given careful consideration and nuanced argument when talking about it. We should hold ourselves to a more nuanced standard than simply arguing over the first panel appearance of so-and-so. But, this is coming from someone who genuinely loves art and its many forms. Comic OA just seems to treat it differently than many other mediums. And on the flip side, I'd rather put a bullet in my head before hearing someone wax poetic as if they were at MOMA about a Jack Kirby page. I think there's a happy medium.

@Carlo M I absolutely agree that the shift to digital has made new OA collecting more difficult. It's a bummer to find that many artists only offer commissions when they have otherwise amazing pages in books. I also think it's worth noting that covers and variants have simply become separate art objects. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but collecting Artgerm, for example, is to collect singular representations, or fancy pinups of famous characters. To me it stands a little oblique to the comics medium as a whole as these covers have artistic merit, but they're qualitatively different than a comics page in that they don't have to communicate movement across a page. If that makes sense.

[Ecclectica]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:33 PM, Carlo M said:

(when was the last significant run penciled by Yu or McNiven?)

McNiven had the medias attention in 2018 for the Return of the Wolverine MS (because he tried to emulate BWS style).

But I don't want to contradict you. My remark is only a sideline on your example. At the contrary, I agree on your argument as a whole.

I think Marvel do not want anymore, basically, to really rely on star artists and their abilities. They got their lessons from the time of the creation of Image comics, after all...

Edited February 16, 2023 by Ecclectica

[Rick2you2]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:50 AM, Ecclectica said:

McNiven had the medias attention in 2018 for the Return of the Wolverine MS (because he tried to emulate BWS style).

But I don't want to contradict you. My remark is only a sideline on your example. At the contrary, I agree on your argument as a whole.

I think Marvel do not want anymore, basically, to really rely on star artists and their abilities. They got their lessons from the time of the creation of Image comics, after all...

Star artists have the audacity to expect more money. Disney has never been known for “giving it away”. So why bother paying more for a star if he won’t necessarily improve sales?

[Ecclectica]

On 2/16/2023 at 6:14 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Star artists have the audacity to expect more money. Disney has never been known for “giving it away”. So why bother paying more for a star if he won’t necessarily improve sales?

Sure. I was even not considering Disney, in order to expand the time scope (<2009), but you're right, on all whole scope, it's even an amplifying factor.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Ecclectica

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:59 AM, justadude said:

I absolutely drifted off into hyperbole. Generalizations, by nature, are false, so in making sweeping summaries, I will of course be wrong on many accounts and should qualify those statements with "many," "often," etc.

The financial value of art is something I avoided because not only do many see price = quality, but they forget the relationship this kind of art has to the market. It's a commercial art, which means the product is very much the finished page, not the art used in making it. And I totally agree with you in that artistic merit has little to no impact on pricing of OA. Pricing is mostly about which character is represented and how big that character is on the page. I also find that odd in that the most valuable pages are often covers or splashes in a medium defined by its interrelated nature of panels, gutters, and the movement of the eye across the page. Instead, collectors often want the biggest depiction they can find of their favorite character. Which is totally fine, but it doesn't make it good art as it's not even an honest representation of the very medium it comes from.

I also don't mind that most discussion is about older art, but to continually bash new art just because it's new and doesn't resonate with you is totally self-defeating. If people want this niche community to grow (which is incredibly small even among comic collectors), the way to do that isn't by disparaging things you aren't interested in. Art can be good that we don't like. It seems so fundamental in saying that, but fandom often has this point of view to where if they don't like it, it can't be good. I just think art, especially, should be given careful consideration and nuanced argument when talking about it. We should hold ourselves to a more nuanced standard than simply arguing over the first panel appearance of so-and-so. But, this is coming from someone who genuinely loves art and its many forms. Comic OA just seems to treat it differently than many other mediums. And on the flip side, I'd rather put a bullet in my head before hearing someone wax poetic as if they were at MOMA about a Jack Kirby page. I think there's a happy medium.

@Carlo M I absolutely agree that the shift to digital has made new OA collecting more difficult. It's a bummer to find that many artists only offer commissions when they have otherwise amazing pages in books. I also think it's worth noting that covers and variants have simply become separate art objects. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but collecting Artgerm, for example, is to collect singular representations, or fancy pinups of famous characters. To me it stands a little oblique to the comics medium as a whole as these covers have artistic merit, but they're qualitatively different than a comics page in that they don't have to communicate movement across a page. If that makes sense.

I think you make a lot of great points. I really do, and I agree with many of them, even though I bet I’m 20 years older than you. Speaking from an aesthetics POV and not from Nostalgia I still contend most modern comic art produced today categorically sucks. Why? Method, training, lack of editorial direction, digital inking and lettering and anything done in post production, decompression (thank Joe Quesada for that, never was there a less competent EIC at Marvel) and the shift to story board style layouts. It’s stiff, boring, lacking depth, backgrounds and detail. Even “good” artists that draw modern books still look bland and boring compared to their older art. Artists like Mike Perkins are a rare exception, and he is still uneven and inconsistent. He doesn’t have a Romita or Giordano to direct him or at least fix or improve the end result. For 50 years we saw the comic book art style mature from an adaptation of comic strips to basic 6 panel layouts in the 50s, to realism in the 60s, (Adams) to more dynamism in the 90s. Then, post 2000 it started to devolve as it got more commoditized and commercialized for a shrinking audience shifting toward faster, more digestible and less sophisticated forms of expression and communication that ultimately summed down the art itself. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by MyNameIsLegion

[justadude]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:32 PM, MyNameIsLegion said:

I think you make a lot of great points. I really do, and I agree with many of them, even though I bet I’m 20 years older than you. Speaking from an aesthetics POV and not from Nostalgia I still contend most modern comic art produced today categorically sucks. Why? Method, training, lack of editorial direction, digital inking and lettering and anything done in post production, decompression (thank Joe Quesada for that, never was there a less competent EIC at Marvel) and the shift to story board style layouts. It’s stiff, boring, lacking depth, backgrounds and detail. Even “good” artists that draw modern books still look bland and boring compared to their older art. Artists like Mike Perkins are a rare exception, and he is still uneven and inconsistent. He doesn’t have a Romita or Giordano to direct him or at least fix or improve the end result. For 50 years we saw the comic book art style mature from an adaptation of comic strips to basic 6 panel layouts in the 50s, to realism in the 60s, (Adams) to more dynamism in the 90s. Then, most 2000 it started to devolve as it got more commoditized and commercialized for a shrinking audience shifting toward faster, more digestible and less sophisticated forms of expression and communication that ultimately summed down the art itself. 

I guess what's strange is that people think comic art has become "commoditized and commercialized" only recently. That's categorically false. It has always been commercialized because it is a commercial medium. I'm fine with people critiquing modern comic art, but not as exception to the rule of commercial art, but as it's defining aspect. Most commercial art isn't very good. It can't afford to be. Artists need to pump out as much as possible as quickly as possible. That's been the model since work-for-hire existed, but remains just as true for independent creators as the only way they can generate business is by putting out stuff fast. Again, this is generalizing (Alex Ross is an obvious contemporary exception), but it includes Golden Age (especially), Silver Age, Bronze Age, etc. If we're just thinking superhero art, which is commercial art as compared to underground comix which are not, there is no linear progression of improvement. There are simply different styles and changes like in all art. To say a third tier artist of the 70s is better than a third tier artist of the 2010s is just not a very interesting argument to make (not saying you're making it), and discounts that most commercial art is bad by nature. If someone puts realistic figure drawing as important to what they think is of high quality, then McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld etc. are all kicked out, but also Kirby and many artists from the beginning of the superhero genre. There is no more "realism" or "accuracy" in Kirby's grimaced and stretched characters than McFarlane's Spider-Man with opposable hip joints. If we had forums in the 40s and 50s, there'd be the same kind of lambasting of 60s comic art. And that would also be categorically not true.

[KirbyCollector]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:01 PM, justadude said:

they run their mouths as if they were the official tastemakers of anything

Argumentum ergo decedo,  confessional writing, or a mix? A tough question, that. 

[justadude]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:20 PM, KirbyCollector said:

Argumentum ergo decedo,  confessional writing, or a mix? A tough question, that. 

Yes, as stated, that was hyperbolic flair and in no way was intended as "argument" which could be then considered fallacious. But it is telling that after a barrage of points made about the collecting community that's the single line you'd like to point out. The "snowflake generation" really does get worked up over the smallest of things . . .

EDIT: On further thought, I'm puzzled by what you mean in that post. That my post is something about whataboutism? That's it's confessional writing? I'm unsure in which ways I'm acting like a "tastemaker" or "running my mouth" with a total of 39 posts over 3 years. A tough question given it has the same kind of disjointed reasoning it would take to argue that "Most new art looks the same." Points for consistency. Points for unrelated Latin, too? I guess?

Edited February 16, 2023 by justadude

[RBerman]

I just like modern comic book art and don't find it all the same. I know that posting panels doesn't speak to Justadude's observation about page flow, but none of these are splashes.

 

[babsrocks31]

On 2/16/2023 at 7:59 AM, justadude said:

I absolutely drifted off into hyperbole. Generalizations, by nature, are false, so in making sweeping summaries, I will of course be wrong on many accounts and should qualify those statements with "many," "often," etc.

The financial value of art is something I avoided because not only do many see price = quality, but they forget the relationship this kind of art has to the market. It's a commercial art, which means the product is very much the finished page, not the art used in making it. And I totally agree with you in that artistic merit has little to no impact on pricing of OA. Pricing is mostly about which character is represented and how big that character is on the page. I also find that odd in that the most valuable pages are often covers or splashes in a medium defined by its interrelated nature of panels, gutters, and the movement of the eye across the page. Instead, collectors often want the biggest depiction they can find of their favorite character. Which is totally fine, but it doesn't make it good art as it's not even an honest representation of the very medium it comes from.

I also don't mind that most discussion is about older art, but to continually bash new art just because it's new and doesn't resonate with you is totally self-defeating. If people want this niche community to grow (which is incredibly small even among comic collectors), the way to do that isn't by disparaging things you aren't interested in. Art can be good that we don't like. It seems so fundamental in saying that, but fandom often has this point of view to where if they don't like it, it can't be good. I just think art, especially, should be given careful consideration and nuanced argument when talking about it. We should hold ourselves to a more nuanced standard than simply arguing over the first panel appearance of so-and-so. But, this is coming from someone who genuinely loves art and its many forms. Comic OA just seems to treat it differently than many other mediums. And on the flip side, I'd rather put a bullet in my head before hearing someone wax poetic as if they were at MOMA about a Jack Kirby page. I think there's a happy medium.

@Carlo M I absolutely agree that the shift to digital has made new OA collecting more difficult. It's a bummer to find that many artists only offer commissions when they have otherwise amazing pages in books. I also think it's worth noting that covers and variants have simply become separate art objects. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but collecting Artgerm, for example, is to collect singular representations, or fancy pinups of famous characters. To me it stands a little oblique to the comics medium as a whole as these covers have artistic merit, but they're qualitatively different than a comics page in that they don't have to communicate movement across a page. If that makes sense.

Biggest point you hit on for me is this:

It's very interesting that splashes and covers are the "biggest" pieces in a medium so reliant on storytelling via panels, gutters, eye movement, layouts etc.

 

I love a good cover or splash, but my favorite pages tend to be interiors actually. That one page in a issue that has some great character moments, or where every panel is a home run...

 

[babsrocks31]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:20 AM, KirbyCollector said:

Argumentum ergo decedo,  confessional writing, or a mix? A tough question, that. 

I agree that justadude's posts are unnecessarily wordy, but they have made decent points.

And you may want to accept that most responders so far have pointed out modern art is far from all the same.

The 80's can be your favorite and they were the quite versatile, but most posters have agreed: modern art is no more 'samey' that most decades. 

You aren't going to convince us all. You have your taste and it's fine.

No one is going to attack your taste.

 No need to die on a hill testing down modern artists.