|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 3, 2017 13:33:16 GMT -5
We could dig up examples of artists we think improved with age, or vice-versa, whilst others would disagree and dig up different examples. It is all subjective, so no, there is not one definitive answer. That should really have been obvious from the start, besides whic, when it comes to art what is "better" or "worse" is often down to personal taste. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 3, 2017 17:34:38 GMT -5
Publishing schedules are another factor to consider. The Jim Aparo pages posted upthread were 11 years apart... Aparo may have slowed down a little by then, but he was still pretty sharp. However, unlike The Brave & The Bold, which was published bimonthly or 8 times a year, Batman & The Outsiders was published every month. The larger cast of characters probably didn't help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 18:34:16 GMT -5
I'm not going to cast a vote in this, because I do think it depends highly on the individual artist. That said, I think we can all agree that, regardless of age, Rob Liefeld is a bad artist.  Early 90's
Mid 2010's
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 3, 2017 19:48:11 GMT -5
Every artist that creates in whatever medium whether art, music, acting and so forth must continue to push themselves in finding "more" in what they are doing. Without that drive and ambition they would quickly stagnate and lose interest in what they enjoy. Who wants to remain eternally the same without any change? That path eventually leads only to boredom... Very well put, brutalis. Most artists, as they evolve, don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over even if many of their fans would love them to do exactly that. Their evolution will not always result in a better art style or a more efficient storytelling technique, but that's the whole idea behind artistic evolution: it's about change and growth, and the reception might be unfavourable. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 3, 2017 20:15:28 GMT -5
Every artist that creates in whatever medium whether art, music, acting and so forth must continue to push themselves in finding "more" in what they are doing. Without that drive and ambition they would quickly stagnate and lose interest in what they enjoy. Who wants to remain eternally the same without any change? That path eventually leads only to boredom... Very well put, brutalis. Most artists, as they evolve, don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over even if many of their fans would love them to do exactly that. Their evolution will not always result in a better art style or a more efficient storytelling technique, but that's the whole idea behind artistic evolution: it's about change and growth, and the reception might be unfavourable. For me, George Perez and Jim Starlin come to mind: I'm sure they would say they are better artists now than they were in the 70s, but I think in their effort to evolve and develop new techniques, each of them last some of the force of their simpler but more aesthetically pleasing ( to my eyes) earlier work. Perez came back a bit in the last decade or more, I think, and managed to combine the detail of his later work with the fuller, more rounded figures of his earlier work.; but Starlin has totally lost or thrown out whatever it was I loved about his stuff in the 70s. I think sometimes artists like this are too influenced by the realism of people like Neal Adams and try to bring some of that to their work when it doesn't really mesh with their style. Perez, for example, was better off when he used only two or three standard faces for all his many characters and distinguished them from one another by hair colour/style, costumes, etc. Now he individualises his characters, which sounds like a good thing but isn't in this case - IMO, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 3, 2017 20:16:36 GMT -5
I'm not going to cast a vote in this, because I do think it depends highly on the individual artist. That said, I think we can all agree that, regardless of age, Rob Liefeld is a bad artist. Early 90's
Mid 2010's
To be fair to McFarlane, even in his early work, his run on Spider-Man is some good work. I'm not a fan but I don't shit on the man either. But visually I really liked Spider-Man. The story may have been lacking. And kudos at him for his monstrous Lizard and scary af Hobgoblin. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 3, 2017 21:56:51 GMT -5
There's an arc here I think. Almost all artists get better with age, at least up to a point; then most decline eventually for one reason or another. Then some get lazy start taking shortcuts (Byrne), others have physical issues resulting from age (Kirby), and some just "decline" because their style evolves into something ugly which they might still consider an evolution (I'd put Carmine Infantino in this category). Others, on the other hand, just constantly get better with age, like Joe Kubert, who was putting out incredible material right up until his death. But I think those are the exception rather than the rule. Still, in most of the examples here, we're looking at someone in his prime vs. someone 30 years later in advanced age. If we were to compare art from someone at age 20 vs age 45, though, I think we'd probably see improvement almost across the board. Yeah, man. That's my answer. Two legends of the genre were awesome and then became caricatures of themselves - Aparo and Byrne. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 3, 2017 22:29:18 GMT -5
Another thing I've noticed is that sometimes when an artist becomes a writer, his artwork deteriorates after a few years. Perhaps just a simple consequence of spending less time at it? Byrne comes to mind; perhaps Keith Giffen, to a lesser degree. The effect is more noticeable with artists who work mainly for the "Big 2", so perhaps it's offset by the greater amount of time allowed for independent creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 4, 2017 8:15:50 GMT -5
Ditko 1963 vs 1993 It looks like Ditko's simple style didn't drop off much in 30 years.   |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 4, 2017 8:22:43 GMT -5
Bryne benefits more with a good inker than by himself. The newer work is much more cartoony without backgrounds. Legends inked by Karl Kessel  Wonder Woman inked by Byrne himself  |
|
|
|
Post by snowman71 on Feb 4, 2017 8:45:32 GMT -5
I think production and growth in latest tech adds or diminishes the art depending the artist. Would better gauge an artist skills just on pencil work.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 4, 2017 9:47:48 GMT -5
I think production and growth in latest tech adds or diminishes the art depending the artist. Would better gauge an artist skills just on pencil work. well said. Electronic coloring, in particular, really inhibits the more classic styles of art unless the colorist truly knows their stuff. So much of it feels flat and lacking in depth now. Welcome to the community, by the way! |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 4, 2017 10:14:16 GMT -5
It's crazy how much inkers matter when you make comparisons. As I said I'm not Byrne fan (hey if Aliens Earth Angel was your first Byrne art you'd need some convincing too) but Kessel makes his art not such an eyesore. And it's also crazy how much Milgrom makes Starlin's art shine better than Starlin's does on his own.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 4, 2017 10:42:13 GMT -5
Yeah, man. That's my answer. Two legends of the genre were awesome and then became caricatures of themselves - Aparo and Byrne. Check me on this, but isn't that "later" example of Aparo's art inked by Decarlo or someone besides Aparo? I think his art significantly lost something when others inked him. The effect is more noticeable with artists who work mainly for the "Big 2", so perhaps it's offset by the greater amount of time allowed for independent creators. Two things at work here when working for Marvel and DC (others to I'm sure, but...) : Is their heart in it, or are they just content to have a reliable workflow at a reliable rate? Also, after 10 or 20 years, they know what's acceptable and expected and may not feel a need to go past that. Not to say that older artists may have a dream project they'd love to pour their heart and soul into, but how are they going too pay the bills during the year they're working on it? And will it get published? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 11:06:55 GMT -5
I think production and growth in latest tech adds or diminishes the art depending the artist. Would better gauge an artist skills just on pencil work. Excellent Points ... and welcome to our humble home!  |
|
