Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,627
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 10, 2019 12:44:53 GMT -5
Why is cartoony a pejorative term? There are lots of phenomonal artists who have a cartoony style who have produced fantastic comics (both mainstream and indy). While I totally agree with -- and, in fact, applaud -- what you're saying here, insofar as the term "cartoony" being regarded as an automatically deprecatory term, it certainly can (and should) be used as such on occasion. Context is everything; clearly "cartoony faces" in a comic that is trying to be semi-realistic may be a bad fit, in much the same way as, I dunno...a photorealistic artist like Alex Ross painting a Peanuts strip would be a weird fit. It's an entirely legitimate critical analysis of a comic book for someone to suggest that a "cartoony" style doesn't fit the desired or perceived asthetic of that particular comic, which brings me to my next point... ...but putting someone off is not a comment on the quality of the work, it is a comment on the bias and tastes of the individuals involved. I like some Ditko stuff (his Micronauts stuff pictured not so much), and others are free to like or dislike his work as they choose, but I never conflate "I like" to mean it's high quality material nor "I dislike" with it's not quality, as a lot of people are wont to do. I firmly believe the conflating of personal tastes with objective standards of quality is a textbook case of hubris, and reading commentary or criticism by those who do tells you very little about the quality of the material they are discussing and too much about their personal tastes in such materials. Firstly, let me just say that what you're referring to, in the quoted text above, sound an awful lot like straight "critical thinking", as laid out by Socrates and Plato, rather than art criticism. In art criticism, we try to discuss or evaluate the relative merits of art -- any form of art: literature, performing arts or visual arts (comic books, despite being throwaway commercial art, would fall under literature and the visual arts) -- by attempting to judge it in the context of its time and based on its aesthetics. However, since it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to judge aesthetics without bringing the subjective into the equation, informed subjectivity is key to any criticism of art. You critique art -- even comic books -- by objectively analysing the history of the medium, factoring in the creator's intent (perceived or stated), and then incorporating informed and relatively unbiased subjective opinion. That's because how the art "speaks" to you or other people is arguably the most important thing about art; it's what makes art art! It's the magic that happens between the viewer and the piece of art itself that is key to the very nature of any art, and therefore, in art criticism, the viewer's reaction is every bit as important as the creator's intent. Appreciation of art is subjective by its very nature. On a lighter note, let's not forget that this is just a comic book forum on the internet. Expressing subjective opinions is what this place is for! The fact that there will be a degree of biased subjective opinion in people's posts should come as no surprise to anyone. You know, as I've been typing this reply, @mrp, I feel as if you and I have had a similar conversation to this in the past. I hope I'm not repeating myself. EDIT: For what it's worth, I love Steve Ditko's '50s and '60s artwork on Amazing Spider-Man, Doctor Strange and those old pre-FF #1 fantasy and sci-fi comics. Even his later Marvel work, in the likes of ROM or The Further Adventures of Indiana Jones, looks pretty damn good to my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Feb 10, 2019 13:59:00 GMT -5
I'm a pretty big fan of Ditko's work, albeit not an uncritical one. So I agree that his work in say, the Fantastic Four and Micronauts annuals sampled above, or on the fill-in jobs in the Legion of Super-heroes in 1980/81, were not only not good, but pretty god-awful. However, I don't think this had anything to do with a deterioration of his talent due to age or anything like that. For example, I really like his art in the Starman features in Adventure Comics (usually inked by Romeo Tanghal) that came out at roughly the same time, or his work on features like, say, Static (in Eclipse Monthly) or Missing Man (in Pacific Presents), from 1982/83, which looks perfectly fine to me. So does most of what I've seen of his creator-owned material that he was producing throughout the '90s and '00s, and really up until his death. So it's probably closer to what both Crimebuster and Chadwilliam suggest, that he simply wasn't putting in the same effort on certain jobs. Otherwise, I'd never read the later Roms when Ditko took over as artist, so I'm actually a bit shocked by the page samples that Chadwilliam posted - if I had only seen the inked page, I wouldn't be able to tell it's Ditko's pencils.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Feb 10, 2019 14:36:04 GMT -5
Well, yes, opinions are by definition subjective. If that's a "problem" then I guess I'm misunderstanding the nature and the culture of this thread. Cartoony is fine for Peanuts, not the FF, IMO. And you ignore my characterization of his work as also being crude; it's not even as if it's good by cartoony standards. You apparently like Ditko, I don't. Cool. My world will keep spinning firmly on its axis. I like some Ditko stuff (his Micronauts stuff pictured not so much), and others are free to liek or dislike his work as they choose, but I never conflate "I like" to mean it's high quality material nor "I dislike" with it's not quality, as a lot of people are wont to do. I firmly believe the conflating of personal tastes with objective standards of quality is a textbook case of hubris, and reading commentary or criticism by those who do tells you very little about the quality of the material they are discussing and too much about their personal tastes in such materials. -M Again, my understanding of this thread is that it is an opportunity to express opinions, particularly those that are likely to be unpopular with some (or many) here, without fear of being unduly taken to task for simply having an opinion someone else might not share. I see it as similar to having debates about who is the greatest quarterback of all time or such. I think we all recognize the fun in friendly debates; a lot of us do it all the time in real-life with our pals. The CCF is the first time in my life that I've participated in an Internet forum/board. I've historically avoided them because I can't be bothered to get into what I consider to be pointless debates regarding opinions. CCF looked like a very fun place where people are talking about classic comics because we all love them for different reasons. And I like this thread in particular because it is designed for us to have fun debates; it's not "There, This is What Objective Standards Say!" after all. I was expressing my opinion that Ditko's faces have bugged me as a reader my entire life. There are loads of other aspects of his art that I appreciate and in fact I own several Ditko tomes ( Ditko Unleashed!, The Art of Ditko, those terrific Gorgo and Konga collections, some of those Fantagraphics archives, and the first Spider-Man omni). But, frankly, I shouldn't have to "validate" myself by reassuring others that I appreciate or "get" Ditko. Nor should anyone be taken to task for not employing "objective standards of taste" on an opinion thread or be accused of hubris. Others here responded to my Ditko post with interesting, engaging, and friendly expressions of their take on Ditko. It's great to make a case for why one thinks Ditko's faces are good and I could even be inspired to reconsider that aspect of his work. But there's no fun or constructive dialogue going on when someone tells me that since I don't like Ditko's faces I surely must not like the art of Shuster, Sprang, or Eisner or school me on how to (sniff, sniff) properly evaluate art. It is not in the spirit of this forum as I understand it. But, again, I'm relatively new here so maybe I'm misinformed or naive. At any rate, I've now spent far too much of my time and energy regarding a simple little post about, of all things, Steve Ditko's faces. Egad. I've got real problems in my life; this place is my distraction from them. I really like this forum a lot and there are loads of great and interesting posts made by great and interesting folks all the time. I'm looking forward to continued classic comic book camaraderie!
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 10, 2019 15:06:19 GMT -5
I think sometimes to take something that was fairly realistic and turn it cartoony can put some people off badly, where it's the official main version but putting someone off is not a comment on the quality of the work, it is a comment on the bias and tastes of the individuals involved. -M I happen to like Steve Ditko comics from all periods a lot, from the earliest horror stuff I've seen and Konga up to The Missing Man and Static. But if you have gone from say Pat Broderick and Armando Gil on Micronauts I can see someone being not happy with the Ditko annuals. There have been some modern straight forward superhero comics that have gone cartoony/anime quite suddenly I think... where they had large cartoony mouths and eyes, or turned into bumbling goofy characters at times undermining their past representations (Hawkeye's arrows spilling randomly out of his quiver in West Coast Avengers, this guy defeated The Collector on his own once, and Death Bird). I'm usually against attempts at super-realistic supposedly adult superheroes as a bad fit, but the other extreme of too simple or making fun of it (and I'm not thinking Megaton Man or The Tick but the mainstream companies) is going backward to DC's Mr. Mxytzpyk or Marvel's The Impossible Man both of which I loathed as both a kid and thought they undermined Superman and the Fantastic Four comics having any credibility. Maybe I'm not talking about the same thing though. I like Ditko and Staton comics a lot usually. The old Bill Everett Sub-Mariner and Joe Shuster Superman were among the best golden age comics and I particularly loved the cartoon elements in their style. Pat Broderick also had a cartoony plasticity I really enjoyed on Captain Marvel, Micronauts and Firestorm.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 10, 2019 15:24:02 GMT -5
it's not "There, This is What Objective Standards Say!" after all. I was expressing my opinion that Ditko's faces have bugged me as a reader my entire life. There are loads of other aspects of his art that I appreciate and in fact I own several Ditko tomes ( Ditko Unleashed!, The Art of Ditko, those terrific Gorgo and Konga collections, some of those Fantagraphics archives, and the first Spider-Man omni). But, frankly, I shouldn't have to "validate" myself by reassuring others that I appreciate or "get" Ditko. This reminds me of someone way back in the '80s who started slagging off Steve Leialoha comics in a group, and how obviously terrible they/he was. I offered to give him copies of Spider-Woman #25, 34 and 35 I had extra copies of and he accepted, but afterward still didn't like the way he drew even Jessica Drew, which I thought he would really like... oh well, that's just how it is I guess. Weird how common these feelings are really, and how you can't really not feel strongly sometimes, but it does feel too personal to argue. I've always disliked Ramona Fradon comics but can't really write about it, I just don't, and i almost feel bad that it could be taken personally. Like I say, weird.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Feb 10, 2019 15:32:10 GMT -5
it's not "There, This is What Objective Standards Say!" after all. I was expressing my opinion that Ditko's faces have bugged me as a reader my entire life. There are loads of other aspects of his art that I appreciate and in fact I own several Ditko tomes ( Ditko Unleashed!, The Art of Ditko, those terrific Gorgo and Konga collections, some of those Fantagraphics archives, and the first Spider-Man omni). But, frankly, I shouldn't have to "validate" myself by reassuring others that I appreciate or "get" Ditko. This reminds me of someone way back in the '80s who started slagging off Steve Leialoha comics in a group, and how obviously terrible they/he was. I offered to give him copies of Spider-Woman #25, 34 and 35 I had extra copies of and he accepted, but afterward still didn't like the way he drew even Jessica Drew, which I thought he would really like... oh well, that's just how it is I guess. Weird how common these feelings are really, and how you can't really not feel strongly sometimes, but it does feel too personal to argue. I've always disliked Ramona Fradon comics but can't really write about it, I just don't, and i almost feel bad that it could be taken personally. Like I say, weird. And I absolutely love Ramona Fradon's work! And it's very cartoony, which works for her Aquaman. Personal tastes, go figure!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 10, 2019 15:47:04 GMT -5
I happen to like Steve Ditko comics from all periods a lot, from the earliest horror stuff I've seen and Konga up to The Missing Man and Static. But if you have gone from say Pat Broderick and Armando Gil on Micronauts I can see someone being not happy with the Ditko annuals. There have been some modern straight forward superhero comics that have gone cartoony/anime quite suddenly I think... where they had large cartoony mouths and eyes, or turned into bumbling goofy characters at times undermining their past representations (Hawkeye's arrows spilling randomly out of his quiver in West Coast Avengers, this guy defeated The Collector on his own once, and Death Bird). When I was a kid circa 1980, Pat Broderick was the first artist I remember recognizing across multiple titles (Micronauts, LSH, Fury of Firestorm). I thought of his art style as "circular" as opposed to Sal Buscema's stocky style, though I'm hard pressed to find an example that looks "circular" to me now. This reminds me of someone way back in the '80s who started slagging off Steve Leialoha comics in a group, and how obviously terrible they/he was. I offered to give him copies of Spider-Woman #25, 34 and 35 I had extra copies of and he accepted, but afterward still didn't like the way he drew even Jessica Drew, which I thought he would really like... oh well, that's just how it is I guess. Weird how common these feelings are really, and how you can't really not feel strongly sometimes, but it does feel too personal to argue. I've always disliked Ramona Fradon comics but can't really write about it, I just don't, and i almost feel bad that it could be taken personally. Like I say, weird. Leialoha took some getting used to for me; he seemed like a cruder version of Sienkiewicz, whom he followed on New Mutants, and I was used to the detail of Perez, Byrne, and Golden, or alternatively the clean lines of Paul Smith and Keith Giffen (pre-Muñoz). But in retrospect I recognize how it's natural for artistic styles to ebb and flow, with a generation of realistic artists getting followed by a generation of more punky impressionistic ones, and vice versa. Just like rock music would swing between virtuosity and dirty garage rock.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 17:50:09 GMT -5
MDG man that Mr A page was hardcore! I have never read any actual strips. EdoBosnar I forgot about Ditko's Starman in Adventure Comics. I liked it too! Mister Spaceman Love Ramona Fradon's art.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Feb 11, 2019 0:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 11, 2019 0:54:26 GMT -5
Ditko was one I had a really hard time with, in the 70s and 80s. The contemporary work that I saw just didn't grab me and the stories weren't any great shakes, either. However, when I would see reprints of his 60s and earlier material, and things like his Charlton stuff, it was far more enticing. There is a definite enthusiasm in that earlier work, before politics (office and outer world) found there way into his work. A great deal of the 70s and 80s seemed more like picking up a paycheck and I get that, though it was a bit ironic that he was one of the Charlton guys who seemed to put his everything into all of his assignments, vs some of the others, who slapped it out; but, might take more care with a favorite assignment or higher paying gig. Ditko on Dr Strange, Spider-Man, Blue Beetle, The Question and his sci-fi and mystery/horror stuff was great. Ditko on Micronauts really annoyed me.
Kirby was another who took seeing his earlier work to appreciate. The first things I saw were his later DC material, when the chair had been pulled out from under him, and his return to Marvel, where he was treated like excrement, by some. Eternals was one I always liked; but, I only saw a couple of issues, at the time, and came to read more, later. When I'd see FF reprints or Captain America ones, then I really dug Kirby. It took longer to get into his abstraction. I kind of had to mature into a position to see it beyond it not be the more realistic Adams/Kane/Buscema/ etc style I was used to.
Don Heck was one I saw mostly at his worst, before seeing some of his earlier Marvel stuff and it was years before I saw his non-superhero work. Timing can be a real element to how you perceive an artist's work.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,502
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 11, 2019 6:32:10 GMT -5
It's weird that there's a new Conan funnybook and a new Red Sonja funnybook this week and they are from different companies. Anyone out there read the Red Sonja book? is it actually set in the Hyborean Age? Do they walk along the same timeline, or just randomly use the names and places? I'm curious... (though not quite enough to actually buy the books) The preview pages we see from time to time suggest that we get a lot of names and places used randomly, as in the bad old days of the 1980s at Marvel. In the very recent short preview of the new Red Sonja #1, for example, a Hyrkanian swears by Crom. It is a Hyborian age in name only.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,451
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2019 8:45:47 GMT -5
At the risk of self-promoting some very old work, I wrote about Steve Ditko's contributions to Tower Comics here a while back, and I still feel it was some of the finest work of his career.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 11, 2019 9:06:16 GMT -5
Ditko was one I had a really hard time with, in the 70s and 80s. The contemporary work that I saw just didn't grab me and the stories weren't any great shakes, either. However, when I would see reprints of his 60s and earlier material, and things like his Charlton stuff, it was far more enticing. There is a definite enthusiasm in that earlier work, before politics (office and outer world) found there way into his work.....Kirby was another who took seeing his earlier work to appreciate.... I kind of had to mature into a position to see it beyond it not be the more realistic Adams/Kane/Buscema/ etc style I was used to. In the early- mid-60s Kirby and Ditko were doing things that moved comics ahead, in some ways working 5 years ahead of the industry. Maybe in the 70s, they still wanted to push things, but Marvel (and DC) just weren't having it. Unfortunately, there weren't many options for them to make good, steady money in comics. Ditko had Charlton and small-press, Kirby went to animation, but for mainstream comics, they were just hired hands. (I guess one exception for Ditko would be Shade)
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Feb 11, 2019 9:29:32 GMT -5
Great examples! The Dr. Strange material is easily some of my favorite Ditko work. Addendum: The low angles and various degrees of close-ups for dramatic effect are exceptional (and the Stan Goldberg coloring helps too, of course!). And the nuanced expressions on Strange's face in those top 4 panels are impressive. This takes me all the way back to first seeing his Dr. Strange work when I got Origin of Marvel Comics for my 9th birthday (1975). Thanks for the reminder of Ditko at his best!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 12, 2019 9:55:09 GMT -5
Anyone out there read the Red Sonja book? is it actually set in the Hyborean Age? Do they walk along the same timeline, or just randomly use the names and places? I'm curious... (though not quite enough to actually buy the books) The preview pages we see from time to time suggest that we get a lot names and places used randomly, as in the bad old days of the 1980s at Marvel. In the very recent short preview of the new Red Sonja #1, for example, a Hyrkanian swears by Crom. It is a Hyborian age in name only. That's what I suspected, and why I never picked them up.
|
|