Captainmarvel1957 wrote:

But, I think both of the above samples were inked by Scott Williams. And while you find the X-Men #5 cover to be too busy I think it's a great composition. That's one of the Lee pieces that puts me in the mind of some of Barry Smith's best Conan work.
Funny you should mention that, because that's exactly who it reminded me of when I first saw that cover! image

The reason I think it's too busy is because I have to literally dissect it and study it with my eyes for awhile to figure out what's what. Especially the center where their torsos meet. Too cluttered. To me, good art doesn't force the observer to have to study it in order to make sense of it. I remember seeing a Liefield drawing once, and I said to a friend "I'd have to use a magic marker and draw black lines around the figures until I could discern where one ended and where the other began." I don't like clutter. image

Professor Liebstrum wrote:

Count, I guess we do, one of the things that I've admired in Perez's more recent work was his ability to get some individuality into his faces. I can totally see where you're going with those facial descriptions above but keep thinking about the sixties/seventies where you could stand Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, Don Blake and Hank Pym in a row and not be able to tell which one was which. They're the stock drawings to me and even John Buscema (who I admire greatly) was doing them.
I'd argee that artists like Buscema used stock faces. It's one reason I don't care for John Buscema...his characters all look alike. But I can't agree on Perez/ I remember his days on Avengers and all those characters you mention looked individual. He was really good at doing different faces. My problem with Perez's art these days is that it's gotten cartoonish to the point of caricature. The Steve Tyler/Mick Jagger lips on Hawkeye, the Barbara Streisand nose on Scarlet Witch, the bland, one-dimensional face on Wonderman, the cute pixie nose on Thor (along with arms far too short and thick), and the excessive vascularity on Hawkeye's arms are just...I don't have words for it. Hideous maybe.

Davlghry wrote:

It struck me as funny, Count, that one of your complaints about classic newspaper strips is that they left a lot of empty space. You're surely not suggesting that filled-in space is a standard of quality.
Yes and no. It depends on the intent. A newspaper strip like Nancy or Love Is doesn't need extensive backgrounds. A blank background is fine for something like that. With superheroes and most other comics though, appropriate backgrounds are not only more aesthetically pleasing, they also bring the story to life. Those pages from Action Comics that I posted above bore me to death. The Silver and Bronze Age stuff is far more pleasing to the eye. It's simply a higher standard.

Frankly, the reason I have a problem with a lot of contemporary artists (Perez included) is that they fill in ALL THE SPACE -- often to the agree that their panels and splashes have no focus.
I agree there. Too much clutter is perhaps even worse than having no background at all. This is one of the problems I had with some of Jim Lee's work, lots of Larsen's work, and all of Liefield's work (sorry Captainmarvel1957, I'm not equating Lee with the others, just showing a similar issue I have image ). When I read a comic book, it is for pure fantasy escapism. I want to sit down for an hour or two with a stack of comics and be taken to another world to relax and enjoy reading/watching the exploits of my favorite comic characters. I can't relax when my eyes star to water from the strain of trying to decipher whether that's a person's fist, a person's arm, or a person's crotch mixed in with all the extraneous lines from the character next to him. Liefield is the most extreme example of this. I often could not tell where one character ended and the other began. If Alex Toth is the master of conveying action with the least number of lines, then Liefield is the master of obscuring visibility using the most amount of lines. They're polar opposites.

So when it becomes work and takes effort just to try to decipher what I'm seeing because my eyes are glazing over from the strain of mentally untangling all those excessive lines, it's no longer enjoyable. And when they pack the panel with more stuff than it needs, it becomes like looking through the junk drawer in the kitchen.

Taraco wrote:

I would add that the Count's history of graphic art -- which was no small thing to produce, so thanx from us all -- can be 'read' many ways.
You're very welcome.

While of course Brunner's luxurious and beautiful art conveys a richness that can be its own reward, I'd argue that the crude and simple lines of Herrmann's Krazy Kat (like the simple lines of Kubert in the 60s), are more effective in telling a story than every heartf-felt brush mark of many latter day stylists, Brunner included.
I actually argee here. I recall a talking to an old friend once about Alex Toth. He had just begun to appreciate Toth's work. The discussion ventured into how he could convey so much with so few lines. I joked that Toth could probably crank out 3-4 pages of art in the time it took Neal Adams to draw one face, and Adams would use more lines for that one face than Toth would use for the 3-4 pages of action! However, while it does take skill to be able to convey that much information with that small amount of line work, it's like the art world version of haiku. Sure, haiku takes skill, but who the hell could enjoy a song written as haiku? It would be boring to death. Likewise, while I could appreciate the elegance of Toth's style and his mastery of subtleness, it just wasn't very visually rich. It wasn't eye candy. I told my friend (who got on a major "Toth is God" kick), that he sounded like those crazy "art" people who look at a blob of Play-Doh thrown onto a canvas and gush about how "evocative" the artist is.

In a visual medium, visual appeal is paramount to enjoyment for most people. Herrmann's Krazy Kat works because it's the same simple gags over and over. It doesn't need backgrounds or color or lots of detail to get the point across. It's a totally different sort of enjoyment than reading the Avengers.

I never really warmed to Gene Colan, but his art did tell a story; you didn't stop to linger because Daredevil had already swung onto the next page.
I'll admit I've also never been a big Colan fan. I never did like his DD stuff, although lately I've found his Capt. America work from the 60's somewhat more palatable than I used to. I liked him on Night Force and Dracula though. He has a style that lends itself to stuff like that.

Wich2 wrote:

Count, I honestly don't think it's an exaggeration to say that I see a lot - a LOT - of Foster & Raymond influence in some of the comic book art you posted (again, in any interview with comic book artists, you'l generally hear those two - and Gould, and Hogarth, etc., - cited.)
I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure what your point is though.

I just can't limit my diet to "the only Medium is Comic Books", "the only Era is '60's-'80's", and "the only Genre is Men in Tights". Call me a pig!
I don't think anyone is suggesting that though, least of all me. I think that's been my point all along. Newspaper strips are one medium, comic books another. I want my newspaper strips to be simpler, and my comics more complex. And of course I never said the only era is the 60's-80s, just that those years are the peak of comic creativity. There's plenty of good stuff going back to the Platinum Age, there's some good stuff from the Golden Age, there are tons of great stuff from the Silver and Bronze Ages, and then quality peters out to a trickle if that. Just like we'll never again see a British Invasion that gives us a band like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, there will also never be another age of comics that brings us another Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, or Marvel Comics. Everything in the world has its shelf life, even comics.


Well said, David - Herrmann didn't WANT his work to look like the "realistic, sweeping, superheroic" stuff seen here; neither did Segar, or Barks, etc. Doesn't make them one whit less Master Graphic Storytellers.
Agreed on each count. I hope you're not implying that I was saying anything of the sort, because I definitely wasn't.

And since we're on the subject of artists, I picked up a copy of The Spectre the other day. Found it in pretty decent shape for 50ยข at a local comic shop. I'm talking about the old Spectre comics from DC in the 60's, when Neal Adams was drawing it. It seems to me that the more work I see from Adams, the less I like it. At least, I like a lot of his comic book art less and less. I'm starting to think that it's just his style. It's too realistic for comic books. Those scans from Thor I posted a few posts back is close to my ideal of how comic art should look. I like bold lines and clean, clear images. Adams stands out like a sore thumb in the comic world, to me at least. I thumbed through the issue of Spectre, and I said to myself "Wow, I thought I really liked Adams art, but this is sorta sloppy". Has anyone else here ever sorta grown out of liking a particular artist? I know there are plenty of artists who have grown on me over the years or whom I've grown to appreciate far more in my later years, but very few have I grown away from liking.







"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted in a profoundly sick society."

- Krishnamurti