|
Post by brutalis on May 17, 2018 17:14:28 GMT -5
Hey everybody, new to the site here. Been browsing the site for a while now and really enjoy and discovering new (old?) comics and peoples' takes on certain comics. Just an opinion/question I wanted to throw out there: What the hell happened to Howard Chaykin's drawing after the mid-80s/90s? I'm a fairly big fan of his earlier work and single issues: think of Monark Starkiller, his stuff from Star Reach magazine, Gideon Faust, Cody Starbuck, Dominic Fortune, his 10 issues or so of 70s Star Wars, Nick Fury Agent of Shield one shot, The Scorpion, James For your eyes only adaptation and some of his early American Flagg work. I just love his cool, almost sketchy drawing style for all of these comics. But almost everything I've seen from him after this time period, I find insultingly weird, ugly and grotesque. His linework gets very weird, everyone he draws now has huge, pudgy faces and they all look alike. He draws some of the most unappealing women I've ever seen. I really don't understand it. I've seldom seen an comic artist whose later work differed so much from his early work, like a world of difference, in a negative way imo. Can anyone shed some more knowledge on this? thanks! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Consider this about Chaykin, he has always been one of those who studies art(ists) and enjoys trying new things and experimenting. His early style was just that: early and impressionable based on artists he admired. Chaykin was one of those "quick" young up and coming artists who could crank out something which looked unique and spectacular or might be considered rushed and sketchy depending very much on the inker over him. As he continued to grow artistically and developing his own style he settled into something he is stylistically comfortable in drawing on a regular basis. Same goes for John Romita Jr and Mike Golden and Pat Broderick and other artists with unique pencil styles. There is always going to be discussions of early art versus the superstar days versus later in life art. Any artist worth a damn continues to evolve and grow throughout their career based upon what THEY like. It is part of the skill set and career for anybody to evolve. You may find it ugly as a personal choice but others may like it a lot. That is what makes any art styling subjective and unique.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 17, 2018 17:36:53 GMT -5
Hey everybody, new to the site here. Been browsing the site for a while now and really enjoy and discovering new (old?) comics and peoples' takes on certain comics. Just an opinion/question I wanted to throw out there: What the hell happened to Howard Chaykin's drawing after the mid-80s/90s? I'm a fairly big fan of his earlier work and single issues: think of Monark Starkiller, his stuff from Star Reach magazine, Gideon Faust, Cody Starbuck, Dominic Fortune, his 10 issues or so of 70s Star Wars, Nick Fury Agent of Shield one shot, The Scorpion, James For your eyes only adaptation and some of his early American Flagg work. I just love his cool, almost sketchy drawing style for all of these comics. But almost everything I've seen from him after this time period, I find insultingly weird, ugly and grotesque. His linework gets very weird, everyone he draws now has huge, pudgy faces and they all look alike. He draws some of the most unappealing women I've ever seen. I really don't understand it. I've seldom seen an comic artist whose later work differed so much from his early work, like a world of difference, in a negative way imo. Can anyone shed some more knowledge on this? thanks! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Well, given my handle, let's see if I can shed some light on the situation. Like most artists, Chaykin evolved, over time. His early work was influenced by his mentors: Neal Adams and, especially, Gil Kane. Chaykin worked as an assistant to Kane. He credits him with teaching him more than just comics: about life and professionalism. Chaykin was a nerdy kid, overweight and lacking in self-esteem. Kane got him interested in improving his appearance and dress, to present himself as he wanted to be seen. He also taught him about doig comics. Chaykin grew and his ambitions often oustripped his ability; but, he kept working and experimenting. In the late 70s, he went through a huge transformation. The freedom of working on his own material gave him the chance to try things he couldn't do at DC or Marvel. You can see some of it in things like Dominic Fortune, where he went from his poroto-adams style, to a more weighty form. Some of that was the influence of Alex Toth. In a Comics Journal interview, Chaykin spoke in length on Toth and the economy of line. You can see it in his work and his figures become more simplified, while he added textures via patterns and tones on clothing and used things like duo-tone boards and zip-a-tones to add depth to his figures. During this time frame, he also produced painted work that was heavily influenced by Robert Peake, the illustrator and commercial painter. Among Peake's work are the movie posters for Camelot and Rollerball. Peake's influence can be seen in The Stars My Destination and Empire, works he did for Byron Preiss. By the early 1980s, those influences had solidified into the style he used when he launched American Flagg, at First Comics. American Flagg was not only his commentary on the modern consumer society, political corruption, and the use of the media to control perception. it was also his statement on graphic design. He used what he had learned to make it visually exciting and different, adding high fashion design to tings like modern design, computer graphics, and sound effects that came off the page (with Ken Bruzenak's innovative lettering and font designs). He mixed futurist designs of Norman Bel Geddes and Raymond Lowry with industrial artist Syd Mead (Blade Runner), while his figure work was more of the Toth school. Artistically, it was probably his peak. Chaykin also went through a period of major drug and alcohol abuse. His marriage to Leslie Zahler, his colorist and wife, broke up. He was getting more gigs for his mature writing and he concentrated on that. He went to Hollywood to work on The Flash tv series, then on Viper and Mutant X. He did occasional illustrations; but, mostly wrote or co-wrote. In the past decade or so, he has been back drawing and writing. The results are mixed; but, I think part of it is the market and the environment at the publishers, and part is Chaykin's continued experimentation, with computer tools. He is a pre-digital artist who has taught himself to use digital tools. The results are mixed. I like some things he has done in recent years, and not others; but, he has been in there growing, not resting on the past. he has also been working for Marvel, running artist bootcamps to develop their younger artists, much the way Kane did for him. By the same token, Chaykin is older and artists are at their most daring when they are young and hungry. Chaykin has been through the ups and downs. He is rarely cautious; but, he is also content to do what he wants to do, along with more commercial things that he feels he can enjoy, while earning a living. he's a mixture of commercial and fine artist, with definite ideas, whether other are attracted to them or not.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 17, 2018 17:48:16 GMT -5
The two most boring words in all of comics: Hal. Jordan. ![](https://i.imgur.com/c8b0nmV.jpg?1)
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 17, 2018 18:18:45 GMT -5
Dillin's work was rough or sketchy--very underwhelming and not at all the kind of art a dynamic group comic of A/B-list characters deserved. Would never call Dillin's art rough or sketchy myself. And while his art may not be considered "dynamic or exciting" like Neal Adam's or carry a singular style like Infantino or Kirby or Ditko or the Buscema bro's it was always good clean art that wasn't confusing which told the story. Dillin did what others were unwilling to do and draw a team book with multiple leads and many secondary characters, and he did it willingly every month! The likes of Dillin, Heck, Tuska, Delbo, Swan, Forte, Brown, were the real trusted work horses which carried comic books along versus the avant garde inconsistent newcomers. They were the true heroes with a strong work ethic and produced solid, entertaining monthly issues on a consistent and regular basis. I will take years of Dillin on Justice League over a Steranko or Adams doing 3-6 issues and moving on to other things. My own personal choice which I stand by! Jim can't really disagree with most of what you posted , but I would put Dillan at the bottom of that list you gave. Very unspectacular pencils which only looked " okay" the one time Dick Giordano inked him in JLA #100. I really enjoyed Bob Browns work wherever he appeared. I have a real soft spot for Heck as his was the first real Avengers run I followed. Swan was okay until a few years ago when I really learned to appreciate what a master storyteller he was. I personally never saw what the fuss was about Steranko.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 17, 2018 19:24:44 GMT -5
Steranko is a graphic illustrator, more than a storyteller. I think that is more of what grabs people than his stories. That said, he had a nice mix of influences, like Eisner, Kriegsten, Wally Wood and artists like Dali, in his Nick Fury stuff, compared to some of his others. Outland is spectacular to look at, from a design standpoint, though it doesn't necessarily convey the story in the best manner. It's a great visual experiment, though. Nick Fury was wild and alive, while he was on it. It had a visual excitement that was unique among its contemporaries. After that, he was doing more illustration or graphic design. I think he tends to be viewed more for bring artistic influences beyond cartoonists and magazine illustrators, to comics, which was something revolutionary, at the time.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 17, 2018 21:04:34 GMT -5
The two most boring words in all of comics: Hal. Jordan. ![](https://media1.giphy.com/media/3oEdv6sy3ulljPMGdy/200w.gif)
|
|
|
Post by virltommy on May 18, 2018 4:46:03 GMT -5
Hey everybody, new to the site here. Been browsing the site for a while now and really enjoy and discovering new (old?) comics and peoples' takes on certain comics. Just an opinion/question I wanted to throw out there: What the hell happened to Howard Chaykin's drawing after the mid-80s/90s? I'm a fairly big fan of his earlier work and single issues: think of Monark Starkiller, his stuff from Star Reach magazine, Gideon Faust, Cody Starbuck, Dominic Fortune, his 10 issues or so of 70s Star Wars, Nick Fury Agent of Shield one shot, The Scorpion, James For your eyes only adaptation and some of his early American Flagg work. I just love his cool, almost sketchy drawing style for all of these comics. But almost everything I've seen from him after this time period, I find insultingly weird, ugly and grotesque. His linework gets very weird, everyone he draws now has huge, pudgy faces and they all look alike. He draws some of the most unappealing women I've ever seen. I really don't understand it. I've seldom seen an comic artist whose later work differed so much from his early work, like a world of difference, in a negative way imo. Can anyone shed some more knowledge on this? thanks! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Well, given my handle, let's see if I can shed some light on the situation. Like most artists, Chaykin evolved, over time. His early work was influenced by his mentors: Neal Adams and, especially, Gil Kane. Chaykin worked as an assistant to Kane. He credits him with teaching him more than just comics: about life and professionalism. Chaykin was a nerdy kid, overweight and lacking in self-esteem. Kane got him interested in improving his appearance and dress, to present himself as he wanted to be seen. He also taught him about doig comics. Chaykin grew and his ambitions often oustripped his ability; but, he kept working and experimenting. In the late 70s, he went through a huge transformation. The freedom of working on his own material gave him the chance to try things he couldn't do at DC or Marvel. You can see some of it in things like Dominic Fortune, where he went from his poroto-adams style, to a more weighty form. Some of that was the influence of Alex Toth. In a Comics Journal interview, Chaykin spoke in length on Toth and the economy of line. You can see it in his work and his figures become more simplified, while he added textures via patterns and tones on clothing and used things like duo-tone boards and zip-a-tones to add depth to his figures. During this time frame, he also produced painted work that was heavily influenced by Robert Peake, the illustrator and commercial painter. Among Peake's work are the movie posters for Camelot and Rollerball. Peake's influence can be seen in The Stars My Destination and Empire, works he did for Byron Preiss. By the early 1980s, those influences had solidified into the style he used when he launched American Flagg, at First Comics. American Flagg was not only his commentary on the modern consumer society, political corruption, and the use of the media to control perception. it was also his statement on graphic design. He used what he had learned to make it visually exciting and different, adding high fashion design to tings like modern design, computer graphics, and sound effects that came off the page (with Ken Bruzenak's innovative lettering and font designs). He mixed futurist designs of Norman Bel Geddes and Raymond Lowry with industrial artist Syd Mead (Blade Runner), while his figure work was more of the Toth school. Artistically, it was probably his peak. Chaykin also went through a period of major drug and alcohol abuse. His marriage to Leslie Zahler, his colorist and wife, broke up. He was getting more gigs for his mature writing and he concentrated on that. He went to Hollywood to work on The Flash tv series, then on Viper and Mutant X. He did occasional illustrations; but, mostly wrote or co-wrote. In the past decade or so, he has been back drawing and writing. The results are mixed; but, I think part of it is the market and the environment at the publishers, and part is Chaykin's continued experimentation, with computer tools. He is a pre-digital artist who has taught himself to use digital tools. The results are mixed. I like some things he has done in recent years, and not others; but, he has been in there growing, not resting on the past. he has also been working for Marvel, running artist bootcamps to develop their younger artists, much the way Kane did for him. By the same token, Chaykin is older and artists are at their most daring when they are young and hungry. Chaykin has been through the ups and downs. He is rarely cautious; but, he is also content to do what he wants to do, along with more commercial things that he feels he can enjoy, while earning a living. he's a mixture of commercial and fine artist, with definite ideas, whether other are attracted to them or not. Thanks for the very detailed explanation/insight, my friend! Regardless of what I think of his later work, I absolutely love his 70s/80s stuff. He was a bit like a jazz-artist drawing comics. I'm going to dig out my complete American Flagg book and soms single issues and read through it again.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 18, 2018 5:05:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by virltommy on May 18, 2018 5:24:26 GMT -5
Thanks Icctrombone! I'll give your thread a read-through as soon as I have the time!
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on May 18, 2018 5:44:42 GMT -5
On Chaykin, I'm a big fan of his artwork across the board; while my favorite things he's done date to the '70s and '80s, I still really like his later work on up to the present. So I certainly don't find it weird, ugly or grotesque, much less "insultingly" (?) so. On the wider topic of artists "losing it" as they age, I generally don't agree with the premise. In the case of most of the artists showcased in the thread Icctrombone linked, I really don't see any diminished talent, just changing or evolving styles.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 18, 2018 6:08:51 GMT -5
Would never call Dillin's art rough or sketchy myself. And while his art may not be considered "dynamic or exciting" like Neal Adam's or carry a singular style like Infantino or Kirby or Ditko or the Buscema bro's it was always good clean art that wasn't confusing which told the story. Dillin did what others were unwilling to do and draw a team book with multiple leads and many secondary characters, and he did it willingly every month! Others put their time in on group titles too, but they were not just plugging in as "workman" artists just signing in to meet the demands of a monthly title. Consider artists like John Buscema and George Perez on The Avengers--they elevated the subject with expressive, magnetic work playing into and bringing out the best of what defined the characters--their heart and yes, exciting qualities. That's so important so art and story truly support each other, and that regular reader--or potential regular just getting his or her toes wet on a title--never feels like one part of the book is not holding up their end, or worse, that one part is of a quality too low to tolerate month after month.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 18, 2018 8:19:26 GMT -5
Would never call Dillin's art rough or sketchy myself. And while his art may not be considered "dynamic or exciting" like Neal Adam's or carry a singular style like Infantino or Kirby or Ditko or the Buscema bro's it was always good clean art that wasn't confusing which told the story. Dillin did what others were unwilling to do and draw a team book with multiple leads and many secondary characters, and he did it willingly every month! Others put their time in on group titles too, but they were not just plugging in as "workman" artists just signing in to meet the demands of a monthly title. Consider artists like John Buscema and George Perez on The Avengers--they elevated the subject with expressive, magnetic work playing into and bringing out the best of what defined the characters--their heart and yes, exciting qualities. That's so important so art and story truly support each other, and that regular reader--or potential regular just getting his or her toes wet on a title--never feels like one part of the book is not holding up their end, or worse, that one part is of a quality too low to tolerate month after month. I just want to point out that Dillin came onto JLA after 20+ years on Blackhawk, a team book where (until the end) everyone wore the same "costume", so had to have more unique faces/body types than called on in superhero teams. While not a favorite, I think Dillin did a fine job on JLA--at least on the same level as the scripts he was given.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 18, 2018 8:30:43 GMT -5
Chaykin's work on Satellite Sam a few years ago was very good.
And Divided States of Hysteria was as edgy and gritty as things he did decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 19, 2018 10:58:23 GMT -5
Others put their time in on group titles too, but they were not just plugging in as "workman" artists just signing in to meet the demands of a monthly title. Consider artists like John Buscema and George Perez on The Avengers--they elevated the subject with expressive, magnetic work playing into and bringing out the best of what defined the characters--their heart and yes, exciting qualities. That's so important so art and story truly support each other, and that regular reader--or potential regular just getting his or her toes wet on a title--never feels like one part of the book is not holding up their end, or worse, that one part is of a quality too low to tolerate month after month. I just want to point out that Dillin came onto JLA after 20+ years on Blackhawk, a team book where (until the end) everyone wore the same "costume", so had to have more unique faces/body types than called on in superhero teams. While not a favorite, I think Dillin did a fine job on JLA--at least on the same level as the scripts he was given. Weellll...I dont think being a longtime illustrator of a comic with people wearing the same uniform would trip up the artist on superhero group comics. For example, Alberto Giolitti spent years drawing endless pages of the agrubly one note, very locked-in imagery of western comics, but he had no trouble drawing cavemen and dinosaurs ( Turok - Son of Stone), King Kong and the wildly different Star Trek and Beneath the Planet of the Apes, meaning if the artist is versitile enough and understands the subjects he's dealing with, it should be no problem handling different or unique material.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 13:59:28 GMT -5
I liked Dillin's art. It definitely suffered under certain inkers. And I have to give him credit for his lengthy JLA run. I believe most artists weren't a fan of drawing team books.
|
|