|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2018 10:00:43 GMT -5
This is not simply about style, as noted earlier. For me, there has to be an visual coherence that believably tells the story just as well as the script. Robbins' work was so jarring and erratic, that it was often a distraction from the story--the number one "Do not" of a medium where image and word must succeed together. Moreover, in each artist example I presented, there are clear differences in execution, yet their abilities worked hand-in-hand with the script to take the reader along whatever fantastic journey was published that month, leaving no one feeling the story would have been better off in novel form, rather than a comic. For a writer as strong as Thomas was in this period, his dedicated travels on the road to fleshing out Golden Age tales were constantly side-swiped by the chaos of Robbins pencils. Sorry; but "jarring" is an emotional response to the imagery. The fact that it doesn't work for you doesn't make it wrong The statements are clear: if the art and script do not support each other--succeed together, one is hurt by the part that failed, no matter how strong other half. That's the result of objective assessment of any comic's ability to carry out its mission. Robbins' failed--not only in holding up his end of the storytelling process, but served as a distraction in how far off the rails his work jumped. The examples from the other artists--knowing their ability to effectively create work that supports/succeeds with the story (at the time each of those examples were created) is the difference between success and failure. There is such as thing as the wrong artist for the job. For example, no one would question why Rob Liefeld would be wrong to adapt Goldfinger (film adaptations being a sub-genre where the trend has--more often than not--leaned toward accuracy and a sense of realism--even with an artist's individual style--that mirrors the message & reality of the film), or late 70s / 80s Kirby would not work as the regular illustrator on Batman. In other words, anything does not go if its not in the overall stroy's best interests and/or serves as a distraction. There are expectations where character art and its ability to work with the established story and its storytelling demands. You say you're not all that fond of Monet or Picasso, but their work is not "wrong". I say that's not a relevant comparison as the comic book medium--especially in the superhero genre--is not so flexible. Although there's been dynamic and/or proficient artists of almost every kind entering the business over the decades, there's still an expectation of a certain kind of execution within the superhero genre, hence the reason no one was going to have (for example) Sergio Aragonés use his exact approach/style from Groo the Wanderer or Crumb's Zap Comix on Superman or The Avengers. It simply does not fit the environment & demands of those titles, which is understandable. While Robbins' work might not go as far as the Aragonés / Crumb examples, the point is that anything does not go when seeking as perfect a storytelling marriage (as possible) between story and art in the genre in question. Regarding an emotional response, the same could be said of your... ...so your defense is not based on an objective assessment of an artist's ability to create work that succeeds with the story, but an emotional reaction, yet you used emotion as a negative in addressing my opinion of Robbins. It might be fair to say you cannot be objective because your admitted emotional response to his work will always lead you to defend him on those grounds. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 10:47:40 GMT -5
Sorry; but "jarring" is an emotional response to the imagery. The fact that it doesn't work for you doesn't make it wrong The statements are clear: if the art and script do not support each other--succeed together, one is hurt by the part that failed, no matter how strong other half. That's the result of objective assessment of any comic's ability to carry out its mission. Robbins' failed--not only in holding up his end of the storytelling process, but served as a distraction in how far off the rails his work jumped. The examples from the other artists--knowing their ability to effectively create work that supports/succeeds with the story (at the time each of those examples were created) is the difference between success and failure. There is such as thing as the wrong artist for the job. For example, no one would question why Rob Liefeld would be wrong to adapt Goldfinger (film adaptations being a sub-genre where the trend has--more often than not--leaned toward accuracy and a sense of realism--even with an artist's individual style--that mirrors the message & reality of the film), or late 70s / 80s Kirby would not work as the regular illustrator on Batman. In other words, anything does not go if its not in the overall stroy's best interests and/or serves as a distraction. There are expectations where character art and its ability to work with the established story and its storytelling demands. You say you're not all that fond of Monet or Picasso, but their work is not "wrong". I say that's not a relevant comparison as the comic book medium--especially in the superhero genre--is not so flexible. Although there's been dynamic and/or proficient artists of almost every kind entering the business over the decades, there's still an expectation of a certain kind of execution within the superhero genre, hence the reason no one was going to have (for example) Sergio Aragonés use his exact approach/style from Groo the Wanderer or Crumb's Zap Comix on Superman or The Avengers. It simply does not fit the environment & demands of those titles, which is understandable. While Robbins' work might not go as far as the Aragonés / Crumb examples, the point is that anything does not go when seeking as perfect a storytelling marriage (as possible) between story and art in the genre in question. Regarding an emotional response, the same could be said of your... ...so your defense is not based on an objective assessment of an artist's ability to create work that succeeds with the story, but an emotional reaction, yet you used emotion as a negative in addressing my opinion of Robbins. It might be fair to say you cannot be objective because your admitted emotional response to his work will always lead you to defend him on those grounds. *shrugs* Robbins failed for you. Others do not find his art jarring or distracting and it doesn't fail for them. I find his panel to panel and page to page storytelling flows quite well and carries the narrative without interruption and that is more important in comics than the aesthetics of each illustration. His technique for narrative storytelling is fine, and works, so it is not a failure on that level. It's the aesthetics of his style (which is entirely subjective) that seems to be the issue, not his ability as a storyteller, which is what you are trying to make it. Perception of the aesthetics and its affects on perceptions of the storytelling is a matter of personal bias, not objective standards. You don't like Robbins aesthetics and it influences your perception of the merits of his storytelling. Others like the aesthetic or are neutral to it and it does not influence their perception of the storytelling. The first step in any objective criticism is to identify one's own biases and how they affect one's perceptions of the matter, which, if there is any failure here, is where it lies. Most attempts at "objective" criticism fail in this matter, which is why it is as important to know the critic as the subject matter when assessing the criticism. This is pretty much rule one that was driven into my head in grad school in both history and anthropology. Any assessment of art has to take the context of the assessor into account when measuring the value of the assessment. Objectivity is an illusion, all assessment is biased and it is imperative to determine what the bias is. You are trying to make an objective standard without taking into account how your personal bias is influencing the standard you are trying to measure the quality of the art and storytelling by and are in denial when others point out that bias. The only clear point you make is you don't like Robbins art, and everything else you have put forward stems from that despite your protestations otherwise. The impact of his art on the perception of the storytelling is not universal, it stems from your distaste for his art and influences your perception of the art. It doesn't for others, which negates your implication it is an objective standard. I'm not a fan or Robbins' art (I am not at the Dan B level of wanting to gouge my eyes out rather than look at it), and I am certainly not an advocate for it, but I still enjoy Invaders despite his art and it in no way impinges on the quality of the storytelling that Thomas is trying to achieve for me. The story still flows from panel to panel and page to page and the necessary narrative elements are all there. -M
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 13, 2018 10:49:42 GMT -5
Tark, cody is saying that he has a positive emotional reaction to Robbins and you have a negative one. Neither is "wrong", but reflects each persons subjective taste. Robbins does not distract him from the story. I don't think Robbins is anywhere off the mainstream comic art as those you mentioned. And I would love to see an R. Crumb Superman. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 13, 2018 10:55:32 GMT -5
To open another subject, are there any artists you disliked at first, but grew to like?
I disliked Gil Kane on Spider-Man and hated the early Conan story he did *of course i probably would have disliked anybody who replaced Barry Smith).
I found some of his layouts, with the "up the nose" shots, well....jarring.
But over time I grew to appreciate him and admire his work.
I also thought Curt Swan's work was boring. And have since changed my mind.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 13, 2018 11:35:00 GMT -5
He never really worked for me on Invaders, but I really liked Robbins on the Shadow. Surprisingly great at mystery/noir. Yup. In fact, I like his Shadow better than Kaluta's..... Kaluta and Robbins on the Shadow is there rare example of two totally different approaches that work equally well. (Though it took me a while to get there at the time.) ....The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's. Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! I can't see either of them on the book, especially Severin. Severin's much too realistic (did he do any superhero work beside Hulk inking?) and I can't see him dealing with as much flying around. Wood, too, is a little too staid for the amount of superheroics the book called for. I recently read a Thunder Agents and he was too stiff to pull off the action scenes (even over Ditko layouts). I'll have to re-look at this two issues of All-Star to see how those came off (but one was set in "ye olden tymes," so not quite the same ballpark).
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Mar 13, 2018 12:09:08 GMT -5
To open another subject, are there any artists you disliked at first, but grew to like? I disliked Gil Kane on Spider-Man and hated the early Conan story he did *of course i probably would have disliked anybody who replaced Barry Smith). I found some of his layouts, with the "up the nose" shots, well....jarring. But over time I grew to appreciate him and admire his work. I also thought Curt Swan's work was boring. And have since changed my mind. Chris Bachalo. I couldn't stand his work on Generation X or X-Men, because those books really call for straight-forward art, not his style. However, I really enjoyed his recent work on Dr. Strange, because his more-abstract style really suited the book and story.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 13, 2018 12:42:16 GMT -5
To open another subject, are there any artists you disliked at first, but grew to like? I disliked Gil Kane on Spider-Man and hated the early Conan story he did *of course i probably would have disliked anybody who replaced Barry Smith). I found some of his layouts, with the "up the nose" shots, well....jarring. But over time I grew to appreciate him and admire his work. I also thought Curt Swan's work was boring. And have since changed my mind. Ashamed to say it; but, Kirby. My earliest exposures to his work were some of his wonkier 70s material. I had problems with the blockier bodies and the abstract backgrounds. I had been weaned on the DC house style, mostly with Superman, Batman and JLA. Kirby didn't fit that. However, once I saw a Giant Size Fantastic Four issue, with the reprint of Kirby's Hate Monger story, I started to become a fan. As I saw more of his classic work and saw more interesting modern work (like the Eternals), I started to appreciate his stuff. As I grew older and looked at some of those wonkier stories, I started to catch on to what Kirby was doing within them, the story he was trying to convey. Corben was another I had to warm up to. I first saw isolated panels, in reference books and they were so weird that I didn't know what to think. Once I saw them in context and read the story, I came to appreciate his work. Ditko is one that I have always had a cool relationship with. Again, I first saw his work in the 70s and didn't care for it. Once I started seeing some of the 60s and earlier material, I came to appreciate it. Still, I think it works more on earlier books, and better in mystery and horror stories, than superheroes or some science fiction. He did some Micronauts that I just hated and I never really changed in that response. I love his Charlton stuff, Dr Strange and Spider-Man; but, not a whole lot else.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2018 14:48:57 GMT -5
You don't like Robbins aesthetics and it influences your perception of the merits of his storytelling. As stated earlier, its not that simple. The art must work with the story in order to successfully tell the story. I referred to a hypothetical of Rob Leifeld penciling a movie adaptation because the general view on this board is that his work in unsuitable for many a subject (including the superhero genre which he's best known for). In other words, his kind of work could not possibly support the scripted adaptation of a movie, but it would certainly distract from it. Its not all about pretty pictures, but one side of the creative production working in concert with the other. ...and others have said they were not fans of his Invaders work. A truly objective assessment of art--particularly one with the hardline, narrow framework of the superhero genre--cannot isolate the work of one as if it occupies its own category. By its very nature, the book and its characters are part of a larger tapestry in story, image and (though not important to me) corporate identity. It should be able to be compared to other work in this rather fixed genre in consideration of artist, characters, and how those characters were intended to be best served using the standards of the industry. To separate it from the work of others in the same genre is the true result of bias, as its a reaction rooted in pure emotionalism--seeking to protect the artist or title from criticism of any kind. For one example, I studied art history, and in making an assessment of any of the painters from the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (or overall movement), one could not isolate the work of Hunt from Collinson or anyone else in the Brotherhood, as the Pre-Raphaelite movement was its own, pointed genre of art, naturally subject to comparisons from within. That's a logical process for analysis, not one of bias. That same standard applies to superhero comics (well, it did in another thread, where the work of Tony Tallarico was generally criticized in comparison to the work of others). It is fine to like Robbins' work, but one should also be able to recognize that others have seen his Invaders work as not working well with the stories to present the end product at its best.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2018 14:55:28 GMT -5
To open another subject, are there any artists you disliked at first, but grew to like? I also thought Curt Swan's work was boring. And have since changed my mind. Kurt Scharffenberger. I used to find his Superman work bordering on the stylized simplicity of Harvey Comics--not being a fit for the kind of work in the rest of the DC line. Later, I warmed up to him during his Superboy run in the early 1980s, as he seemed to fit the lyrical shaping of Smallville at a time when that sort of idea had all but been wiped from superhero titles.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 13, 2018 22:07:41 GMT -5
He never really worked for me on Invaders, but I really liked Robbins on the Shadow. Surprisingly great at mystery/noir. Yup. In fact, I like his Shadow better than Kaluta's. And Robbins is one of my favorite Batman artists. But I enjoy Invaders in spite of his art, not because of it. The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's. Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Aaaagreed. I was going to say the same but I decided I didn't want everyone calling me an idiot. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) And I've only seen a couple of the Kaluta Shadow issues.... and it's been a while. They were beautiful but... a little stiff, right? It was a while ago. But I definitely see Robbins in my brain when I think Shadow Comics. Still, Robbins was pretty abstract and didn't deliver a lot of period detail, which would have complimented history teacher Roy Thomas' writing style. Jerry Ordway definitely worked better for me, R. T. WW 2 era superhero book-wise.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 13, 2018 22:44:11 GMT -5
I haven't read the whole discussion but I'll just say that I've been reading the reprints of Robbins's Johnny Hazard the last few months and they are excellent, both the artwork and the storytelling.
I didn't like the few superhero comics drawn by Robbins that I saw as a teenager in the 70s but I've since seen a few samples online that look pretty good to me, so between that and the Johnny Hazard experience, there is some incentive for me to take another look at his superhero and other 70s work for Marvel and DC.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 8, 2018 7:19:58 GMT -5
Nostalgia only works for me when I read the actual comic book that was published. Reading a comic that I grew up with on a tablet or a collected edition doesn't give me that same nice feeling the same way reading the original book with the ads and letter pages does.
There I said it.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 8, 2018 11:50:31 GMT -5
Nostalgia only works for me when I read the actual comic book that was published. Reading a comic that I grew up with on a tablet or a collected edition doesn't give me that same nice feeling the same way reading the original book with the ads and letter pages does. There I said it. Makes sense. Part of the nostalgia is the feel and the smell of the books. Also, so many digital books are clean digital colored pages. Not scanned from the original comic, The look is so different.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 8, 2018 19:51:06 GMT -5
Nostalgia only works for me when I read the actual comic book that was published. Reading a comic that I grew up with on a tablet or a collected edition doesn't give me that same nice feeling the same way reading the original book with the ads and letter pages does. There I said it. As you say, the collected (digital) versions cannot replace the feel of reading the original comic contents, but there's also an associated, unpleasant truth in that in physcially handling the books, the more they are subjected to finger oil, and wear, while the digital copy can (presumably) last forever, but is delivered in a way nowhere near as asthetically pleasing. Not a good trade-off.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Apr 9, 2018 8:48:46 GMT -5
To open another subject, are there any artists you disliked at first, but grew to like? I disliked Gil Kane on Spider-Man and hated the early Conan story he did *of course i probably would have disliked anybody who replaced Barry Smith). I found some of his layouts, with the "up the nose" shots, well....jarring. But over time I grew to appreciate him and admire his work. I also thought Curt Swan's work was boring. And have since changed my mind. Very much so. Starlin's art was incredibly jarring when reading Warlock, after having read Infinity Gauntlet/War/Crusade and the SS issues he did with Lim. Starlin/Lim was like the sweet Marvel cosmic combo, and then the LCS owner turned me to the Warlock reprints and at first was I was like ..... ugh. I still would say that, for his creator owned things, Gilgamesh II, Kid Kosmos, Dreadstar, Breed, Wyrd, Hardcore Station, etc. somehow his art fits his own writing like a symbiotic relationship. But almost anything else, I'd prefer someone else do the art with him; Silver Surfer, Infinity Gauntlet, The Weird, Mystery In Space.
|
|