ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Jan 26 08 3:21 AM
Count Karnstein, you are obviously a scholar of comics and graphic art---but with all due respect there is no way you can compare Jim Lee's artwork to Rob Liefeld and Eric Larson. Lee's art is wonderful and, unlike the other two, he has an understanding of anatomy and basic physiognomy.
Jan 26 08 5:40 AM
Jan 26 08 7:41 AM
I've always hated Jim Lee's stuff. He's from that I've always hated Jim Lee's stuff. He's from that Leifield/Larson school where the more extraneous lines you can cram into each square micrometer of a panel, the more praise you get. It's too crowded, too busy, too hard on the eyes. /Larson school where the more extraneous lines you can cram into each square micrometer of a panel, the more praise you get. It's too crowded, too busy, too hard on the eyes.
Jan 26 08 7:56 AM
Wow, we see things in total, polar opposites! I thought Perez hit his peak in the late 70's. His modern stuff sucks. I keep seeing him drawing Wonderman with a flat, featureless face (outside of the mullet-like shading that looks like a badly done sideburn), Scarlet Witch with a hideous Barbara Streisand-sized honkner of a nose, excessive veins in Hawkeye's arms, and he's turned Thor into a waifish elf with that silly, upturned nose. Much of his stuff looks like stock drawings now.
Jan 26 08 9:32 AM
Jan 26 08 11:06 AM
And if we look at the comic books themselves, let's compare some Golden Age material to some Silver and Bronze Age material. These are from Action Comics #1:
Or L.B. Cole: Or Alex Schomburg:
Jan 26 08 12:07 PM
Jan 26 08 12:18 PM
Burgomaster
Jan 26 08 12:31 PM
Jan 26 08 1:56 PM
Count Karnstein wrote: I thought had far too much detail, too many lines, was too busy and too hard on the eyes. It was so crowded, the eye has trouble assembling what's being seen.
If you thought that cover was hard to read, you should have tried to color it, in those pre-Photoshop days. I remember how we had to white out all of those lines from the polychrome before scanning it into the A.C.E. system just to fill the fake color, never mind the flouro airbrush! Sorry, tech talk. Just trying to say something objective and keep from chiming in here, because all of the subjective artist bashing in this thread is driving me CRAZY!
Jan 26 08 3:47 PM
Jan 26 08 4:25 PM
Jan 26 08 4:35 PM
professor liebstrum wrote: Why's this thread got so hard to read ?
Jan 26 08 4:38 PM
Jan 26 08 5:21 PM
And one from Hal Foster--- Both are beautiful!!!
Jan 26 08 6:32 PM
Granted, it's missing Color; but to me at least, there's absolutely no lack of Talent, Storytelling, or Maturity? Best, -Craig W.
Jan 27 08 12:44 AM
Jan 27 08 3:46 AM
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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!
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.
Jan 27 08 10:47 AM
Jan 27 08 3:42 PM
Share This