Worst comic artists ever?

[Amazing_Bag_man]

Mark Bagley.....or Bag-of-sheeet

 

[Foolkiller]

how anyone can think JR jr's work is the worst art in comics is completely beyond me... I think his current work on Amazing is actually quite good, and I enjoy it enormously... When he was on Iron Man in the 80s I enjoyed it, but it wasn't very distinct. Is Todd McFarlane a "bad" artist or "worst" ever? Absolutely not. He brought a certain style to his artwork, although at times over done, to say that he was one of the worst artist's ever is ludicrous. I'm sorry, I know some people the classic, well drawn, anatomy perfect realistic style (Neal Adams, John Byrne, John Buscema, John Romita Sr., George Perez etc) and although I prefer all of those guys to many current artists, "worst" ever artist should be reserved for the truly, truly bad.

 

Al Milgrom... very bad.

 

Frank Springer sucked... there's no doubt about it.

 

Herb Trimpe... also terrible.

 

I think Nick Cardy was also pretty bad, but some people think he's some sort of god.

[blowout]

As for todays artists, check out the current covers of Peter Parker, Spider-man. There's stylized and then there's just plain [!@#%^&^]. The artist Herreras ( can't remember his first name) makes Frank Robbins look like Neal Adams

 

I assume you are talking about Huberto Ramos, and I agree that his work is ridiculously over stylised, at the expense of the anatomy (ala Liefeld).

 

In fact he is the antithesis of Liefeld who drew tiny feet and impossibly thin ankles, whereas Ramos draws everyone like they are wearing concrete slippers.

[BestOf7-migration]

There is DEFINITELY a gag-factor to any of Liefeld's work; and even though this is not directed to any specific artist, any contributors to the "New Universe" series! There is no title that has anywhere near the same GAG effect on me when I'm searching through backstock

[aardvark88]

Would say that George Tuska (Iron Man, Avengers 1975) is worse than H Trimpe. Not much of a compliment to Trimpe.

[joe_collector]

Tuska's Avengers work is horrible, as was Bob Brown's before that.

[underthebigw]

Trimpe's art during the late 70's was far and away my least favourite. I just couldn't stand it. Regardless of who inked it, it always seemed too simplistic and inane. Nothing like his earlier work. I happen to love his run on Hulk, but can't stand anything after that.

[underthebigw]

C'mon people. Robbins' Invaders run was great. Granted, not everyone's cup of tea, but I've always thought it suited the book perfectly. I don't think I could've handled it one many other titles, but I've always loved that run and no other fans of the title.

[blowout]

To add to the current list of dross.

Frank Cho's recent covers for Amazing Spider-Man were awful.

[Illiterati-migration]

Were they bad or were they just extraordinarily dull?

[blowout]

Were they bad or were they just extraordinarily dull?

 

Considering that I expect a comic cover to captivate me and entice me to buy the book then I don't see a distinction.

[Illiterati-migration]

Were they bad or were they just extraordinarily dull?

 

Considering that I expect a comic cover to captivate me and entice me to buy the book then I don't see a distinction.

 

That's an interesting point and exactly why I asked the question. I mean, what I've been thinking with these books has been something along the lines of "man, that's beautiful... but... falling... asleep... can't... stay... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz." So I don't know, for me, there's a distinction, but I'm not sure why?

[Lofwyr]

I mean, what I've been thinking with these books has been something along the lines of "man, that's beautiful... but... falling... asleep... can't... stay... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

 

Maybe it's because modern comic art has a more "perfect" processed or real world feel to it. In Bronze/Silver age stuff it was more escapist..the humans were representations of our world but not quite a 100% duplicate. Modern art tends to be more "realistic" and at times the characters resemble fashion models a little too much. It becomes less escapist and more about reality.

 

Or maybe i'm just rambling..

 

[Illiterati-migration]

I mean, what I've been thinking with these books has been something along the lines of "man, that's beautiful... but... falling... asleep... can't... stay... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

 

Maybe it's because modern comic art has a more "perfect" processed or real world feel to it. In Bronze/Silver age stuff it was more escapist..the humans were representations of our world but not quite a 100% duplicate. Modern art tends to be more "realistic" and at times the characters resemble fashion models a little too much. It becomes less escapist and more about reality.

 

Or maybe i'm just rambling..

 

Really, what the problem is is that these covers have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the story. They were just Spidey in a pose. Yay. Yaaaawwwn.

[blowout]

Really, what the problem is is that these covers have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the story. They were just Spidey in a pose.

 

Cough....CGC slab.......cough

[Illiterati-migration]

Really, what the problem is is that these covers have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the story. They were just Spidey in a pose.

 

Cough....CGC slab.......cough

 

ROFL!!!! Exaaaactly.

[OldNewComicGuy]

Jim Valentino = AWFUL!

Never a fan of Erik Larsen either, and McF was overrated.

 

Don't even ask about Liefeld....

[blowout]

Not an Image fan then.

[Joanna]

Really, what the problem is is that these covers have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the story. They were just Spidey in a pose.

 

Cough....CGC slab.......cough

 

No, original art sale. Artists don't get any extra money for CGC, but they can get huge numbers from a good cover art sale. Anytime you see a splash page or a cover that is out of place (i.e. not endemic to the story) it's nearly always about the original art sale. Buyers love full page character poses (they look better in black and white, framed on the wall as opposed to busier stuff or pages with lots of noncostumed stuff).

 

And now, another John Byrne story (because he's the guy who taught me the most about insider stuff). He was writing an issue (Marvel, so of course I don't remember which title -- it might have been X-Men) and either Leifeld or Jim Lee was pencilling (sorry, I just can't remember who). John wrote a scene where they all went to a pizza parlor to talk. He was writing using "the Marvel method" which means you write a story, the artist draws it, and then the writer goes in later to add dialogue.

 

John gets the pages back and instead of his pizza scene (in which the story was advanced) there was a splash page of all the characters in costume in a "let's gett'em" kind of pose. John was livid. Turns out the artist wanted extra cash and would get a really good price on a splash, and wouldn't make a dime showing them in civvies jawing pizza, so he opted for the splash, not caring a whit about the story outline. John was forced to rewrite so that the splash made some kind of sense.

 

He said this kind of thing happens constantly, and is especially prevelant with cover art. Cover art sells big numbers -- but it has to look good on a wall (from a distance, in B/W), so many covers are done with that specifically in mind.

 

 

 

-- Joanna

[blowout]

He said this kind of thing happens constantly, and is especially prevelant with cover art. Cover art sells big numbers -- but it has to look good on a wall (from a distance, in B/W), so many covers are done with that specifically in mind.

 

I'm sure what you are saying is true.

But don't you think the VERY recent shift to 'posed' comic covers rather than action scenes is a little too co-incidental to have nothing to do with the inception of CGC?

Also, I have read that at Marvel, the directive to produce the posed covers came from Joe Q himself and is not the personal decision of the artists involved.