What Were Your Personal Top Ten Picks?

[Mister Trent]

For what it's worth, I do like Steranko's work . . . a lot. I bought his work fresh off the newstands as it appeared during the 1960s - how could anyone NOT be impressed by his work? But like any good artist, he has strengths . . . and he also has weaknesses.

 

What's so wrong in acknowledging what was good . . . and what was NOT so good about Steranko's work?

 

What's so wrong about mentioning that some of his so-called 'innovations' had been done before (yes, I know the business is incestuous - I never suggested otherwise)??

 

Good use of anatomy was, I would have thought, fundamental to good illustration.

 

Sure, there are lots of other strip-illustrators - past and present - whose use of good, basic, anatomy leaves a lot to be desired . . . but there are also lots of artists who got it right.

 

Not an exercise in disrespecting Steranko's work . . .just an observation about what I consider to be a flaw in an (otherwise) short, but impressive, career.

 

Someone was quick to point out flaws in a SEA DEVILs cover I uploaded . . . then another lister made an observation of how, had it been Steranko, this would have been viewed as an innovation. That, I thought, was an interesting springboard from which to make a brief comparison of another artist's shortcomings.

 

I can respect and appreciate your opinions.

 

I have my own.

 

You dislike my views and, perhaps, feel I shouldn't air them?

 

No biggie to me . . .

[joe_collector]

also what comics fans refer to as "great anatomy" is usually bulging layers of muscles... which are usually drawn as unrealistically as possible. And always portraying the human figure "anatomically" correct can lead to static layouts, like traced photographs.

 

Talk about getting way off-track. No one is talking about that concerning comics, but if someone draw a head 20 times too big, and feet 20 times to small, for the body, then it's obviously incorrect anatomy, even taking into consideration style and the medium.

 

Go pick up a Rob Liefeld comic and then peruse a Neal Adams BA book to easily illustrate the difference in"comic terms".

[Silver Surfer]

also what comics fans refer to as "great anatomy" is usually bulging layers of muscles... which are usually drawn as unrealistically as possible. And always portraying the human figure "anatomically" correct can lead to static layouts, like traced photographs.

 

Talk about getting way off-track. No one is talking about that concerning comics, but if someone draw a head 20 times too big, and feet 20 times to small, for the body, then it's obviously incorrect anatomy, even taking into consideration style and the medium.

 

Go pick up a Rob Liefeld comic and then peruse a Neal Adams BA book to easily illustrate the difference in"comic terms".

 

Have to agree with JC on this one. Also, as some have suggested that a "higher quality of work" is justification or reasoning for Steranko's short body of work kind comes off sounding like an excuse to me.

[selegue]

also what comics fans refer to as "great anatomy" is usually bulging layers of muscles... which are usually drawn as unrealistically as possible. And always portraying the human figure "anatomically" correct can lead to static layouts, like traced photographs.

 

Talk about getting way off-track. No one is talking about that concerning comics, but if someone draw a head 20 times too big, and feet 20 times to small, for the body, then it's obviously incorrect anatomy, even taking into consideration style and the medium.

 

Go pick up a Rob Liefeld comic and then peruse a Neal Adams BA book to easily illustrate the difference in"comic terms".

 

Isn't one of the reasons Adams' reinvention of Green Lantern is celebrated that he made him more than seven heads tall -- the "heroic" look that later artists have carried to extremes?

 

Or are you referring to dang no-talent comics artists like this?

 

 

 

Jack

[Aman619]

For what it's worth, I do like Steranko's work . . . a lot. I bought his work fresh off the newstands as it appeared during the 1960s - how could anyone NOT be impressed by his work? But like any good artist, he has strengths . . . and he also has weaknesses.

 

What's so wrong in acknowledging what was good . . . and what was NOT so good about Steranko's work?

 

What's so wrong about mentioning that some of his so-called 'innovations' had been done before (yes, I know the business is incestuous - I never suggested otherwise)??

 

Good use of anatomy was, I would have thought, fundamental to good illustration.

 

Sure, there are lots of other strip-illustrators - past and present - whose use of good, basic, anatomy leaves a lot to be desired . . . but there are also lots of artists who got it right.

 

Not an exercise in disrespecting Steranko's work . . .just an observation about what I consider to be a flaw in an (otherwise) short, but impressive, career.

 

Someone was quick to point out flaws in a SEA DEVILs cover I uploaded . . . then another lister made an observation of how, had it been Steranko, this would have been viewed as an innovation. That, I thought, was an interesting springboard from which to make a brief comparison of another artist's shortcomings.

 

I can respect and appreciate your opinions.

I have my own.

You dislike my views and, perhaps, feel I shouldn't air them?

No biggie to me . . .

 

we can agree to disagree. I dont think we are so far apart, anyway.. I dont dislike your views, nor you. Let em air baby! I do find the terms 'flaws' and 'shortcomings' to be inappropriate here with Steranko's work because those things you object to are PART of his style. He CHOOSES to draw rubber legs or whatever. Or he chooses to leave them as quickly drawn and work with them for whatever reason. He drew them. He left them in. and moved on, satisfied. I figure he had a "take it or leave it, buddy" attitude about his stuff. (He has a pretty strong id from what I gather...) so you and I can react as we see fit. I dont mind it, you kinda do. s'cool.

 

and JCs comment about the Sea Devils cover being by Steranko was not interesting, or terribly helpful, just argumentative and sarcastic. But, thats why we love him.

[buttock]

also what comics fans refer to as "great anatomy" is usually bulging layers of muscles... which are usually drawn as unrealistically as possible. And always portraying the human figure "anatomically" correct can lead to static layouts, like traced photographs.

 

Talk about getting way off-track. No one is talking about that concerning comics, but if someone draw a head 20 times too big, and feet 20 times to small, for the body, then it's obviously incorrect anatomy, even taking into consideration style and the medium.

 

Go pick up a Rob Liefeld comic and then peruse a Neal Adams BA book to easily illustrate the difference in"comic terms".

 

Isn't one of the reasons Adam's reinvention of Green Lantern is celebrated that he made him more than seven heads tall -- the "heroic" look that later artists have carried to extremes?

 

Or are you referring to dang no-talent comics artists like this?

 

 

 

Jack

 

[Mister Trent]

I do find the terms 'flaws' and 'shortcomings' to be inappropriate here with Steranko's work because those things you object to are PART of his style. He CHOOSES to draw rubber legs or whatever. Or he chooses to leave them as quickly drawn and work with them for whatever reason. He drew them. He left them in. and moved on, satisfied.

 

I don't OBJECT to these things . . . I merely recognize them for what they are.

 

If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog and bites like a dog . . . it's a dog to me.

 

Steranko's style was to deliberately employ bad use of anatomy in his drawings, you would suggest?

 

I would have put it down to (then) inexperience in his development as a young strip-illustrator . . .a flaw . . . or a shortcoming. Something that would be addressed and improved upon as time and experience dictated.

 

What's to defend?

 

You dislike the terminology I use?

 

Steranko was exceptionally good . . . but he was far from perfect.

 

Part of the enjoyment in this hobby is to dissect, analyse and discuss. As I've already highlighted, that involves examining strengths AND weaknesses (the two go hand-in-hand).

 

I don't wear rose-tinted glasses.