Laugh though ye may, there's a difference between the lack of proportion in, say, Jack Kirby and Will Eisner, and the examples heretofore provided, each of which exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the best way to tell a story in pictures.

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that if you want to break the rules, you have to know and understand the rules first. One of the paradoxes of teaching writing is that every example you use to illustrate the best in writing tends to violate the tenets of good writing.

However, you have to learn to walk before you run and all that.

Or at least you used to.

Which set of rules?

This isn't traditional comic book storytelling, but aren't the filmic influences pretty obvious? Seems like the artist is "using" a fish eye lens techniqye to compress a large amount of er.. "Lady-Stilt-Man" (Ha!) into a small space as well as creating both a setting that's both open AND claustrophobic by bending the buildings in towards the center.

Honestly, it's a pretty cool trick, and an effect that would be beyond 99% of comic artists. (I mean, yeah, Eisner probably could.) And the upside-down inset panel isn't something I can remember seeing before ever - pretty clever, and kinda funny.

I'm not sure the Spider-man figure quite works - I think the artist is trying to convey extreme back-and-forth motion by elongating and distorting the Spider-man figure and I agree they didn't quite pull it off - but conveying motion in static panels is absolutely the hardest thing a comic artist has to do, and I've certainly seen failures before. But I think the rest of the drawing is pretty brilliant.

1) "Which set of rules?"
The rules that start with, "Tell the story." When form interferes with, rather than complements, content, you're headed for trouble.

2) "Aren't the filmic influences pretty obvious?"
Er, no. Doesn't look like it's being shot through a fish-eye lens, and if it is meant to be a view through one, the artist failed at pulling it off. Hey, even if this were meant to be a view through a window or a camera lens that distorted the view, no lens would do all that awful stuff to Spider-Man's body.

Every time I look at it (which is now about a hundred times more than I would have ever planned to), his right (I think) leg looks like it belongs to The Thin Man; his leftt forearm looks like it's growing out of his head and seems to be trailing the rest of his body by about 20 feet; his head rivals John Merrick's for misshapenness; it looks as if his left arm's been amputated at the shoulder; his right arm looks as if it's literally been through the wringer; he has no ass; and that left leg is  like an oil slick. No dimension to the figure, no sense of weight; no sense that the various parts are an organic whole.

3) "I'm not sure the Spider-man figure quite works..."
I tend to agree.

4) "I think the rest of the drawing is pretty brilliant."
I tend to disagree. Confusing, cluttered, unsuccessful at creating any of the possibilities you raise. If we give the artist points for trying, experimentingm etc., and give him the benefit of the doubt b/c maybe he was young and inexperienced, that's fine. But we have to remove points from whoever was his editior for not saying, "Nice try, but no cigar."

5) In the long run, whatever floats yer boat, of course. I mean, I find something oddly  compelling and David Lynchian about some of John Forte's Legion artwork from the antedeluvian days.

More Fun Comics:






I was sad when she changed her name to Stilt-Man:

I have been re-reading classic Daredevil comics, and I keep experiencing cognitive dissonance whenever Stilt-Man is treated as an actual menace.

Stilt-Man: "Behold my deadly powers!"
(legs get really long)
Everybody: "Whoa! Run for your lives!""

Fair enough, I don't take seriously any of your analysis of any art dated post 1984