|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 21, 2017 21:48:57 GMT -5
Another point to consider, a lot of the books in the Silver and Bronze Age weren't monthly. Many DC titles were only published 8 times a year, and a lot of Marvel books were bi-monthly, such as the X-Men through most of the Cockrum and Byrne era and Daredevil through the first part of the Miller era, so they had more time to put into a book since they had longer to produce a single issue (and it's also why some artists could handle multiple books, the books weren't always monthly. Many also had lead features and back ups, meaning fewer pages to produce for each issue and at the height of the Bronze Age, Marvel books only had 17 pages of content, and yet the Dreaded Deadline Doom still struck requiring reprints and/or inventory stories depending on when in the Bronze Age it was. Big 2 books these days put out a minimum of 12 issues per year, though not always with the same creative teams, sometimes they rotate by arcs, but today's artists don't have the luxury of bi-monthly or 8 issues per year schedules to create long strings on a book as some of the classic artists did. A lot of folks just assume all those classic books were always monthly and issues came out every 30 days when criticizing the output of modern artists compared to classic artists, and that wasn't always the case. -M Great points. Today's artists have better tools (i.e. computers), but they are still working under some pretty crazy demands -- 20ish pages of art a month, and coupled with the expectations of the "modern superhero art" look I alluded to, that's 20ish pages of highly rendered, tightly penciled art. It's pretty impressive that an artist like Greg Capullo was able to pull off a 4 year run on Batman, and I think he pencilled nearly every issue -- I think there were maybe a handful of fill-in artists, and the issues all shipped on time. I agree that the overall quality of art at Marvel and DC is better now than ever, at least in terms of draftsmanship, but I also agree that storytelling has taken a backseat. I think a lot of modern superhero art has gotten much too "serious" and often lacks the personality and individuality of past greats like Kirby, John Buscema, Aparo, Byrne, etc. As I get older, I prefer art styles that have at least a bit of cartooniness to it. I like the nuance of balancing a style like that with action and drama. I think this is why I find Mike Allred and Chris Samnee to be much more interesting artists and storytellers than guys like Stuart Immonen or Francis Yu. Another factor to consider is that the older artists were working under a different paradigm. They often had to crank out their work to meet demanding deadlines, often working on multiple books at once, and didn't have the luxury to "grow roses" so their art would look pretty in a trade collection. Just look at how much better Kirby's art got when he only had to focus on Thor and FF. Some of John Byrne's detailed commissions are as good or better than anything he's ever done in comics. I think many of the greats could more than hold their own if given more time and leeway to make their stuff look as good as possible. Well said. Allred and Samnee are two of my current favorites. |
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 22, 2017 1:29:12 GMT -5
Also, the artists of yesterday would have the modern day luxury of the computer to get things done at a faster pace. Seeing John Buscema use a Wacom and Manga Studio would have been interesting. There are a lot of things that computers do, like easily redoing inking lines. But they don't really save much time. Maybe it depends on the artist. I'm pretty sure I've heard from a couple of pros that some aspects are faster. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 22, 2017 7:36:50 GMT -5
If I'd had computer software available to me back when I was trying to break in to the industry, I might actually have made it. It was drawing backgrounds, especially urban backgrounds with all the requisite perspective, that made me too slow to be competitive. Born too soon, alas!
Cei-U!
I summon the might-have-beens!
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 22, 2017 10:06:15 GMT -5
There are a lot of things that computers do, like easily redoing inking lines. But they don't really save much time. Maybe it depends on the artist. I'm pretty sure I've heard from a couple of pros that some aspects are faster. Some things are, some aren't. And it certainly let you do some things like e Color effectsor direct ink drawing that analog doesn't. But over all I'm not sure how much speed it adds. Somethings take longer with a computer than a pencil. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 22, 2017 10:39:40 GMT -5
I'd argue that most of the art I've seen in 2001, Epic Magazine, Savage Sword of Conan, Creepy, etc., the old magazines in general, are still superior to most of the modern mainstream stuff. It wasn't until I saw Esad Ribic's work that I saw art on that level in a monthly book.
|
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Jul 22, 2017 18:51:30 GMT -5
Neal Adams in his prime would still be relevant in today's comic market, perhaps still ok today? George Perez has been relevant since the 70's and still is. John Byrne used to be the hottest ticket around, but his art style has suffered in the past 30 years or so and would be unacceptable as a superstar artist by today's standards. Also, if John Romita JR was never known and tried to break into comics today with his lackluster/weird style...he wouldn't make it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 22, 2017 18:55:11 GMT -5
Neal Adams in his prime would still be relevant in today's comic market, perhaps still ok today? George Perez has been relevant since the 70's and still is. John Byrne used to be the hottest ticket around, but his art style has suffered in the past 30 years or so and would be unacceptable as a superstar artist by today's standards. Also, if John Romita JR was never known and tried to break into comics today with his lackluster/weird style...he wouldn't make it. I've previously posted about how I'm generally not a big fan of JR Jr's art style, and how I'm always amazed that he's considered such an A-list artist, especially in comparison to those artists that are considered A-list. However, I've read elsewhere that the publishers love him because he's very timely and easy to work with. |
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Jul 22, 2017 19:15:17 GMT -5
Neal Adams in his prime would still be relevant in today's comic market, perhaps still ok today? George Perez has been relevant since the 70's and still is. John Byrne used to be the hottest ticket around, but his art style has suffered in the past 30 years or so and would be unacceptable as a superstar artist by today's standards. Also, if John Romita JR was never known and tried to break into comics today with his lackluster/weird style...he wouldn't make it. I've previously posted about how I'm generally not a big fan of JR Jr's art style, and how I'm always amazed that he's considered such an A-list artist, especially in comparison to those artists that are considered A-list. However, I've read elsewhere that the publishers love him because he's very timely and easy to work with. JRJR was not a great artist IMO, not even on his early X-Men days (just ok), but...during his mid Marvel days on X-Men & Spider-Man I actually liked his art style, but...then he became so ultra weird/sloppy that he was like a different artist! His Batman & Superman work is just offensive to my eyes! Sorry JRJR:( |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 22, 2017 21:50:18 GMT -5
His Daredevil run was pretty darn good as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Jul 22, 2017 23:33:54 GMT -5
His Daredevil run was pretty darn good as well. I agree  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 23, 2017 5:58:59 GMT -5
the problem with current Adams is that he always gets compared to 1969-1975 Adams. if todays market only saw his current stuff and nothing to compare it against, he'd be hiired quick smart.
|
|
