|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 3, 2016 1:47:06 GMT -5
I find it interesting that while All Star Squadron is getting love, The Invaders book doesn't have one vote. Maybe it's because of the poor artwork in the Invaders run. Not at all. I really like that book, and reread it regularly, I just preferred Infiity Inc. I'd also strongly dispute the assertion that the art was "poor". I love what Frank Robbins and Frank Springer did on that book, and Robbins remains my favourite depiction of Captain America, too. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 3, 2016 1:48:36 GMT -5
Invaders is a series I've long wanted to try. The basic premise sounds interesting and I like the characters, but the artwork has always prevented me from taking the plunge. Yes. The artwork is quite terrible. It really isn't. It's quirky, idiosyncratic and quite wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 3, 2016 8:05:53 GMT -5
Yes. The artwork is quite terrible. It really isn't. It's quirky, idiosyncratic and quite wonderful. I think Robbins and Springer might be acquired tastes. I remember as a young kid really liking the Invaders, but being a bit put off by some of the art. It has a raw, kinetic quality that evokes the Golden Age and also makes it somewhat conspicuous next to the more polished art of the 70s. The villains in the book definitely benefit from the Robbins/Springer treatment, as they look deranged and frightening. The same effect perhaps works against the heroes, who often appear odd-looking and "off-model." I didn't appreciate any of the nuances of the art as a kid; my love of those characters kept me reading the Invaders. Now I find that I really like the art on that book, warts and all. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 3, 2016 8:06:12 GMT -5
I would love to know who voted for Captain Carrot. No judgements.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 8:10:28 GMT -5
[/quote]I think Robbins and Springer might be acquired tastes. I remember as a young kid really liking the Invaders, but being a bit put off by some of the art. It has a raw, kinetic quality that evokes the Golden Age and also makes it somewhat conspicuous next to the more polished art of the 70s. The villains in the book definitely benefit from the Robbins/Springer treatment, as they look deranged and frightening. The same effect perhaps works against the heroes, who often appear odd-looking and "off-model." I didn't appreciate any of nuances of the art as a kid; my love of those characters kept me reading the Invaders. Now I find that I really like the art on that book, warts and all. YMMV.[/quote]Phil Maurice
Excellent summary. I was reading the posts & trying to figure out how to say this also. You said it so much better than what I was going to write.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdk91939 on Apr 3, 2016 13:17:13 GMT -5
I would say Avengers and Avengers West Coast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Apr 3, 2016 13:17:21 GMT -5
When Rob Liefeld broke the record as the worst comic book artist I had ever seen, it was Frank Robbins record he was breaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 3, 2016 13:50:09 GMT -5
But this is what makes this hobby great, people can like artwork that I find ugly. Robbins did all the technical things right but drew the human figures in awkward positions. I still respect him for his craft but my eyes hurt afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 3, 2016 14:04:17 GMT -5
When Rob Liefeld broke the record as the worst comic book artist I had ever seen, it was Frank Robbins record he was breaking. You have no taste whatsoever. Art does not need to be pretty in order to be good. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,211 
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 3, 2016 19:00:51 GMT -5
When Rob Liefeld broke the record as the worst comic book artist I had ever seen, it was Frank Robbins record he was breaking. You have no taste whatsoever. Art does not need to be pretty in order to be good. Well, surely that depends on how much importance you as an individual put on "prettiness" or naturalistic poses in art, doesn't it? If anything that deviates from that turns you off, with regards to a particular artist's work, then clearly that artwork isn't gonna speak to you in the same way as something that is drawn more realistically or more prettily. That doesn't mean you have no taste, it just means that it doesn't move you or speak to you because it's not conforming to the style of art you like. I mean, I agree with you that art doesn't need to be pretty in order to be good, but then neither does it need to be ugly. What is "good" art (and I put the term good in quotes because it's entirely subjective) is always in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 19:16:45 GMT -5
You have no taste whatsoever. Art does not need to be pretty in order to be good. Well, surely that depends on how much importance you as an individual put on "prettiness" or naturalistic poses in art, doesn't it? If anything that deviates from that turns you off, with regards to a particular artist's work, then clearly that artwork isn't gonna speak to you in the same way as something that is drawn more realistically or more prettily. That doesn't mean you have no taste, it just means that it doesn't move you or speak to you because it's not conforming to the style of art you like. I mean, I agree with you that art doesn't need to be pretty in order to be good, but then neither does it need to be ugly. What is "good" art (and I put the term good in quotes because it's entirely subjective) is always in the eye of the beholder. In comics-since the art is narrative and if you listen to what any of the masters of the craft say (Eisner, Kubert, and that ilk) good comic art is art that tells the story well, doesn't confuse the reader as to what is going on, and makes the narrative flow for the eye so it can move through the story: panel-to-panel, page-to-page. Pretty or ugly has nothing to do with good comic book art because the primary measure of quality for that art is how well does it tell the story. Pretty pictures that don't tell the story well, no matter how aesthetically pleasing to the eye or one's taste, is still bad comic book art because it fails in its primary function. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 3, 2016 20:57:14 GMT -5
I liked Invaders (I would call the art 'passable')... it's just not in Conan's league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Apr 4, 2016 5:19:48 GMT -5
Love his Avengers, loved All Star when it came out (though I think I would struggle with it now), but his Conan got me collecting and helped me discover the amazing Frank Frazetta so its no contest whatsoever here.
...and Frank Robbins was awesome, no way no how you could accuse him of swiping. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 4, 2016 6:46:45 GMT -5
...and Frank Robbins was awesome, no way no how you could accuse him of swiping. I Might have liked him if he did... |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 4, 2016 7:06:26 GMT -5
...and Frank Robbins was awesome, no way no how you could accuse him of swiping. Absolutely. He was a unique talent. |
|
