|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 18:44:03 GMT -5
Well there's also the "shame on BWS for having the audacity to criticize anyone." Because everyone must always be sweetness and light. Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. Wait, so Jim Lee giving someone a job means he is above criticism for his actions or inactions? Robotic obedience is not a prerequisite for employment and a boss who considers himself above criticism is not a good leader. I get along fine with my boss, but, I have criticisms of some of his actions and have voiced them to him. It s done in a constructive and respectful manner, but it helps him see his faults and act upon it and allows us to give a more consistent message to our subordinates, as the management team. He gives me criticism and I take it on board and act upon it. He wasn't the person that hired me though. I have strong criticisms of that manager, as he was overly disengaged from the operations of the store, pretty much dumped me in things instead of training me or setting up real training for me (on the technical side of my job, which involves quite a bit of computer work and operating specialized machinery), and, he was an alcoholic who wasn't doing his job. So, does that make me disloyal? I don't think so, because I did my best to push him into doing his job, help compensate for where he was failing, in terms of leading people and seeing to their needs and keeping our own confidences when I addressed some things to him. As for "Barry Windbag," maybe some of those people don't like hearing a real honest answer when they ask a question. That's the thing about someone who speaks their mind; they don't necessarily sugarcoat it to preserve someone's ego. At the same time, they are honest with them. Which is worse, having someone being blunt and honest and having your feelings hurt or having someone continually lie to you to "spare your feelings?" I'd rather hear the honest truth and know where I stand than live in a fantasy world and always subliminally wondering what the truth is. Groth is playing to his audience in the Journal, acting like a literati, intelligentsia or what have you, with superior standards and crusading for "art" over "commerce". It's as much of a mask as the jolly, fun loving persona Stan presented. Groth does what he does for attention, just as Stan did what he did for attention, both for themselves and their companies. In both cases, it helped shine a light on other talent and took on attention for themselves. Now, quite frankly, I'd rather have a conversation with Stan than Groth; but I think I would have a more interesting conversation with Groth about the medium of comics. Just because someone is a jerk, doesn't mean they don't have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 18:52:16 GMT -5
Well, like I said, you don't have to agree with him but I don't see that him expressing his honest opinion makes him a bad guy. Undiplomatic, sure. James Joyce and Marcel Proust reportedly hated each other's work: does that mean anyone who likes Joyce has to hate Proust or vica versa?
I'm a huge fan of Steranko's art but I can see where BWS is coming from. I believe one or both of the Hernandezes have expressed a similar opinion on his stuff, and possibly on Buscema as well, though I'm not sure I can trust my memory in the latter case. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Hernandezes or BWS 100%, much as I love their work. And it certainly doesn't make me feel they're nasty people for expressing their honest opinion of another artist's work.
The trouble is that BWS isn't Art Spiegelman. He didn't create the great American comic book. This is the same guy that created Weapon X and he's talking about other people doing vapid work. Archer & Armstrong, which isn't exactly Maus, but hardly Weapon X. He also is as much the creator of the Marvel Conan as Roy Thomas, which is not the same as Howard's Conan. Beyond that, his artistic work at his own Gorblimey Press is of a high standard, even if it didn't launch a massive career as a fine artist. To diminish him to one work is doing as big a disservice as any criticisms he may have voiced of other artists. I would also add that Storyteller was a well rounded piece of work (even unfinished), with diverse characters and narratives, even if they were, essentially, continuations of what he had done at Valiant, but didn't own. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2024 18:52:42 GMT -5
Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. Wait, so Jim Lee giving someone a job means he is above criticism for his actions or inactions? Robotic obedience is not a prerequisite for employment and a boss who considers himself above criticism is not a good leader. I get along fine with my boss, but, I have criticisms of some of his actions and have voiced them to him. It s done in a constructive and respectful manner, but it helps him see his faults and act upon it and allows us to give a more consistent message to our subordinates, as the management team. He gives me criticism and I take it on board and act upon it. He wasn't the person that hired me though. I have strong criticisms of that manager, as he was overly disengaged from the operations of the store, pretty much dumped me in things instead of training me or setting up real training for me (on the technical side of my job, which involves quite a bit of computer work and operating specialized machinery), and, he was an alcoholic who wasn't doing his job. So, does that make me disloyal? I don't think so, because I did my best to push him into doing his job, help compensate for where he was failing, in terms of leading people and seeing to their needs and keeping our own confidences when I addressed some things to him. As for "Barry Windbag," maybe some of those people don't like hearing a real honest answer when they ask a question. That's the thing about someone who speaks their mind; they don't necessarily sugarcoat it to preserve someone's ego. At the same time, they are honest with them. Which is worse, having someone being blunt and honest and having your feelings hurt or having someone continually lie to you to "spare your feelings?" I'd rather hear the honest truth and know where I stand than live in a fantasy world and always subliminally wondering what the truth is. Groth is playing to his audience in the Journal, acting like a literati, intelligentsia or what have you, with superior standards and crusading for "art" over "commerce". It's as much of a mask as the jolly, fun loving persona Stan presented. Groth does what he does for attention, just as Stan did what he did for attention, both for themselves and their companies. In both cases, it helped shine a light on other talent and took on attention for themselves. Now, quite frankly, I'd rather have a conversation with Stan than Groth; but I think I would have a more interesting conversation with Groth about the medium of comics. Just because someone is a jerk, doesn't mean they don't have a point. Wow. I disagree with a LOT of what you typed. BWS took the Job from Wildstorm because he was broke. He worked for Lee and totally trashed his stories , characters and company. You think that's appropriate ? Where's the sense of loyalty and gratefulness? You compare a porno peddler like Groth to a creative force like Stan Lee ? I'm not in the habit of being near toxic people like Smith or Groth and I won't defend them. Ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 1, 2024 19:07:37 GMT -5
Well there's also the "shame on BWS for having the audacity to criticize anyone." Because everyone must always be sweetness and light. Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. It's fine. You can like or dislike BWS. I have a hard time caring about artists talking smack about each other. For all the things you can say about Groth, and he's clearly an elitist shit-stirrer, I just don't know why anyone cares that he was publishing "porno" comics. But that's what makes the differences in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 1, 2024 19:09:44 GMT -5
Well, like I said, you don't have to agree with him but I don't see that him expressing his honest opinion makes him a bad guy. Undiplomatic, sure. James Joyce and Marcel Proust reportedly hated each other's work: does that mean anyone who likes Joyce has to hate Proust or vica versa?
I'm a huge fan of Steranko's art but I can see where BWS is coming from. I believe one or both of the Hernandezes have expressed a similar opinion on his stuff, and possibly on Buscema as well, though I'm not sure I can trust my memory in the latter case. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Hernandezes or BWS 100%, much as I love their work. And it certainly doesn't make me feel they're nasty people for expressing their honest opinion of another artist's work.
The trouble is that BWS isn't Art Spiegelman. He didn't create the great American comic book. This is the same guy that created Weapon X and he's talking about other people doing vapid work.
That's absolutely a valid criticism of BWS's own work but it doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion of anyone else's, though it might undermine his position as an authority on the subject. I think Groth addresses this in the interview, doesn't he? And BWS doesn't try to evade the implication that much or most of his own Marvel and other "work-for-hire" output was equally empty in terms of his own artistic self-expression.
Whether with Storyteller he succeeded in producing something more than the kind of thing he and Groth are disparaging is a matter of opinion - I haven't read enough of it yet to have any strong feeling one way or the other. But I do respect the willingness to try.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Feb 1, 2024 19:11:55 GMT -5
The trouble is that BWS isn't Art Spiegelman. He didn't create the great American comic book. This is the same guy that created Weapon X and he's talking about other people doing vapid work. Archer & Armstrong, which isn't exactly Maus, but hardly Weapon X. He also is as much the creator of the Marvel Conan as Roy Thomas, which is not the same as Howard's Conan. Beyond that, his artistic work at his own Gorblimey Press is of a high standard, even if it didn't launch a massive career as a fine artist. To diminish him to one work is doing as big a disservice as any criticisms he may have voiced of other artists. I would also add that Storyteller was a well rounded piece of work (even unfinished), with diverse characters and narratives, even if they were, essentially, continuations of what he had done at Valiant, but didn't own. He's a fine artist and created some good work. He's also entitled to his opinions. It's his choice of words that bother me. It's fine if you think Buscema should have done more with his talent, created more of his own original characters, or produced his own graphic novels. I don't think it's mandatory for comic book artists to do those things in order to be considered a great artist, but I can understand the mentality. However, to describe Buscema's work as vapid is insulting. BWS comes across as a dick. Like I said, my gut reaction is to turn the screws on BWS, which I don't really want to do because it's a waste of my time and energy. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 1, 2024 19:13:09 GMT -5
Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. Wait, so Jim Lee giving someone a job means he is above criticism for his actions or inactions? Robotic obedience is not a prerequisite for employment and a boss who considers himself above criticism is not a good leader. I get along fine with my boss, but, I have criticisms of some of his actions and have voiced them to him. It s done in a constructive and respectful manner, but it helps him see his faults and act upon it and allows us to give a more consistent message to our subordinates, as the management team. He gives me criticism and I take it on board and act upon it. Ummm...this is still America isn't it? Because that's kind of the way it is overall. And it's certainly what most people here believe. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Feb 1, 2024 19:20:43 GMT -5
Wait, so Jim Lee giving someone a job means he is above criticism for his actions or inactions? Robotic obedience is not a prerequisite for employment and a boss who considers himself above criticism is not a good leader. I get along fine with my boss, but, I have criticisms of some of his actions and have voiced them to him. It s done in a constructive and respectful manner, but it helps him see his faults and act upon it and allows us to give a more consistent message to our subordinates, as the management team. He gives me criticism and I take it on board and act upon it. He wasn't the person that hired me though. I have strong criticisms of that manager, as he was overly disengaged from the operations of the store, pretty much dumped me in things instead of training me or setting up real training for me (on the technical side of my job, which involves quite a bit of computer work and operating specialized machinery), and, he was an alcoholic who wasn't doing his job. So, does that make me disloyal? I don't think so, because I did my best to push him into doing his job, help compensate for where he was failing, in terms of leading people and seeing to their needs and keeping our own confidences when I addressed some things to him. As for "Barry Windbag," maybe some of those people don't like hearing a real honest answer when they ask a question. That's the thing about someone who speaks their mind; they don't necessarily sugarcoat it to preserve someone's ego. At the same time, they are honest with them. Which is worse, having someone being blunt and honest and having your feelings hurt or having someone continually lie to you to "spare your feelings?" I'd rather hear the honest truth and know where I stand than live in a fantasy world and always subliminally wondering what the truth is. Groth is playing to his audience in the Journal, acting like a literati, intelligentsia or what have you, with superior standards and crusading for "art" over "commerce". It's as much of a mask as the jolly, fun loving persona Stan presented. Groth does what he does for attention, just as Stan did what he did for attention, both for themselves and their companies. In both cases, it helped shine a light on other talent and took on attention for themselves. Now, quite frankly, I'd rather have a conversation with Stan than Groth; but I think I would have a more interesting conversation with Groth about the medium of comics. Just because someone is a jerk, doesn't mean they don't have a point. Wow. I disagree with a LOT of what you typed. BWS took the Job from Wildstorm because he was broke. He worked for Lee and totally trashed his stories , characters and company. You think that's appropriate ? Where's the sense of loyalty and gratefulness? You compare a porno peddler like Groth to a creative force like Stan Lee ? I'm not in the habit of being near toxic people like Smith or Groth and I won't defend them. Ever. I don't want to open another can of worms here, but Stan had a seedy side to him as well and had many adult themed ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 19:22:52 GMT -5
Wait, so Jim Lee giving someone a job means he is above criticism for his actions or inactions? Robotic obedience is not a prerequisite for employment and a boss who considers himself above criticism is not a good leader. I get along fine with my boss, but, I have criticisms of some of his actions and have voiced them to him. It s done in a constructive and respectful manner, but it helps him see his faults and act upon it and allows us to give a more consistent message to our subordinates, as the management team. He gives me criticism and I take it on board and act upon it. Ummm...this is still America isn't it? Because that's kind of the way it is overall. And it's certainly what most people here believe. Which is why we have had such a leadership vacuum for so long, regardless of political party and most definitely in the corporate world, as share price trumps the actual business of creating goods and services for the consumer community at large. We have replaced Leader with Authority and they are not the same thing, but I can tell you where the latter leads and it isn't freedom and creativity. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 19:27:03 GMT -5
Archer & Armstrong, which isn't exactly Maus, but hardly Weapon X. He also is as much the creator of the Marvel Conan as Roy Thomas, which is not the same as Howard's Conan. Beyond that, his artistic work at his own Gorblimey Press is of a high standard, even if it didn't launch a massive career as a fine artist. To diminish him to one work is doing as big a disservice as any criticisms he may have voiced of other artists. I would also add that Storyteller was a well rounded piece of work (even unfinished), with diverse characters and narratives, even if they were, essentially, continuations of what he had done at Valiant, but didn't own. He's a fine artist and created some good work. He's also entitled to his opinions. It's his choice of words that bother me. It's fine if you think Buscema should have done more with his talent, created more of his own original characters, or produced his own graphic novels. I don't think it's mandatory for comic book artists to do those things in order to be considered a great artist, but I can understand the mentality. However, to describe Buscema's work as vapid is insulting. BWS comes across as a dick. Like I said, my gut reaction is to turn the screws on BWS, which I don't really want to do because it's a waste of my time and energy. Fair enough and I disagree with him on Buscema's work being vapid, though the stories he worked on could be said to be so. They often weren't his choice of genre or character, but he also didn't seem to have any drive to do those favorites, on his own time or dime. That has always been the debate between those who considered themselves as Fine Artists and those who were content to be Commercial Artists. Even Fine Artists needed patrons, which means their "art" was just as compromised by appealing to commercial interests. |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Feb 1, 2024 19:40:19 GMT -5
Wow. I disagree with a LOT of what you typed. BWS took the Job from Wildstorm because he was broke. He worked for Lee and totally trashed his stories , characters and company. You think that's appropriate ? Where's the sense of loyalty and gratefulness? You compare a porno peddler like Groth to a creative force like Stan Lee ? I'm not in the habit of being near toxic people like Smith or Groth and I won't defend them. Ever. I don't want to open another can of worms here, but Stan had a seedy side to him as well and had many adult themed ideas. Martin Goodman sold more "men's magazines" and spicy pulps than Groth ever did and Stan worked on those lines for him. But you know, let's draw imaginary lines in the sand to justify our talking points. Wake me up when this discussion (or other like it such as the Stan Lee thread) actually has someone reconsider their position or opinion at all (we know no one is ever going to change their position because of one of these). They are among the least productive conversations (they're not debates, nothing is being debated people are just restating their positions over and over again without consideration of the validity of any other position or viewpoint) with people's seem more interested in being right or pissing in someone else's cheerios than in learning something or exchanging ideas. I check out of threads dedicated to those conversations because they were one of the reasons I left (and a major reason folks I have tried to recruit here have given me for not joining the forum), but the Ask thread was one I did check on because it was one where you could learn new things about comics, but I think I;m done with this thread, at least for a while until whatever animus is driving this conversation spends itself. -M |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 19:46:12 GMT -5
Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. It's fine. You can like or dislike BWS. I have a hard time caring about artists talking smack about each other. For all the things you can say about Groth, and he's clearly an elitist shit-stirrer, I just don't know why anyone cares that he was publishing "porno" comics. But that's what makes the differences in the world. Which, in a way, is kind of my point. I pretty much agree with your assessment of Groth. I always found it ironic that he criticized DC and Marvel for publishing arrested-adolescent superhero stories and throwing only a token bone for some of the more mature and weightier work, while he was publishing erotic comics to keep the lights on and catering to the fans of superhero comics with Amazing Heroes. Really, I faulted him more for the latter than the former as Eros published some literate works of adult erotica and not just cheap sex. They did have some of that, too, though. Publishing the Journal, attacking mainstream comics and publishing Amazing Heroes, celebrating the same, to me seemed a bigger hypocrisy than publishing Love & Rockets and Eightball and Wendy Whitebread, Undercover Slut and Birdland. Malibu and Apple were also publishing "adult comics", as was Heavy Metal and Penthouse. I always found it both funny and sad that this was a big deal in America, yet Europe had no issue with Barbarella or Manara being published by the same companies that put out children's comics, adventure comics and political thrillers. Maybe I was a bookseller too long. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 1, 2024 19:48:09 GMT -5
I don't want to open another can of worms here, but Stan had a seedy side to him as well and had many adult themed ideas. Martin Goodman sold more "men's magazines" and spicy pulps than Groth ever did and Stan worked on those lines for him. But you know, let's draw imaginary lines in the sand to justify our talking points. Wake me up when this discussion (or other like it such as the Stan Lee thread) actually has someone reconsider their position or opinion at all (we know no one is ever going to change their position because of one of these). They are among the least productive conversations (they're not debates, nothing is being debated people are just restating their positions over and over again without consideration of the validity of any other position or viewpoint) with people's seem more interested in being right or pissing in someone else's cheerios than in learning something or exchanging ideas. I check out of threads dedicated to those conversations because they were one of the reasons I left (and a major reason folks I have tried to recruit here have given me for not joining the forum), but the Ask thread was one I did check on because it was one where you could learn new things about comics, but I think I;m done with this thread, at least for a while until whatever animus is driving this conversation spends itself. -M Fair cop; so, I'll bow out so we can move on to other questions and topics. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2024 20:12:32 GMT -5
I don't want to open another can of worms here, but Stan had a seedy side to him as well and had many adult themed ideas. Martin Goodman sold more "men's magazines" and spicy pulps than Groth ever did and Stan worked on those lines for him. But you know, let's draw imaginary lines in the sand to justify our talking points. Wake me up when this discussion (or other like it such as the Stan Lee thread) actually has someone reconsider their position or opinion at all (we know no one is ever going to change their position because of one of these). They are among the least productive conversations (they're not debates, nothing is being debated people are just restating their positions over and over again without consideration of the validity of any other position or viewpoint) with people's seem more interested in being right or pissing in someone else's cheerios than in learning something or exchanging ideas. I check out of threads dedicated to those conversations because they were one of the reasons I left (and a major reason folks I have tried to recruit here have given me for not joining the forum), but the Ask thread was one I did check on because it was one where you could learn new things about comics, but I think I;m done with this thread, at least for a while until whatever animus is driving this conversation spends itself. -M No one is forcing you to respond to the things being said in this thread. I don’t want to make people that have been terrible like BWS , Byrne or Groth equal to other people that have never started trouble. Gruenwald and Goodwin were great people and have never conducted themselves like the three above. Everyone is not equal, even if you want to make them so. Saying Stan Lee had a secret life supporting Goodman is nonsense. Bring the receipts. |
|
|
|
Post by jester on Feb 1, 2024 20:46:39 GMT -5
I don't want to be inflammatory, and I know that BWS has had some health problems recently, so I don't want to give the impression that I wish bad things upon him or anything. Also, I think it's important to keep in my mind that the interview in question is three decades old at this point, and he might choose to word things more diplomatically if asked to comment today. But it's difficult for me to accept the argument that he was simply speaking his opinion, because I think a lot of what he says in the interview, specifically about Buscema, just crosses the line into personal insults. I think what he says goes beyond him just voicing his opinion that Buscema's talent would have been better applied if he had self-published his own comics to retain ownership or what have you. I don't remember if he actually uses the word hack, but that's pretty clearly what he implies. At one point he makes a crack about how as soon as the clock struck 5 PM, Buscema would put down his pencil and stop drawing, and that the thought to keep drawing beyond work hours would never occur to him because he was only in it for the money or what have you (it might have been Groth who initially made this statement, but Windsor-Smith piles on). Not only is that an insulting thing to say, but it's also untrue. Sal has said that John basically sketched night and day, 24/7. And that's how most of his comments on others in the interview seemed to me when I first read it. Less like someone just bluntly speaking their honest opinion, and more just someone insulting and denigrating anyone associated with a publisher/industry that Windsor-Smith had a troubled history with in order to present himself as a more authentic, geunine artist by comparison. Maybe I'm off base, but that's just how it seemed to me. I'm not going to engage in any name-calling, but it coloured my opinion of him as a person when I first read it.
|
|
