|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 16:41:04 GMT -5
Hmmm.. The problem I tink people see in you method is you use the word data for opinion... Anyone who translates his evaluation into a number, is working with data. The problem is that few people bother to do it, and even less recognize that number as something you can actually use. You can't average the adjectives you would give to individual comics, in a given run, the most you can do is assign another adjective to the group. Does it produce the same result? Sometimes, but why risk inaccuracy when you can avoid it? The general impression you get after reading a run, doesn't necessarily correspond with the aggregate of the individual evaluations. The fact that we're dealing with subjective opinions, doesn't mean we can't (or even shouldn't) organize, relativize or extract some basic statistic information, from them. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 16:49:27 GMT -5
Well, statistics and art, I don' know if they should have anything to do with each other. I'm not sure I understand you correctly though (english only being my fourth language), especialy in the claims of "acuracy" regarding this "method".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 16:57:20 GMT -5
Come on, guys! Let's see some more bad art!  |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 17:05:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand you correctly though […], especially in the claims of "accuracy" regarding this "method". Other than the aspect I tried to explain, regarding averages, the most obvious upside of a number versus adjectives, is that hierarchy isn't always clear among the latter. Furthermore, if we take just the adjectives that do have a clear relative position, their ranks are decimated, and so we can't have the fine grain a number provides. It's also much easier to see the difference, between a low rating and a high one, if we're using numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 17:07:32 GMT -5
So how do you give points to a specific issue? What is the grill?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 17:22:20 GMT -5
Come on, guys! Let's see some more bad art! Alright then :  Ra As Ghul looking like a girafe holding an awkward knife/saber, Killer-croc looking like a mix from the parasite in "Brain Damaged" and a tumor, Clayface like a pile of turds, Scarecrow's legs are thrice as long as his arms, and the Joker's face (mixed with the Penguin) makes almost as little sense as the perspectives of the gun he's holding, or where his neck stands on his upper body. One could argue that it's not such a big deal in stylized art, but obviously Lee is aiming at a "superhero-realistic" style, which also is a source of problems since he choses to go against this in hte way he draws the joker's face, in complete contrast/opposition with the rest of the cast. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 4, 2015 17:48:09 GMT -5
Hmmm.. The problem I tink people see in you method is you use the word data for opinion... Anyone who translates his evaluation into a number, is working with data. The problem is that few people bother to do it, and even less recognize that number as something you can actually use. You can't average the adjectives you would give to individual comics, in a given run, the most you can do is assign another adjective to the group. Does it produce the same result? Sometimes, but why risk inaccuracy when you can avoid it? The general impression you get after reading a run, doesn't necessarily correspond with the aggregate of the individual evaluations. The fact that we're dealing with subjective opinions, doesn't mean we can't (or even shouldn't) organize, relativize or extract some basic statistic information, from them. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the quantification of an inherently subjective topic. Maybe it's because I'm a writer? Or a former data analyst? Or both? Whatever, it just doesn't work for me. To me, your response to my post boiled down to "My opinion is superior because numbers."* Tell me *why* you find O'Neil/Romita Jr. superior to Lee/Ditko, speak to me about story structure, characterization, pacing, technical proficiency, all those elements that make up a work of fiction. I can't debate a number. Cei-U! I summon the common ground! * I know that wasn't your intent but that's how it reads. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:56:10 GMT -5
Come on, guys! Let's see some more bad art! Alright then : Ra As Ghul looking like a girafe holding an awkward knife/saber, Killer-croc looking like a mix from the parasite in "Brain Damaged" and a tumor, Clayface like a pile of turds, Scarecrow's legs are thrice as long as his arms, and the Joker's face (mixed with the Penguin) makes almost as little sense as the perspectives of the gun he's holding, or where his neck stands on his upper body. One could argue that it's not such a big deal in stylized art, but obviously Lee is aiming at a "superhero-realistic" style, which also is a source of problems since he choses to go against this in hte way he draws the joker's face, in complete contrast/opposition with the rest of the cast. I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:58:28 GMT -5
Come on, guys! Let's see some more bad art! Here you go....  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 18:01:57 GMT -5
That is Namor, isn't it? Blerrrrggghhhh. I hate when Namor is drawn like a steroid-using freak.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 4, 2015 18:08:14 GMT -5
Hmmm.. The problem I tink people see in you method is you use the word data for opinion... Anyone who translates his evaluation into a number, is working with data. The problem is that few people bother to do it, and even less recognize that number as something you can actually use. You can't average the adjectives you would give to individual comics, in a given run, the most you can do is assign another adjective to the group. Does it produce the same result? Sometimes, but why risk inaccuracy when you can avoid it? The general impression you get after reading a run, doesn't necessarily correspond with the aggregate of the individual evaluations. The fact that we're dealing with subjective opinions, doesn't mean we can't (or even shouldn't) organize, relativize or extract some basic statistic information, from them. Making it a number doesn't make it data, any more than if you call it 'pink', 'pineapple', and 'elephant'. The numbers have to mean something. Is each number twice as good as the last? Are you grading on 10 criteria, and telling us how many are met? Are you doing a normal distribution centered around 5? Is a 6 twice as good as a 3? That's why people are more interested in numbers like that.. they don't mean anything without a detailed explanation. People understand 'great', 'good', 'OK', etc. much better. Then there's the fact that you're a bit of an iconoclast, and don't rate comics that are pretty generally beloved very highly. that befuddles people even more. Never mind that I see no 10s on your scale.. the whole thing makes sense to you, I'm sure, but for us to appreciate it, we need more info  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 18:13:34 GMT -5
Sure, fine, I also like Sam Kieth's drawings despite their obvious technical flaws. But do you at least see the balant technical flaws of the drawing? I mean, just looking at the perspectves of the gun almost makes me dizzy. It just fails at a technically skilled drawing IMHO, and a greater sin, it has no charm. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 18:27:48 GMT -5
Sure, fine, I also like Sam Kieth's drawings despite their obvious technical flaws. But do you at least see the balant technical flaws of the drawing? I mean, just looking at the perspectves of the gun almost makes me dizzy. It just fails at a technically skilled drawing IMHO, and a greater sin, it has no charm. The perspectives of the gun don't bother me, if you've seen a 21" barreled Super Redhawk.  I'd expect Joker to have something like that, after all, he also had guns fashioned after fish. Charm is dependent on the beholder, I suppose.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 18:44:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't buy Batman books with this bulltata passing for art.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 18:51:16 GMT -5
The perspectives of the gun don't bother me, if you've seen a 21" barreled Super Redhawk. Just look at the position of the handle in regard of the angle of the upper part of the gun FCS, it goes in a completely different direction And about that Kelley Jones batman panel, that's a prime exemple of stylized art not remotely trying to look realistic or anatomicaly correct. You might not like it, but saying it's a technically bad drawing is pretty off topic. Jones, either you like his style or you don't. That being said, I agree this specific Jones drawing has a few problems, one being his left leg sticking out of his abs... Another issue with Jones is he really wants to be berni Wrightson and Michael Golden. In the end he often falls a little short on both, but I guess he's the best we got for our semi-regular synthetic Wrightson fix. Jim Lee, there's a few drawings of his I kinda like, but mostly, I'm just baffled by how he is celebrated as one of the greatest comic book artists, thanks to his "realistic" and epic style, when on the technical/realistic level it is filled with tragical flaws. It just seems many are impressed by the unnecessary hatching or mono-charcterial visage expressions. |
|
