|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 20, 2022 10:18:46 GMT -5
I commented on another thread that some artists I revisit in their signature runs just don't so it for me like they did. I don't mean their current work, I mean the work that I once loved. I look at the Neal Adams books from the 60-80's and it still resonates with me. I bought some Mcfarlane books back in the day and liked it but now I look at it and wonder what I was thinking. I never get tired of looking at the Kirby FF or Avengers work. I look at the Ditko Spider-man and think that it looked better when I first read it.
Any thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 20, 2022 10:50:53 GMT -5
The following might be a trigger point for some, but I believe there is a real class difference between artists of different generations, from how they were influenced, what they studied, how versatile with numerous subjects, etc. To that point, I've found that the older work from the artists who were more well-rounded / developed have never lost what made them so appealing / great in the first place, while so many of the bigger name artists from, say, the late 80s into the 90s (who were not so acquainted with apparently off-world, indecipherable subjects called basic anatomy or perspective) never had that kind of lasting impact (with the notable exception of Alex Ross).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 11:04:37 GMT -5
I've pretty much remained consistent....if I didn't really like it then (eg McFarlane Spidey, or Liefeld), or when I first came across it, I still don't fancy it now, so looking back at anything now doesn't trouble that equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Feb 20, 2022 11:25:46 GMT -5
It's usually the opposite for me: artists I didn't appreciate or flat-out didn't like as a kid are now in my pantheon of greats. This list includes Joe Kubert, Steve Ditko, Lee Elias, Dan Spiegle, Ross Andru, Frank Thorne, Jack Davis, Bruno Premiani, and Bill Everett. I don't think Neal Adams' work holds up, though. His figure work is awesome and he designs great pages but he's a wretched storyteller.
Cei-U!
I summon the re-evaluation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 11:35:57 GMT -5
It's usually the opposite for me: artists I didn't appreciate or flat-out didn't like as a kid are now in my pantheon of greats. This list includes Joe Kubert, Steve Ditko, Lee Elias, Dan Spiegle, Ross Andru, Frank Thorne, Jack Davis, Bruno Premiani, and Bill Everett. I don't think Neal Adams' work holds up, though. His figure work is awesome and he designs great pages but he's a wretched storyteller. Cei-U! I summon the re-evaluation! Yeah I have always felt Adams worked better as an illustrator than as a comic artist telling stories visually. I think his illustrations and covers are still great. He is excellent at capturing the energy and excitement of a story in a single image. However, his panel to panel and page to page storytelling is often not good. It doesn't flow and doesn't lead the eye through the story, his panel to panel effects don't convey things like time, pacing, or sequences that well. The imagery is excellent, but as Cei-U! says, his visual storytelling skills are not his strong suit. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 20, 2022 11:36:17 GMT -5
It's usually the opposite for me: artists I didn't appreciate or flat-out didn't like as a kid are now in my pantheon of greats. This list includes Joe Kubert, Steve Ditko, Lee Elias, Dan Spiegle, Ross Andru, Frank Thorne, Jack Davis, Bruno Premiani, and Bill Everett. I don't think Neal Adams' work holds up, though. His figure work is awesome and he designs great pages but he's a wretched storyteller. Cei-U! I summon the re-evaluation! I agree that some artist that I didn't think were special , I now think are good. Curt Swan is one. I'm surprised about the critique of Neal Adams' storytelling. I thought he was the complete package. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2022 11:48:33 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about the question "does it still feel special?" Nothing that I read now can make me feel like I did when I read it the first time as a kid or young adult because I am not that person anymore and my reaction to it now is not what it would have been then. And the quest for things that made me feel like I did then is a fool's errand. It can make me remember what I felt back then, but it cannot make me have that experience again. A large part of it is that the reaction I had the was tied up with the discovery aspects of reading things for the first time which cannot ever happen with old favorites again.
So when I revisit things, I want them to resonate with who I am now. Some do, some don't, but I try not to compare the experience with how I reacted then. So the question becomes is it special in the moment of reading it now, not does it still feel special in the way it did then.
But that sense of discovery is probably the biggest factor for why I loved comics, and why I still try to sample as many new and different things as I can. But it's new to me not necessarily newly released, so part of that exploration is older material I never experienced before. But when I revisit things, I can still get that sense of discovery at times with certain materials, because really good stuff helps you discover things about yourself as you are reading it. Things like Sandman, Eisner, Bone, etc. resonate with me every time I read it because each time I read it, it offers a journey of self-discovery through reading, making it special each time I read it no matter if it is "still special" the way it was when I first read it. A lot of books I revisit don't offer that. And that's ok. I've grown and changed over the years, and part of that is that my tastes change. And that's a good thing. I don't want my tastes to stagnate. And the really good stuff will resonate with me no matter how my tastes grow and evolve.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 20, 2022 13:44:02 GMT -5
I'm surprised about the critique of Neal Adams' storytelling. I thought he was the complete package. No single artist is a "complete package," but few knew how to marry a clear photographer's eye with the emotion / action of a script as Adams did at the height of his abilities. He was beyond revolutionary, and not just for beautiful images. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Feb 20, 2022 14:20:36 GMT -5
As a kid I certainly was not enjoying Bill Sienkiewicz work, while I've moved over to appreciate more abstract artists a lot over the years.
I have noticed with some of the more commercial stuff like Suske&Wiske over here, that the issues I liked the most as a kid, I still like the most these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 20, 2022 15:07:03 GMT -5
I re-read Barry Smith's Conan in the omnibus recently. And even though it is raw and can't compare to the artist he became, it still was kept the charm and joy from when I first read them when they were published.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Feb 20, 2022 16:07:56 GMT -5
I remember being enthusiastic about Mike Grell's work when he showed up on Aquaman and the Legion in the 70's. I can still appreciate that material (but less than I did then), but I when I look at his Warlord, Sable, or Green Arrow work, I just see lots of atrocious anatomy, the inability to draw convincing clothing, and difficulty keeping elements in proportion.
Frank Miller's Daredevil doesn't have the impact it did in the 80's. I dig the layouts, but so many of the covers, even very famous ones, strike me as just awful now.
It's been a long time since I gained a renewed appreciation for anyone I once actively disliked, but I did a 180 on Dan Spiegle, who went from unloved to near the top of my list of favorites after BLACKHAWK. I never objected to Herb Trimpe, but his work tended to be a disappointment rather than the pleasure it is for me now. In the 70's I had a prejudice against the Filipino artists, but now I relish Alcala and Nino and appreciate DeZuniga.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 20, 2022 17:31:25 GMT -5
I think the original Image creators are a perfect example. I just thought we were amazing but now don’t see anything special in any of their work. On the other side George Perez, John Byrne I get that sense of awe when I go through some photos f their early works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 20, 2022 18:15:50 GMT -5
I can't think of any examples, really. Artists I loved back in the day I still tend to admire. Perhaps a little more critically than I used to (I can see the flaws in Mark Bagley's early work, for example). Todd McFarlane comes closest, I think, but even then I can't say I was ever truly a fan of his.
I've often experienced the converse, though. I was indifferent to Kirby when I was young, but now I consider him among my favourite artists. I have similar feelings towards Ditko, Romita, Sr., Ron Frenz, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 20, 2022 21:14:02 GMT -5
He was never a favorite, but I feel the same way about McFarlane ("What was I thinking?")
I can't really think of anyone else. Usually it's the other way round; artists whose work I disliked, such as Gene Colan or Carmine Infantino, are now favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Feb 22, 2022 12:34:59 GMT -5
I agree that some artist that I didn't think were special , I now think are good. Curt Swan is one. I'm surprised about the critique of Neal Adams' storytelling. I thought he was the complete package.
I never disliked Swan's work, although I have more appreciation for it now. Ultimately though, my assessment is the same as it was when I was younger: his style isn't the most dynamic, but he has a great sense of anatomy and subtle expression. The problem is that after Murphy Anderson left, he was given bland inkers who accentuated the weakest part of his style. I'd love to have seen him do a run on a comic with a strong inker who could lend a high gloss to his foundation.
|
|
