Post by codystarbuck on Apr 10, 2022 17:17:34 GMT -5
I would argue art being better as much as production & printing are better. Art is subjective and depends heavily on what you are looking for, in a story. Writing is also subjective.
I find modern work I like, though rarely superhero material. It usually has to be a different take on things. otherwise, I kind of drifted almost completely away from superheroes by the late 90s/early 00s because I felt like I had read the same stories, 20 years before. It just became so repetitive. Not everything; but enough of the mainstream that I lost interest. When you had someone like James Robinson and collaborators doing Starman, or Ed Brubaker on Captain America, I could get back into it. Some other books looked good; but, the stories didn't pull me in. Dan Slott could pull me in with humorous takes, like She-Hulk and The Thing and I liked Matt Fraction's Iron Fist, as it was mixing in kung fu film stuff and pulps, which felt fresher (if not original). I liked Brubaker's Marvels Project and some of the stuff like the Patriot mini that Marvel had and even the one with the Young Allies.
At that point, I was immersing myself more into the European materially that was getting translated, via Humanoids, Cinebook and Euro-Comics (and some others). There was a variety of genres, styles, drama & humor and such. I really loved the Blacksad books, as they were a nice mix of traditional noir/hardboiled detective, animation and cinema. I've enjoyed Garth Ennis' military fact/fiction material. I liked a lot of what was coming out from Dynamite, especially the pulp hero books.
In a then vs now analysis, I think there are certain periods where there is more experimentation that fuels a lot of good material (sometimes in the mainstream, sometimes in the fringes). Marvel in the 70s had some guys swinging for the fences, with their own ideas (if not their own characters). A lot of that was due to Roy Thomas' editorship, giving them the freedom to try. I think the corporatization of both companies made them more and more risk averse, as time went on. With DC, Jenette Kahn came in to a DC that was in danger of going out of business, if it weren't for the fact that licensing made them enough money to offset the losses in publishing. She created incentives to create, rather than maintain the status quo. She enticed new blood to come along and helped usher out people who were just marking time and not willing to try something else, since the status quo wasn't working. There ws a lot of turmoil; but, bit by bit, it paid off and built momentum. You can argue the merits of particular titles; but, there is definitely and uphill rise in the line, from about 1979 to the 50th Anniversary, in 1985. Then, they starting firing shots across the bow in 1986 and 87.
Marvel, in the 60s, had nothing to lose and tried new things. Image started with a few of the guys trying to do something that was their own and others doing disguised versions of their Marvel work. Eventually, more unique works from within and without appeared and we got more of that and less of the multiple variations on the same thing (generic team titles, Wolverine wannabes, etc)
Certain writers and artists have fertile creative periods and times when they are just maintaining, usually revolving around the stage of their career. People tend to take more chances when they are young in their career, than when they have a family and a home to maintain and want to maintain a level of income to support them. Artist run into the problem of aging affecting the technical aspects of their work, especially if they are prolific. Eye problems are notorious and things like arthritis can affect their line.
You also have to look at the tools used. There is a big difference in working in pencil or pen & ink vs on a digital drawing pad. Not that one is better than another, just that they are different and different artists have different skill levels with the technology they use. Coloring is a big one. Digital coloring systems give a far wider range of colors and tones; but, hand coloring provided effects that the computer can't easily replicate because they were part of human motion.
I get nostalgic for storytelling from different eras; but, I do thing the actual skill level of earlier generations, who went through apprenticeships and hundreds of drawings, because of page rate, were better. Then didn't always display it in their work because they had to churn it out to make a buck. If the company paid crap and the deadline was tight, they might put out very loose work. If they paid better and were treated well, they might put more into it. A lot of modern artists may have better schooling; but, they don't have as much practical work under their belt. It takes time to hone your skills and the modern environment doesn't necessary allow that, compared to other periods, when there were more outlets to learn and grow. That's just a generational thing, not necessarily an individual thing.
You also have different inspirations for artists work. Guys from the Golden Age would talk about the great adventure cartoonists, from newspaper comics, as well as book and magazine illustrators and even some cinema and filmmakers. The next generation it became more comic books and fewer other influences. Again, the standouts tended to have broader influences; but, the average artist coming in, with each generation, was coming mostly from the influence of the comics they read as a kid/fan. Modern artists are drawing from comics and video games and even more from manga, rather than American comics.
So, yeah, it depends on your interests and tastes; but, I do think there are specific elements where you can say "this is better than that," with some qualification. I also think some of your nostalgia for a period reflects some of your interests. If you are a fan of westerns, there isn't a lot of modern material to feed your interests, but there was a ton up through the early 70s.
I find modern work I like, though rarely superhero material. It usually has to be a different take on things. otherwise, I kind of drifted almost completely away from superheroes by the late 90s/early 00s because I felt like I had read the same stories, 20 years before. It just became so repetitive. Not everything; but enough of the mainstream that I lost interest. When you had someone like James Robinson and collaborators doing Starman, or Ed Brubaker on Captain America, I could get back into it. Some other books looked good; but, the stories didn't pull me in. Dan Slott could pull me in with humorous takes, like She-Hulk and The Thing and I liked Matt Fraction's Iron Fist, as it was mixing in kung fu film stuff and pulps, which felt fresher (if not original). I liked Brubaker's Marvels Project and some of the stuff like the Patriot mini that Marvel had and even the one with the Young Allies.
At that point, I was immersing myself more into the European materially that was getting translated, via Humanoids, Cinebook and Euro-Comics (and some others). There was a variety of genres, styles, drama & humor and such. I really loved the Blacksad books, as they were a nice mix of traditional noir/hardboiled detective, animation and cinema. I've enjoyed Garth Ennis' military fact/fiction material. I liked a lot of what was coming out from Dynamite, especially the pulp hero books.
In a then vs now analysis, I think there are certain periods where there is more experimentation that fuels a lot of good material (sometimes in the mainstream, sometimes in the fringes). Marvel in the 70s had some guys swinging for the fences, with their own ideas (if not their own characters). A lot of that was due to Roy Thomas' editorship, giving them the freedom to try. I think the corporatization of both companies made them more and more risk averse, as time went on. With DC, Jenette Kahn came in to a DC that was in danger of going out of business, if it weren't for the fact that licensing made them enough money to offset the losses in publishing. She created incentives to create, rather than maintain the status quo. She enticed new blood to come along and helped usher out people who were just marking time and not willing to try something else, since the status quo wasn't working. There ws a lot of turmoil; but, bit by bit, it paid off and built momentum. You can argue the merits of particular titles; but, there is definitely and uphill rise in the line, from about 1979 to the 50th Anniversary, in 1985. Then, they starting firing shots across the bow in 1986 and 87.
Marvel, in the 60s, had nothing to lose and tried new things. Image started with a few of the guys trying to do something that was their own and others doing disguised versions of their Marvel work. Eventually, more unique works from within and without appeared and we got more of that and less of the multiple variations on the same thing (generic team titles, Wolverine wannabes, etc)
Certain writers and artists have fertile creative periods and times when they are just maintaining, usually revolving around the stage of their career. People tend to take more chances when they are young in their career, than when they have a family and a home to maintain and want to maintain a level of income to support them. Artist run into the problem of aging affecting the technical aspects of their work, especially if they are prolific. Eye problems are notorious and things like arthritis can affect their line.
You also have to look at the tools used. There is a big difference in working in pencil or pen & ink vs on a digital drawing pad. Not that one is better than another, just that they are different and different artists have different skill levels with the technology they use. Coloring is a big one. Digital coloring systems give a far wider range of colors and tones; but, hand coloring provided effects that the computer can't easily replicate because they were part of human motion.
I get nostalgic for storytelling from different eras; but, I do thing the actual skill level of earlier generations, who went through apprenticeships and hundreds of drawings, because of page rate, were better. Then didn't always display it in their work because they had to churn it out to make a buck. If the company paid crap and the deadline was tight, they might put out very loose work. If they paid better and were treated well, they might put more into it. A lot of modern artists may have better schooling; but, they don't have as much practical work under their belt. It takes time to hone your skills and the modern environment doesn't necessary allow that, compared to other periods, when there were more outlets to learn and grow. That's just a generational thing, not necessarily an individual thing.
You also have different inspirations for artists work. Guys from the Golden Age would talk about the great adventure cartoonists, from newspaper comics, as well as book and magazine illustrators and even some cinema and filmmakers. The next generation it became more comic books and fewer other influences. Again, the standouts tended to have broader influences; but, the average artist coming in, with each generation, was coming mostly from the influence of the comics they read as a kid/fan. Modern artists are drawing from comics and video games and even more from manga, rather than American comics.
So, yeah, it depends on your interests and tastes; but, I do think there are specific elements where you can say "this is better than that," with some qualification. I also think some of your nostalgia for a period reflects some of your interests. If you are a fan of westerns, there isn't a lot of modern material to feed your interests, but there was a ton up through the early 70s.