Whats the appeal of some of these newer artists?

[Guardian Comics]

If the classic era of comic art is the 1960's and 1970's with the likes of Romita, Adams, Kane, Wrightson, Byrne etc, am I wrong in assuming that it is the best era because of the realism of the art? Now if my assumption is correction, why then would anyone be interested in an artist like Humberto Ramos to name an example? The art is horrid to say the least, with not one single element of realism to it at all. The characters are disproportionate and skewed, yet someone is hiring him...why? What happened to realism art and why did it go away?

 

Jim

[CW]

Different people have different tastes. Some like realism, some like the cartoonish, some the exagerated. I don't think realism is gone and I wouldn't say that any one era is better than another. For instance the ultimate form of realism in comics would be that of the Greg Lands and Mike Mayhews (Both modern artists). They take their art and style directly from real people (sometimes too directly in Lands case) and actual poses. On to a more artistic form of realism you can look to the Dodsons and Hughes they seem to approach the art in a very realistic way. In my opinion more so than any of the artists you named. Some people enjoy this (myself included).

 

I think one of the big issues in less than realistic art today is the Anime/Manga movement and the Alternative press movement. The Anime/Manga stuff has a very distinct style that has infiltrated mainstream comics, I think appealing to people who enjoy both the Japanese media and american comics. By combining them you get the Joe Mad result which I thought was a lot of fun. More cartoonish in feel but in a very heavy way. He is a good example of an artist that can maintain his alternative anatomic style in a consistant but skewed way. As oppsed to a more erratic style like Leifeld that doesn't seem to follow any rules. This makes an opening for people with less skill to attempt their own style into the unrealistic which sometimes results in the krappy.

 

I find both forms very enjoyable though if well done.

 

As for the alternative type stuff, I could never get in to the Mahfood style stuff. It is just too strange for me, so I agree that there are artists that just don't make sense but I feel that in some cases the unrealistic is better than the realistic. Dynamic motion and the exageration of a movement to increase it's feel of action in comic art, is a perfect example of a realistic style using the unrealistic to increase its appeal.

 

I don't think the question is really about the loss of realism I think the question is about artists that are at different skill levels competing in the same game. Think of them like ball players. Some make it into the record books others don't. There are players that play for years and don't really make any kind of mark. There are others that become hall of famers. Some hall of famers have hitting records (realism) some are gold glovers (unrealistic styles). From a bullpen standpoint (Why do they hire the Humberto Ramos') no team can be all hall of famers. There are usually a few on each team with a lot of solid player backing them up (the steady as she goes artists) and a few utility players on the side (insert your least favorite artist here). It would be hard to pay a team full of the best artists from a corporate standpoint. Really the beauty of Comics is the variety of styles and writing and I think this logic is why the variety shows up. If you have a less popular title why hire Jim Lee when you can hire someone way cheaper and get similar sales because the writting sucks?

 

Hopefully this gives you some ideas to ponder in where realism has gone and why artists get hired when they aren't as good as others.

[Mister Trent]

If the classic era of comic art is the 1960's and 1970's with the likes of Romita, Adams, Kane, Wrightson, Byrne etc, am I wrong in assuming that it is the best era because of the realism of the art?

Jim

 

Check out the EC books of the 1950s - there are enough reprint editions available to make them affordable.

[Mister Trent]

I don't think realism is gone and I wouldn't say that any one era is better than another. For instance the ultimate form of realism in comics would be that of the Greg Lands and Mike Mayhews (Both modern artists). They take their art and style directly from real people (sometimes too directly in Lands case) and actual poses.

 

Mayhew's work is superb - one of the few modern day comic book artists that actually impresses me.

[Jeffro.]

There are several trends in modern comic art that I definitely do not like.

 

1) Cartoonish exaggeration, ala Humberto Ramos.

 

2) Anything with an anime look to it.

 

3) Overused cross hatching.

 

4) No attention paid to anatomy. This could be cartoonish exaggeration or excessively angular body parts.

 

Other things bug me too. I am probably committing heresy here, but I just don't get Jim Lee. All his faces look the same and his artwork is just a bunch of lines.

 

What's with all these lines running parallel to each other???

 

Sometimes I wish modern artists would just sit down and study a guy like Romita so they can see that you can accomplish great stuff with a clean, simple style.

[micmack]

There are several trends in modern comic art that I definitely do not like.

 

1) Cartoonish exaggeration, ala Humberto Ramos.

 

2) Anything with an anime look to it.

 

3) Overused cross hatching.

 

4) No attention paid to anatomy. This could be cartoonish exaggeration or excessively angular body parts.

 

Other things bug me too. I am probably committing heresy here, but I just don't get Jim Lee. All his faces look the same and his artwork is just a bunch of lines.

 

What's with all these lines running parallel to each other???

 

 

Sometimes I wish modern artists would just sit down and study a guy like Romita so they can see that you can accomplish great stuff with a clean, simple style.

 

Maybe you should ask Scott Williams since he is mostly responsible for the linework you see.

 

As for the current Manga style artist, I tend to agree. That stuff kind of ruins it for me. New X-men, with Paco Media comes to mind. I've wanted to pick up the current run (that has X23 in it), but although the story looks very exciting, the art made me put it back. I just couldn't look at for any length of time.

 

As for current realists, my money goes with Finch, McNiven and Benes whose works have been consistantly good from the start and IMHO will stand the test of time. I would also like to draw attention to Ivan Reis who has been getting better each time I see his stuff.

[matewan1990]

See, I've got a problem with how much some of these guys charge when the work isn't even that good. I've argued with other collectors that the newer artists feel like rock stars and charge way too much for their art.

Take for example the Walking Dead artist Charlie Adlard. While I love Charlie's work, I don't consider it worth $300-$500 for a page or a double-page spread. A fellow collector asked recently if a character page from Walking Dead was a good buy at $550 and I told him not to buy it.

A Chris Cross Firestorm page cost me $110 (it's a long story) and other dealers laughed at me when I said that's what I'd paid for it. While I love Chris's art, the page was a tad bit overpriced.

Especially when I can get 1980s Firestorm pages for way cheaper than that.

Luke McDonnell sold me a 20-year-old JLA splash page with Gypsy and the other members of JLA Detroit for $60, but, on eBay I had to pay $100 for a recently-drawn Tom Derenick splash of Gypsy and Martian Manhunter (true, I paid the price, but, I am a fan of JLA Detroit and wasn't thinking clearly when I placed the bid). And I mean no offense to these artists I've mentioned, but I do think that artists drawing comics today believe themselves to be superstars and charge high prices for their art like it was drawn by Kirby, Romita, Infantino or Windsor-Smith.

I don't think a lot of today's artists actually tell a story like the artists of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s did. I think they do really pretty splash pages, but there isn't a lot of storytelling being done.

There are some artists whose work I love, but, then, there are some whose art I simply can't appreciate.

Mike B.

[snappahead]

You guys sound like a bunch of old people talking about the good ol' days. Maybe music and comic art are the same thing. "There's too many lines" has replaced "it's just a bunch of noise"

 

Modern artists charge what they do because they can. Plain and simple. If older artists back then could've made that money for their art, they would've. Don't get upset at them for trying to make some extra money. These guys work hard at their job..VERY hard and I think it's great that there's a strong market now for their work. As a collector, it sucks, but as an artist I'm glad to see it.

 

CW, skill is rarely the issue. They have simply developed a style that suits them and they're sticking to it. Saying it's a skill thing would be like saying Picasso painted so strangely becuase he couldn't paint in the classical style, which of course isn't true. He, like any artist, has a vision of how things look and they go with it. They continue to get work, because there are people who enjoy that from them. Of course, noone's ever going to agree on something as subjective as art, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

[Solar]

Personally, I'm not interested in pages published before the copper age. I think a lot of opinions on the silver and bronze age "greats" are colored by nostalgia, but I'm not going to come on here and ask collectors of those artists' work to justify their "appeal."

 

Just collect what you like.

[CW]

CW, skill is rarely the issue. They have simply developed a style that suits them and they're sticking to it. Saying it's a skill thing would be like saying Picasso painted so strangely becuase he couldn't paint in the classical style, which of course isn't true. He, like any artist, has a vision of how things look and they go with it. They continue to get work, because there are people who enjoy that from them. Of course, noone's ever going to agree on something as subjective as art, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

 

I'm glad we have an artists input in this because it adds a new dimension to the discussion. I agree with your arguement about asking what you can for a piece. If Adams could have gotten Turner prices back then he most deffinately would have. I also agree with the nostalgia aspect. The 60 and 70's folks enjoy the Romitas and Byrnes and Adams for the same reason I enjoy Jim Lee, because they grew up with them (or grew as a comic collector with them for a less literal application). If I had the money I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Jim Lee X-Men piece over an Adams piece. Not because I think Adams isn't as good but because I enjoyed Jim Lee's X-Men so much as a kid. (Probably the same reason someone is willing to pay $250K for the Ninja Turtle pgs.)

 

I have to disagree about skill. I will concede that Picasso was able to draw in the classical style as well as the abstract but as I argued for Joe Mad I believe it opened the door for cheap imitators who could also attempt the abstract because of its seeming simplicity and had no ability in realism. Let me be clear: I do not think stylized art represents a lack of skill. I believe any kind of comic art that is inconsistent to itself in it's own anatomical exagerations and proportion when not intentional shows a lack of skill.

I believe there are artists today and of old that lack skill in the basic rules of proportion, anatomy and fluid story telling (which I feel are necessary building blocks to form a successful style from). I am not saying they are *spoon* or that they should be called names. I am simply saying that there are imitators that cannot apply there art consistently like the original they emulate, or even those who have an original style that isn't consistent to itself. Picasso could be abstract but he could be classical also. To pick on Mr. Leifeld for a moment: He attempted a very Image like Style but his figures were often not in proportion to their surroundings or to each other or within themselves (as his critics here so often remind us). Chris Bachalo or Joe Mad have an abstract style if you will but there is consistency in their abstractness. Basic rules of art are not broken. A painting that needs interpretation is not necessarily a fair reference to an attempt at storytelling. If the reader had to spend hours interpreting each panel (as you would a Picasso) it would not make for an effective storytelling medium.

I believe there are many great artists with their own unique sometimes abstract style but I believe there are many who simply put together just enough ability to hold the story together not make it great and sometimes detract by the obsurdity of their art. My test is whether they can convey a story in a manner which is consistent and fluid. If you were watching a movie and the size of the background kept changing in relation to the actors or they in relation to themselves you would probably not like the movie. But if it was consistent whether a cartoon or a Live action piece it would be much more entertaining. I believe that skill, basic anatomical knowledge, proportion and the ability to convey an action through art are tools that many artists today have but a good number don't. And more importantly I believe they are necessary to properly apply a stylized exaggeration. My 2 cents. Sorry for the rant.

[snappahead]

Nice rant, CW. Storytelling and drawing are two totally different artforms. That's what's so unique about comics. It's a matter of opinion as well. I think Jim Lee's a good storyteller, but I have friends who think he's aweful at it. I think Kevin Maguire is one of the best storytellers out there, but his art doesn't always have alot of pizazz to it. Same with Steve Dillon. They're two different things in most respects. Finch does pretty pictures, but is a lousy story teller IMO. Lots of examples could be given.

 

It's funny you mention Jim Lee and imitators, cause Jim Lee's a Byrne clone. Noone's truly original anymore. The best artists are guilty of "borrowing" things from others. Benes was a Lee clone, then a Mad clone and now how's doing a combo of Mad and Finch. Nothing wrong with it really. Some artists just evolve. Greg Land was a great comic artist and now he does paneled portraits. What am I talking about? I don't know...I forgot what this thread was about.

[Mister Trent]

Personally, I'm not interested in pages published before the copper age. I think a lot of opinions on the silver and bronze age "greats" are colored by nostalgia, but I'm not going to come on here and ask collectors of those artists' work to justify their "appeal."

 

Just collect what you like.

 

I actually collect a lot of art from the 1950s.

 

Nostalgia?

 

Hardly, my era of nostalgia is the 1960s.

 

Aesthetics?

 

Yep.

 

Quality work is timeless.

[CW]

What am I talking about? I don't know...I forgot what this thread was about.

Same here. I understand that a lot of artists take from others and that is totally fine with me. I really think you are right about variety though. If everything was the same what would be the point. It comes down to opinion. Frankly I talk about all of these skills and rules but at the end of the day, if it looks good to you that's all that matters. One man's Byrne anotherman's Lee etc etc.

[*paull*]

In my opinion, I don't understand why Romita is always brought up as an example of an artist who represents the best comics had to offer, or as an all-time great. Take away Spider-Man, and you he wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the true greats. If only Alex Toth did Spider-Man....

[Solar]

Personally, I'm not interested in pages published before the copper age. I think a lot of opinions on the silver and bronze age "greats" are colored by nostalgia, but I'm not going to come on here and ask collectors of those artists' work to justify their "appeal."

 

Just collect what you like.

 

I actually collect a lot of art from the 1950s.

 

Nostalgia?

 

Hardly, my era of nostalgia is the 1960s.

 

Aesthetics?

 

Yep.

 

Quality work is timeless.

 

My "silver and bronze age greats" comment wasn't really referring to your 50's art, but was more directed at the original poster's list of artists.

 

I agree that quality work is timeless, but I think many people in this hobby overrate the quality of many vintage artists' work due to nostalgia.

 

I love blanket statements that declare 60s and 70s comic artists better as a whole than modern comic artists. I'm trying not to go on a rant here. Leaving thread now...

[CW]

I for one want to hear your . It might be entertaining! In fact I would bet money on it.

[mrpunch0]

If the classic era of comic art is the 1960's and 1970's with the likes of Romita, Adams, Kane, Wrightson, Byrne etc, am I wrong in assuming that it is the best era because of the realism of the art? Now if my assumption is correction, why then would anyone be interested in an artist like Humberto Ramos to name an example? The art is horrid to say the least, with not one single element of realism to it at all. The characters are disproportionate and skewed, yet someone is hiring him...why? What happened to realism art and why did it go away?

 

Jim

 

Oh these kids today and their wacky looking funny books.

 

What's the appeal? Believe it or not, there are some people out there who aren't crazy about the artists you know and love.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ditko or Kirby - I'd rather take the big money I'd have to spend on their work and use it to buy other pieces I enjoy. Dare I say ... modern pieces. But I'm not going to say their work is "horrid" just because I don't appreciate it.

 

Want realism from a modern artist? Try Bryan Hitch. Or Mike Mayhew. Or Alex Ross.

 

But realism doesn't make the art good. Look at classic art. Is Van Gogh less of an artist than Da Vinci?

 

Don't like work by an artist like Humberto Ramos or Chris Bachalo? Fine, don't buy it.

 

But those of us who are fans will buy it ... and that is why they continue to get hired.

[Jeffro.]

I like what I like.

 

I'm not going to try to convince anyone why, or why I believe that Romita is better than 90% of modern artists. It's my opinion. You have yours. Either is valid because likes and dislikes in comic art is a matter of taste not fact. As a result, I'm not going to get into a *spoon* match about why one artist is better or worse than another.

 

On a side note. When I was in my teens, I hated Kirby. I thought his work was awful. However, as I got older I grew to respect, admire, and like what he brought to the table. So much so that I went out and bought a Kirby Kamandi piece a few years ago.

 

However, I truly believe that some modern artists could learn a lot by studying guys like Romita and Heath and Matt Baker. I'm not saying they have to adopt any particular style, but it certainly doesn't hurt to study any comic artist. All you'll do is learn "something." That's my opinion.

[mrpunch0]

I like what I like.

 

I'm not going to try to convince anyone why, or why I believe that Romita is better than 90% of modern artists. It's my opinion. You have yours. Either is valid because likes and dislikes in comic art is a matter of taste not fact. As a result, I'm not going to get into a *spoon* match about why one artist is better or worse than another.

 

On a side note. When I was in my teens, I hated Kirby. I thought his work was awful. However, as I got older I grew to respect, admire, and like what he brought to the table. So much so that I went out and bought a Kirby Kamandi piece a few years ago.

 

However, I truly believe that some modern artists could learn a lot by studying guys like Romita and Heath and Matt Baker. I'm not saying they have to adopt any particular style, but it certainly doesn't hurt to study any comic artist. All you'll do is learn "something." That's my opinion.

 

I bet there are a lot of modern artists who have spent a significant amount of time studying the Romitas and Kirbys and Perezez. To insinuate that they have something "to learn" is a bit of an insult. They choose to draw they way they do because that is their style - not because they aren't aware of what came before them.

 

I'll be the first to admit that there are some rather poor artists working in the industry. Not because they can't draw - because many of them can (though not all ) - but because they can't tell a story. They can't create the page as a flowing composition instead of a big splash with a couple of talking heads.

 

But there are also a lot of really talented artists working today, with a variety of styles. And I just get defensive on their behalf when someone makes a blanket statement saying that they all suck.

 

(On a side, side note: I don't hate Kirby and Ditko, et all. I think they did some great work (though some has not stood the test of time IMO) and I really respect what they did. And I'd be thrilled to own an original by either of them ... I just don't want to pay for it. )

 

(On a side, side, side note: I'm not trying to draw you into an argument Jeffro. Just using part of your post as a jumping off point. I totally agree with your "I like what I like" statement. It's all a matter of personal taste.)

 

(On a side, side, side, side note: This has gotten way to verbose for this early in the morning. I'm going back to my coffee.)

[Guardian Comics]

As the person who started this thread, I never meant to insinuate that all modern artists suck. I own Mayhew originals, and consider him to be one of the most talented artists ever. As for the whole Romita, Adams etc. being what I have the most fondness for it has nothing to do with Nostalgia. As a 13 year old who started reading books in 1984/1985 most of the "classic" artists had their best years behind them. All I'm saying is that the Wrightsons, Byrnes, Adams of the world have their names listed in the Overstreet beside their corresponding issues for a reason. Hip Hop, is still a version of Rock N Roll, which in all intents and purposes is still the Blues. None of it is just "noise", I just wasn't sure if art is evolving the same way. Personally I'd rather emulate a hall a famer and try to be one myself someday, then create a whole new way of doing things that will never be recognized.

 

Jim