|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2017 17:40:21 GMT -5
I posed this question on Ifanboy podcast about a year ago. How do you think the classic artists we love Byrne, Perez, Kirby, Adams etc. would fare if they were just starting out now? I think good art is good art and they'd probably do just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 18:14:29 GMT -5
this is an excellent query, james, and a question that working artists themselves have p0osed to each other, and oftimes debated heartily. commendations to you and the way you think.  I'll contribute in a little bit, after adding a premise: Byrne, Perez, Kirby, Adams etc all had long careers, extensive canons of work, and 'chapters' in the 'novels' of their careers. development to the point where they become 'hot' could take years. Byrne became beloved after taking over the x-men, became 'byrne-god' after x-men 125 to his FF run (or so), but before that, you had his IF run, and before that, ROG 2000. so, 'which byrne would you mean?' starting out today as which byrne', of arguably 5 'byrne's', if you count his earliest Canadian work? Same with Perez; his beginnings aren't quite his heyday on Avengers or WW. Are you asking us about what if they started today, based on their fan-agreed 'prime' career art'? |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2017 18:33:46 GMT -5
I guess you could pose this question for anytime period of their careers. For me i haven't gotten chills with Perez and Adams current art over last 5 years or so, as i did in their heyday. Byrne stopped wowing right around his Next men time. Good art just not great art. As for Kirby the opposite is true. I hated his art when i was growing up but last year, at 47 i read 4th world and was
Blown away. But for arguements sake let's meet somewhere in the middle and say their first Marvel or DC work.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 19:18:10 GMT -5
okay, great reply! When you say 'just starting out now', that means ’in today’s comics market’, and it’s a market which sadly is now catering to tastes of 20-something ppl who’ve been brought up on a lot of art which is, honestly, mediocre gaming-art, with no true linework, highly dependent upon digital colouring to handle all moulding of musculature and costume texture, leaving us with a digital-trading-card-game style of ‘meh’ and ‘bleh’. Some of modern tastes ask for more, but at least half of the current demographic does not. So proper lines-men like Byrne, at his ‘prime’, i.m.o. around x-men 120-136 or his first 15 FF’s, would be screwed in today’s market, since he never did draw anything that didn’t genuflect to the Holy Line Diety, still doesn’t, and likely never will. He thinks in lines. Artistically and politically. Nothing he’s done or would do could be ‘accessible’ to the latter day Wizards of the Coast digital-paint-style c - - p that’s being pumped out in comics these days, because ‘that’s what the millenials are used to, that’s what they want’, at least so many editors seem to think. Also what the young editors grew up on, and young editors often give a new/breaking-in artist their first break. I’ll tackle Cockrum next/later, as he is/was my fave, more than byrne. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 3, 2017 19:40:54 GMT -5
I think they'd still be successful, though when I see how popular the Jim Lee style of superhero artwork is today it does seem to me that the readership's taste has deteriorated. But there are lots of good artists now too, so I don't imagine the classic artists would have any problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 20:16:25 GMT -5
I think the "superstar" artists like Bryne, Perez & Adams would do well. However artists like Curt Swan or John Romita that weren't "flashy" may not be popular.
IMO modern artists draw too many pin ups & don't really excel as storytellers like the classic artists did. As I said in my Kubert Tarzan Reviews - Joe Kubert was a genius storyteller. His art could have told the entire story without words. I'm not sure many artists today could do that.
I have always been drawn to the artists that are storytellers rather than the flashy artists. Although I think some of the blame is modern writers writing for the trade. Could you see some of today's writers trying to write a story back in the 60's?
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 20:26:18 GMT -5
I think the "superstar" artists like Bryne, Perez & Adams would do well. However artists like Curt Swan or John Romita that weren't "flashy" may not be popular. IMO modern artists draw too many pin ups & don't really excel as storytellers like the classic artists did. As I said in my Kubert Tarzan Reviews - Joe Kubert was a genius storyteller. His art could have told the entire story without words. I'm not sure many artists today could do that. I have always been drawn to the artists that are storytellers rather than the flashy artists. Although I think some of the blame is modern writers writing for the trade. Could you see some of today's writers trying to write a story back in the 60's? the lines in bold bolster my previous points. because today's market seems to rely on 'flash' versus storytelling, the icing vs the cake. since icing is often easier to digest than cake. takes less effort. kinda like digesting pokemon animation vs 1960's Johnny Quest. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 3, 2017 20:29:03 GMT -5
This has been said many times before, but a large part of the problem with some (definitely not all) of last generation or two of American comics artists is that they've mostly learned from the superhero comics that are the only thing that interests them; whereas the Silver Age artists tended to come from a broader artistic background and almost all of them had extensive training in other kinds of art than just comics, let alone the even narrower background of just superhero comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 20:32:40 GMT -5
I think the "superstar" artists like Bryne, Perez & Adams would do well. However artists like Curt Swan or John Romita that weren't "flashy" may not be popular. IMO modern artists draw too many pin ups & don't really excel as storytellers like the classic artists did. As I said in my Kubert Tarzan Reviews - Joe Kubert was a genius storyteller. His art could have told the entire story without words. I'm not sure many artists today could do that. I have always been drawn to the artists that are storytellers rather than the flashy artists. Although I think some of the blame is modern writers writing for the trade. Could you see some of today's writers trying to write a story back in the 60's? the lines in bold bolster my previous points. because today's market seems to rely on 'flash' versus storytelling, the icing vs the cake. since icing is often easier to digest than cake. takes less effort. kinda like digesting pokemon animation vs 1960's Johnny Quest. I think a lot of us here on this forum feel the same way.
BTW I am not a fan of today's animation with gross out humor & "distorted" drawings. I really miss a show like the Flintstones.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 20:35:31 GMT -5
some people outside of this board would forget or not bother to know what a star Cockrum was.
the success of Cockrum, in today's market, would be a toss-up... on one hand, you have hipster-#$%!!'s who go for anything vaguely 'retro' which will score them some coitus at a Con Party, so going for art like Cockrum's would allow for them to score that, and also fill in some blog-entries, or a dozen tweets.
on the other hand, as Cockrum's work was so deliciously organic (vs. byrne's), and would exemplify truly natural body-types and deny 'powergirl' fantasy types, while doing the same for male physiques - compare his Colossus to byrne's, or jim lee's - he'd have some serious troubles there. As natural body types aren't as popular as they should be. I mean, male pec implants still happen.
and as Cockrum was also an inker as well as a penciller, again, his work was very line oriented, and not compatible with with a lot of 'digital fellatio' we see dominating comic art markets today.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 20:36:51 GMT -5
the lines in bold bolster my previous points. because today's market seems to rely on 'flash' versus storytelling, the icing vs the cake. since icing is often easier to digest than cake. takes less effort. kinda like digesting pokemon animation vs 1960's Johnny Quest. I think a lot of us here on this forum feel the same way.
BTW I am not a fan of today's animation with gross out humor & "distorted" drawings. I really miss a show like the Flintstones.
agreed I really miss classic animation as well. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 20:38:57 GMT -5
This has been said many times before, but a large part of the problem with some (definitely not all) of last generation or two of American comics artists is that they've mostly learned from the superhero comics that are the only thing that interests them; whereas the Silver Age artists tended to come from a broader artistic background and almost all of them had extensive training in other kinds of art than just comics, let alone the even narrower background of just superhero comics. utterly agree. Adams worked in newspaper strips before comics, buscema worked in ad agencies. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jul 3, 2017 21:32:12 GMT -5
I think they'd all do well. Despite the unfortunate prevalence of "trading card art" (as luvskane put it), there are actually very diverse styles on display on the shelves, from realistic, detailed styles to "pop art."
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 21:43:18 GMT -5
I think they'd all do well. Despite the unfortunate prevalence of "trading card art" (as luvskane put it), there are actually very diverse styles on display on the shelves, from realistic, detailed styles to "pop art." I agree with this completely as per non marvel/dc publication. in terms of success with image, dark horse, etc., i'd love to believe you are absolutely correct. but then again, i'm an ex artist for various companies, this tailors my opinion, so I have to add a caveat: 'editors'. like shooter. after thomas. nudge nudge, wink wink. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2017 22:08:09 GMT -5
some people outside of this board would forget or not bother to know what a star Cockrum was. the success of Cockrum, in today's market, would be a toss-up... on one hand, you have hipster-#$%!!'s who go for anything vaguely 'retro' which will score them some coitus at a Con Party, so going for art like Cockrum's would allow for them to score that, and also fill in some blog-entries, or a dozen tweets. on the other hand, as Cockrum's work was so deliciously organic (vs. byrne's), and would exemplify truly natural body-types and deny 'powergirl' fantasy types, while doing the same for male physiques - compare his Colossus to byrne's, or jim lee's - he'd have some serious troubles there. As natural body types aren't as popular as they should be. I mean, male pec implants still happen. and as Cockrum was also an inker as well as a penciller, again, his work was very line oriented, and not compatible with with a lot of 'digital fellatio' we see dominating comic art markets today. I hate to admit it but Cockrum was another artist that in my younger years I never liked. My first Cockrum art I saw was when I was about 14 or so and it was his second run on Xmen and I had been "spoiled" by John Byrne's Art. Maybe 10 years ago or so much like Kirby I really learned to appreciate his art. And not so much on Xmen as on Capt Marvel and his other books. I'm glad my thread is generating some good conversation. One artist who I personally think wouldn't get a sniff at Marvel and DC is Kirby. I really think he'd be all over the Creator owned companies Image, Boom Etc. with his 4th World and Miracle Man. |
|
