Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 30, 2017 2:29:46 GMT -5
John Romita Sr.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 30, 2017 6:52:28 GMT -5
He pretty much set the house style for DC's romance books in the early 60s |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Jan 2, 2018 15:39:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't. If you are going to argue for creator rights and comics as art and then put forward a product that is commercial and interchangeable despite who draws it, it's a hypocritical proposition. As much as I like George Perez, I don't want to see another artist trying to do a Perez pastiche for the artwork (or a Kirby pastiche, or a Kubert pastiche, or a Garcia-Lopez pastiche, etc.). Some artists may be influenced more and imitate another's work at various points in their development as artists, but that's part of the growth process and finding their artistic identity. Being forced to do so, is another matter altogether. If you are going to have a house style, you might as well do art for each issue by committee and not credit the work, because even if one artist is doing it, it's not an expression of themselves or their creativity, it is them consciously swiping another's style to meet the commercial desires of the client. I don't want generic product churned out to meet a predetermined style standard. I want creators exploring storytelling to the best of their ability and inspiration. House styles enable people like Bob Kane to put their name on other's work and get away with it. And that's not something I want comic companies to strive for or aspire to. -M Surely if you're deciding a "House" style, you're probably the publisher. You have a vested interest in trying to remain profitable, and therefore able to keep giving work to creators. Its not usually the publishers who are espousing creators rights, they might toe the party line and pay them, but as for advocating for them in the first place...I dont believe it happened till Adams et.al. started trying to get some justice for Siegel and Schuster. So...as publisher of your little domain, doesnt it make sense to give your consumer more of a popular thing(product, genre, art etc)? I wouldn't mind a loose house-style similar to how Buscema had somewhat similar layouts to Kirby but was clearly his own artist. The four that come to mind first are John Byrne, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Neal Adams and John Buscema. Those four artists always seemed to be able to draw anything super-hero related and make it look heroic, epic, grandiose, etc. When they were at their peeks, I'd look at their figures and think, "Yep. This is how *insert character here* should always look." Considering that in the 70's and much of the 80's DC was based around Adams, and Marvel around Buscema they're very sensible choices. Personally, I'd go for "No House Style" but if we're playing the game, I'd have 5 house styles 1. Wally Wood 2. Jose Luis Garcia Lopez 3. Steve Rude 4. Michael Lark 5. Darwyn Cooke What struck me with this post, Rude and Cooke(and probably Chris Samnee now) are out of the same box, very clean cartoonish styles, but to me they owe it all to Alex Toth for his clean minimalist work(even with Rudes love of Kirby). ...Oh lord, an entire publishers output riffing on Steve Rude...sign me up right now I'd say a Kubert-based house style would be among the most versatile and least boring. We've already seen a bit of what such a line would look like, between the legions of Kubert school graduates who started out their pro careers with very obvious Kubert influences and with the many, many DC comics that Kubert anonymously laid out. When everyone else was naming their choices I couldnt help thinking about all the Kubert School grads flooding the market in the 80's. As much as they all had their "thing" you saw Joe in everything they did. In saying that you would have a nice little line with books by Mandrake, Duurseema, Truman, Andy Kubert, Adam Kubert, Ron Randall, Steve Bissette, and John Totleben. IMHO the thing with Joe was, while he was a great cover artist I've always thought his interiors were too loose. Okay with Tarzan but other stuff could do with being as tight as his covers were. Might also be that most of what Ive seen has been late career when most artists start to loosen up as they get older and wiser(lazier). Finally as a publisher, wanting people to emulate a certain creator, wouldnt the ideal be Jack Kirby, a man of extreme talent, a man of incredible imagination, a man with a huge work ethic, and a man whose peers look up to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 15:55:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't. If you are going to argue for creator rights and comics as art and then put forward a product that is commercial and interchangeable despite who draws it, it's a hypocritical proposition. As much as I like George Perez, I don't want to see another artist trying to do a Perez pastiche for the artwork (or a Kirby pastiche, or a Kubert pastiche, or a Garcia-Lopez pastiche, etc.). Some artists may be influenced more and imitate another's work at various points in their development as artists, but that's part of the growth process and finding their artistic identity. Being forced to do so, is another matter altogether. If you are going to have a house style, you might as well do art for each issue by committee and not credit the work, because even if one artist is doing it, it's not an expression of themselves or their creativity, it is them consciously swiping another's style to meet the commercial desires of the client. I don't want generic product churned out to meet a predetermined style standard. I want creators exploring storytelling to the best of their ability and inspiration. House styles enable people like Bob Kane to put their name on other's work and get away with it. And that's not something I want comic companies to strive for or aspire to. -M Surely if you're deciding a "House" style, you're probably the publisher. You have a vested interest in trying to remain profitable, and therefore able to keep giving work to creators. Its not usually the publishers who are espousing creators rights, they might toe the party line and pay them, but as for advocating for them in the first place...I dont believe it happened till Adams et.al. started trying to get some justice for Siegel and Schuster. So...as publisher of your little domain, doesnt it make sense to give your consumer more of a popular thing(product, genre, art etc)? I wouldn't mind a loose house-style similar to how Buscema had somewhat similar layouts to Kirby but was clearly his own artist. The four that come to mind first are John Byrne, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Neal Adams and John Buscema. Those four artists always seemed to be able to draw anything super-hero related and make it look heroic, epic, grandiose, etc. When they were at their peeks, I'd look at their figures and think, "Yep. This is how *insert character here* should always look." Considering that in the 70's and much of the 80's DC was based around Adams, and Marvel around Buscema they're very sensible choices. Personally, I'd go for "No House Style" but if we're playing the game, I'd have 5 house styles 1. Wally Wood 2. Jose Luis Garcia Lopez 3. Steve Rude 4. Michael Lark 5. Darwyn Cooke What struck me with this post, Rude and Cooke(and probably Chris Samnee now) are out of the same box, very clean cartoonish styles, but to me they owe it all to Alex Toth for his clean minimalist work(even with Rudes love of Kirby). ...Oh lord, an entire publishers output riffing on Steve Rude...sign me up right now I'd say a Kubert-based house style would be among the most versatile and least boring. We've already seen a bit of what such a line would look like, between the legions of Kubert school graduates who started out their pro careers with very obvious Kubert influences and with the many, many DC comics that Kubert anonymously laid out. When everyone else was naming their choices I couldnt help thinking about all the Kubert School grads flooding the market in the 80's. As much as they all had their "thing" you saw Joe in everything they did. In saying that you would have a nice little line with books by Mandrake, Duurseema, Truman, Andy Kubert, Adam Kubert, Ron Randall, Steve Bissette, and John Totleben. IMHO the thing with Joe was, while he was a great cover artist I've always thought his interiors were too loose. Okay with Tarzan but other stuff could do with being as tight as his covers were. Might also be that most of what Ive seen has been late career when most artists start to loosen up as they get older and wiser(lazier). Finally as a publisher, wanting people to emulate a certain creator, wouldnt the ideal be Jack Kirby, a man of extreme talent, a man of incredible imagination, a man with a huge work ethic, and a man whose peers look up to. When you adopt a style meant to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. In this case, you stifle creators who won't do their best work because they can't do their own work. Look at Herb Trimpe trying to draw Image style in the 90s because it was the House style and the only way you could get work at Marvel, or compare Tom Grindberg with the blocky pseudo-Image style he was forced to use by Marvel int he 90s with the elegant gorgeous stuff he did when doing the Tarzan strips. If you force a House style in art (and writing) you end up pumping out regurgitated pap that is intended to please your audience but you end up losing all but that hardcore fanboy base, which is exactly what has happened to Marvel & DC books and now they can't move 100K copies on any but a handful of books because they tried to please everyone and drove just about everyone away. Without innovation and variety in your creative output, you will fail to draw in new eyes to your product and you line will stagnate and die off as people lose interest because it's the same old same old again and again and why should I pay for watered down copies of stuff I have been getting for years and years, and worse it's appeal skews to an older aging audience and does not resonate with the market which continually evolves it's tastes and preferences. Try to appeal to an audience from 1985 in 2018 is market suicide and house styles are usually locked into the success of the past and not looking to draw new customers in the future. It's a recipe for disaster and creative suicide. You will ose audience and talented creators who will look elsewhere for creative outlets and entertainment that presents something new and interesting. -M |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jan 2, 2018 16:24:36 GMT -5
House style is now a thing of the past. Archie comics was the most committed to keeping a specific style and yet today they have put it aside in order to compete with modern tastes. The only remaining House style going is probably for Disney comics and Cartoon comics (Looney Tunes/Scooby Doo) which attempt to remain true to the animated concepts they are based upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 2, 2018 16:33:30 GMT -5
When everyone else was naming their choices I couldnt help thinking about all the Kubert School grads flooding the market in the 80's. As much as they all had their "thing" you saw Joe in everything they did. In saying that you would have a nice little line with books by Mandrake, Duurseema, Truman, Andy Kubert, Adam Kubert, Ron Randall, Steve Bissette, and John Totleben. In the 80s, I went to a small show and one of the guests was a guy who'd done a couple fill-ins on Swamp Thing, as well as some indie stuff (no one you mentioned above). I said to him, "You went to the Kubert School, didn't you?" He said, "Yeah, how'd you know?" I said, "Well, a lot of you kinda draw the same..." and he got real defensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Jan 3, 2018 15:08:47 GMT -5
House style is now a thing of the past. Archie comics was the most committed to keeping a specific style and yet today they have put it aside in order to compete with modern tastes. The only remaining House style going is probably for Disney comics and Cartoon comics (Looney Tunes/Scooby Doo) which attempt to remain true to the animated concepts they are based upon. Sorry but I really cant agree with you here. I look at the majority of the DC output and see Jim Lee's influence. Sure there may not be some editorial decree (as when the industry desperately tried to emulate IMAGE in the 90's) and some of the artists do work I like,BUT, there is a similarity in look across a large part of the line which I would compare to the influence of Adams in the 70's. How many good artists came though in the 70's and 80's who were directly driven by Neal's realism...Byrne, Sienkiewicz, Grindberg, and Alan Davis spring immediately to mind,let alone those whose work at the time altered, or was inked to emulate...Im thinking Novick and Aparo here mainlydue to a memory lapse on 70's bat-artists. When everyone else was naming their choices I couldnt help thinking about all the Kubert School grads flooding the market in the 80's. As much as they all had their "thing" you saw Joe in everything they did. In saying that you would have a nice little line with books by Mandrake, Duurseema, Truman, Andy Kubert, Adam Kubert, Ron Randall, Steve Bissette, and John Totleben. In the 80s, I went to a small show and one of the guests was a guy who'd done a couple fill-ins on Swamp Thing, as well as some indie stuff (no one you mentioned above). I said to him, "You went to the Kubert School, didn't you?" He said, "Yeah, how'd you know?" I said, "Well, a lot of you kinda draw the same..." and he got real defensive. Yeah some were worse than others, but it was usually in the construction of the faces I'd pick i.t. Heck you still saw it with Adam and Andy till very recently. Always thought Truman was the more heavily influenced which may be why I liked him most in the 80's, and Bissette and Totleben transcended there roots very quickly. Still, imagine that lot doing a Horror/Mystery line at DC. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jan 3, 2018 16:05:23 GMT -5
House style is now a thing of the past. Archie comics was the most committed to keeping a specific style and yet today they have put it aside in order to compete with modern tastes. The only remaining House style going is probably for Disney comics and Cartoon comics (Looney Tunes/Scooby Doo) which attempt to remain true to the animated concepts they are based upon. Sorry but I really cant agree with you here. I look at the majority of the DC output and see Jim Lee's influence. Sure there may not be some editorial decree (as when the industry desperately tried to emulate IMAGE in the 90's) and some of the artists do work I like,BUT, there is a similarity in look across a large part of the line which I would compare to the influence of Adams in the 70's. How many good artists came though in the 70's and 80's who were directly driven by Neal's realism...Byrne, Sienkiewicz, Grindberg, and Alan Davis spring immediately to mind,let alone those whose work at the time altered, or was inked to emulate...Im thinking Novick and Aparo here mainlydue to a memory lapse on 70's bat-artists. That may be true within DC. Is it editorial mandate though or how much of it may simply be that many of the current newer artists are all drawing in a similar style imitating the Jim Lee look naturally and yet to grow into their own style? |
|
|
|
Post by beyonder1984 on Nov 1, 2018 17:49:25 GMT -5
Jim Lee has been the definition of a house style artist for years in DC. He designed the art direction of DC Online, DC New 52's costumes, and his art appears on licensed products. It is ironic to me because although he was always considered a great pin-up artist and one of the most highly paid and hyped artists, he was not considered to have a clean, minimalist, "technically correct" style that could be exported to a house style/mainstream. I thought the 1990s Image house style was supposed to be a fad.
|
|
