|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Feb 11, 2017 20:06:34 GMT -5
How bizarre. I wonder if anyone tried to tell him, "uh Neal, I'm not sure this is as much of an improvement as you think ...". Mind you, the original isn't one of his better moments, so I can understand the urge to work it over. I actually think some of his recent stuff looks pretty good, including some bits of Batman Odyssey I've see online. Rougher than his 70s work but sometimes that works. But I haven't looked at it closely enough to really have an opinion. I get the feeling that long time legends can intimidate some editors. I can't see anyone sending Neal's art back for corrections. I would say that DC would think having Neal Adams working for them again outweighs any artistic shortcomings he may or may not have now (The real pity is that no-one edited his writing on Odyssey...those books...not so good IMHO). Personally I'm not a fan of how his work looks now, a bit too loose for my liking, his linework also seems thicker, not as detailed as he used to be(though to be fair that's from memory not direct comparison).
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 12, 2017 9:35:31 GMT -5
Artists whose late work was every bit as good and vital, or even better than their early work.
Will Eisner
Joe Kubert
John Severin
Gil Kane
Sal Buscema
Bill Everett
Walt Simonson
John Buscema
Gene Colan
.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Feb 13, 2017 22:14:48 GMT -5
^^^ Speaking of Colan: I hadn't bought new comics in years, but in 2009 I bought a couple of copies of Cap #601 for his amazing work:   |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 22:19:33 GMT -5
^^^ Speaking of Colan: I hadn't bought new comics in years, but in 2009 I bought a couple of copies of Cap #601 for his amazing work: Colan is one of those artists that I like the B&W version more then the color version. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 10, 2017 16:54:28 GMT -5
They get better and then they get worse.  Really I think most artists just get tired after a while. You don't have as much drive as you did when you were younger. As far as Ditko goes, circa 1980:  That's just awful. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 22, 2017 2:09:13 GMT -5
as someone whom has had to work 19 hours without a break to make deadlines, and knowing (personally) what age does to the hands and fingers we rely upon to create the art all present enjoy, I'd ask all present to bear in mind that ppl whom make the art face different and unique challenges which non-artists do not face, exemplified by one of my fave inkers, Sam Grainger, whom not only died early from diabetes, but since diabetes affects the nerve endings of the fingertips, had his quality/output curtailed horribly. before he was in his 50's. few career-paths have to suffer being curtailed in such a way; it's like rock-stars struck down by M.S.
SADLY, age often brings these medical hurdles quickly, and these hurdles limit the quality of the art which 'fans and readers' see.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 22, 2017 22:23:35 GMT -5
^^^ Speaking of Colan: I hadn't bought new comics in years, but in 2009 I bought a couple of copies of Cap #601 for his amazing work: Colan is one of those artists that I like the B&W version more then the color version. Huh. I bought that issue too, the colour one. Didn't know there was a black & white edition, now I have to look for that one too. |
|
bran
Full Member
Posts: 227 
|
Post by bran on Jun 22, 2017 23:05:43 GMT -5
They get better and then they get worse. Really I think most artists just get tired after a while. You don't have as much drive as you did when you were younger. As far as Ditko goes, circa 1980: That's just awful. and this is the same artist, his early work (from Eerie/Creepy mag):  there are no rules thought, checkout Hermann, here in his 60s (Afrika 2):  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 23, 2017 4:48:16 GMT -5
In honour of the 'Just Sayin'...' thread, I'd add that many artists get better with age, as they progress, even into their grey-hair years. Golden, Kane, Steranko, Barry Windsor Smith... Many peeps (not myself) would laugh at what they did in their 1st 3 years of free-lancing, yet swoon at what they did when, like so many of us, they where of an age when they had to dread a doctor saying to them, 'time for a colonoscopy'. We've all seen the BWS X-men from the late 1960's (I admit I love them, like I love Dementia 13 by F.F. Coppola). We've seen the early fanzine work of Steranko and compared that to his halcyon/salad days work adapting the film Outland, and how ground-breaking that was. In fact, a lot of Tom Palmer's work was sublime in the last furlongs of his creative-life's horse race, even compared to X-Men 60. Food (but not 'foodie) for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 23, 2017 7:22:30 GMT -5
One should also look at the work of Gil Kane, here, comparing his early Hawk and Dove covers to his 1970's covers for Marvel. Can anyone say his work 'devolved'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 23, 2017 8:42:45 GMT -5
Barring the tragic limitations that may come with health problems, I think that several artists do not get worse with age so much as they fall out of favour with fans who want them to remain stuck in amber and never evolve.
Most artists want to get better with age. They want to try new things, to actually master things they initially just managed to do, to challenge themselves. They may want to use more difficult tools, to be able to use fewer lines to render a scene, to convey information and emotion in more subtle ways... there are few limits to the directions an artist can take in their development.
But not all readers like that. "I preferred your old stuff" is a valid opinion, but it doesn't mean the artist has gotten worse; it might just mean that the artist evolved in one direction and that the reader's tastes remained in place or went another way.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 23, 2017 9:34:27 GMT -5
In honour of the 'Just Sayin'...' thread, I'd add that many artists get better with age, as they progress, even into their grey-hair years. Golden, Kane, Steranko, Barry Windsor Smith... Many peeps (not myself) would laugh at what they did in their 1st 3 years of free-lancing, yet swoon at what they did when, like so many of us, they where of an age when they had to dread a doctor saying to them, 'time for a colonoscopy'. We've all seen the BWS X-men from the late 1960's (I admit I love them, like I love Dementia 13 by F.F. Coppola). We've seen the early fanzine work of Steranko and compared that to his halcyon/salad days work adapting the film Outland, and how ground-breaking that was. In fact, a lot of Tom Palmer's work was sublime in the last furlongs of his creative-life's horse race, even compared to X-Men 60. Food (but not 'foodie) for thought. A lot depends on whether people, as they got older, were working on projects they cared about or just pounding it out for a page rate. Eisner was still doing great and challenging work after 50 years in the business; so is Glanzman; ditto Deitch and Crumb after 40 years. Steranko, for his number of years "in the business" seemed to do 90% of his most acclaimed work during like a 7-year period and not much after that lived up to that promise. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 23, 2017 9:38:21 GMT -5
and this is the same artist, his early work (from Eerie/Creepy mag): Yes, I saw that on the other thread. Though the style doesn't appeal to me, you can see that a lot more work has been put into it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 23, 2017 10:33:28 GMT -5
Barring the tragic limitations that may come with health problems, I think that several artists do not get worse with age so much as they fall out of favour with fans who want them to remain stuck in amber and never evolve. Most artists want to get better with age. They want to try new things, to actually master things they initially just managed to do, to challenge themselves. They may want to use more difficult tools, to be able to use fewer lines to render a scene, to convey information and emotion in more subtle ways... there are few limits to the directions an artist can take in their development. But not all readers like that. "I preferred your old stuff" is a valid opinion, but it doesn't mean the artist has gotten worse; it might just mean that the artist evolved in one direction and that the reader's tastes remained in place or went another way. It's this way with musicians as well. I'm a huge U2 fan, but if you look at my mp3 player (yes, I still have one of those), I have a lot of their stuff from Rattle and Hum and before, a few things from Actung Baby and Zooropa, and just two things since then. They've continued to evolve and try new sounds and themes in their music, but it isn't to my liking. Doesn't mean it's bad, just that it isn't for me. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 24, 2017 0:11:56 GMT -5
In honour of the 'Just Sayin'...' thread, I'd add that many artists get better with age, as they progress, even into their grey-hair years. Golden, Kane, Steranko, Barry Windsor Smith... Many peeps (not myself) would laugh at what they did in their 1st 3 years of free-lancing, yet swoon at what they did when, like so many of us, they where of an age when they had to dread a doctor saying to them, 'time for a colonoscopy'. We've all seen the BWS X-men from the late 1960's (I admit I love them, like I love Dementia 13 by F.F. Coppola). We've seen the early fanzine work of Steranko and compared that to his halcyon/salad days work adapting the film Outland, and how ground-breaking that was. In fact, a lot of Tom Palmer's work was sublime in the last furlongs of his creative-life's horse race, even compared to X-Men 60. Food (but not 'foodie) for thought. A lot depends on whether people, as they got older, were working on projects they cared about or just pounding it out for a page rate. Eisner was still doing great and challenging work after 50 years in the business; so is Glanzman; ditto Deitch and Crumb after 40 years. Steranko, for his number of years "in the business" seemed to do 90% of his most acclaimed work during like a 7-year period and not much after that lived up to that promise. Indeed, and adding to that, we should remember that in the late 60's, Steranko was given free reign to be as creative and 'outré' as he liked, which sold well. By the time of Shooter, such was disallowed: Shooter basically wanted storyboards on paper that matched 80's TV shows vs. pages that felt like a Nouveau Italian Film. Thus the next time we saw Steranko's 'best', it was for his adaption of Outland. Not to mention that in the interim he was getting paid well to paint genre-paperback covers and maintain experimentation. |
|
