Tec's current artistic style
Scott T. Jensen
times it is amateurish (top right panel on page 3 of Tec #758). At other
times, it is way too heavy (left mid panel on page 15 of Tec #758). The
proportions are usually off ... not by a lot but to where my eye tells me
they are. And since I'm already down Bitchn' Road, the coloring it
unappealing. The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns.
How depressing! And detailing is almost non-existent. Lack of detail I'd
expect and understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a comic
book.
I only have my comic bookstore pull three Bat titles: Tec, Batman, and
Batgirl. What I'd like is for these to be ones I enjoy BOTH for the stories
and the art. I'm not enjoying the art in Tec. I like it in Batgirl (though
it would be too crisp for a Bat title featuring Batman) and somewhat
like/tolerate it in Batman (blocky muscles on Batman seem too unreal, lack
of detail, too much solid colors, blah, blah, blah).
But I'm to the point with Tec of possibly not having it pulled anymore. The
art is just too distracting. It only one level above what I can do ... and
sometimes worse. For you see when I buy a comic, I want to be wow-ed by the
art. I'm not with Tec. Just the opposite. It disappoints me and thus
distracts me from the story.
What I think might be going on with Tec is one of two thing:
1) DC is trying to save money. Limited colors save on printing costs.
Little detail speeds up production of panels. They surely can't reduce the
number of pages since the issues are embarrassing thin as they are.
2) Maybe someone in DC has some "artistic bug" up their ... *cough* ... and
think this is "cool", "provocative", "as stark as Batman", or whatever.
If I had to lay down money, I'd bet it on the first one. Cost-cutting.
Scott Jensen
--
Like to help advance science?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://foldingathome.stanford.edu/ to sign up your computer.
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
>What's up with the artistic style of Tec? It just doesn't do it for me. At
>times it is amateurish (top right panel on page 3 of Tec #758). At other
>times, it is way too heavy (left mid panel on page 15 of Tec #758). The
>proportions are usually off ... not by a lot but to where my eye tells me
>they are. And since I'm already down Bitchn' Road, the coloring it
>unappealing. The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns.
>How depressing! And detailing is almost non-existent. Lack of detail I'd
>expect and understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a comic
>book.
>
I thought the coloring was an interesting artistic choice at first,
but have now come to just find it ugly. I suppose they're going for
some kind of noir, dark/light atmosphere thing, but when issues are
colored entirely in orange and purple, you gotta wonder what they were
thinking.
If they really wanted a noir look, I'd suggest they just went to
graytones. Or just find a frikkin artist/colorist team who actually
knew what "noir style" meant.
"Come down off your cross, we could use the wood."
-Tom Waits
Scott T. Jensen
> If they really wanted a noir
> look, I'd suggest they just went to
> graytones. Or just find a frikkin
> artist/colorist team who actually
> knew what "noir style" meant.
If they want to do noir, why don't they just do it all in black and white?
However, I would only do Batman panels in black and white and do Bruce
panels in color.
MadiHolmes
>If they want to do noir, why don't they just do it all in black and white?
>However, I would only do Batman panels in black and white and do Bruce
>panels in color.
Where would this leave the rest of the panels without him?
I'd find that highly distracting. Not that I couldn't do it, but it's just too
jarring if not done right <which I doubt could happen>.
To see what I mean, go see the director's version of Shock Corridor- where it's
extremely jarring, although that was the point.
Or <for a more "known" film>- Schindler's List or the Wizard of Oz.
I personally like the experimentation with different color pallettes. True,
it's not going to work all the time, but it's extremely mood setting when it
does.
Take Tec 757 with it's orange and green scheme. At first, I was like "Come on,"
but once I read it, it was very appropriate and just added to the elements of
the plot in a way that woulnd't have been acheived just using a "normal"
coloring.
MadiHolmes
Loren Di Iorio
: I only have my comic bookstore pull three Bat titles: Tec,
: Batman, and Batgirl. What I'd like is for these to be ones
: I enjoy BOTH for the stories and the art. I'm not enjoying
: the art in Tec.
Unless I read the latest NW lettercol wrong, I think Shawn
Martinbrough will be done with Tec in a bit, making way
for Jesse Delperdang.
That's what Michael Wright led me to believe, anyway.
Whether it's a permanent shift, I don't know, but I like
Martinbrough's stuff, and I think the colouring scheme
is wonderfully different.
...Loren
http://www.geocities.com/gcpdguy/ rocks like socks!
Scott T. Jensen
> Scott Jensen wrote:
> >If they want to do noir, why don't they
> >just do it all in black and white?
> >However, I would only do Batman
> >panels in black and white and do Bruce
> >panels in color.
>
> Where would this leave the rest of the
> panels without him?
Possibly somewhere between these two extreme. The closer they're to
Batman's world, the more their colors fade, grays increase, and black and
white starts taking over. The closer they're to Bruce's world, the opposite
happens.
I would find this great for a Two-Face story! Black and white when the
scarred face wins. Color when the unscarred face wins. That this would
visually jarring would to perfect for Two-Face. This would also have a nice
... hmmm, what's the word ... correlation between the split nature of Batman
and Bruce. How in a way Batman and Bruce are like Two-Face in the aspect of
two separate identities.
3.1415926535897932.....
s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> What's up with the artistic style of Tec? It just doesn't do it for
> me.
While I agree that sometimes it does just... well, lack purpose really,
I think that I'd prefer that the Bat-comics continue to experiment with
artistic styles, regardless of if they hit the mark or not. The
character has been an icon for so many years that I *like* seeing
different interpretations, and personally support the idea that an art
style that may not push people's buttons in traditional ways is tried
and stuck with for a while.
> The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns. How
> depressing!
It could be argued that the world being portrayed is depressing. The
writing certainly edges on the side of gritty and realistic.
> And detailing is almost non-existent. Lack of detail I'd expect and
> understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a comic
> book.
Hmm... Detail doesn't say quality. More important is panel
composition, use of planned blank space, storytelling. All of which are
used to great effect in Gotham Adventures, a title which, with the
occasional exception (the "Trial" and "World's Finest" issues had patchy
points for me), continues to excel artistically.
I wouldn't want to say that, for example, Greg Capullo's artwork is
better than Alex Toth's because of the level of detail.
> ...and somewhat like/tolerate <the art> in Batman (blocky muscles on
> Batman seem too unreal, lack of detail, too much solid colors, blah,
> blah, blah).
Possibly the difficulty for you is that you want a more traditionally
realistic portrayal of Batman, ala Neal Adams. With the artistic
success of the animated series, plus a continued "hot" association with
Manga-influenced artwork, I suspect you won't be happy with a lot of the
Bat-art, or indeed mainstream comic art in general, that we'll be seeing
in the future. Minimal is very popular ATM.
> What I think might be going on with Tec is one of two thing:
>
> 1) DC is trying to save money. Limited colors save on printing costs.
> Little detail speeds up production of panels. They surely can't
> reduce the number of pages since the issues are embarrassing thin as
> they are.
The number of pages in a comic has been the same for a very long time,
and 'Tec actually comes in as more than average with the backup feature
(regardless of any statements on the quality of that...). As for
cost-cutting, I very much doubt it. If there was a large-scale move to
reduce the palette in DC books, then perhaps. But for 2-thirds of one
monthly comic book? Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
> 2) Maybe someone in DC has some "artistic bug" up their ... *cough*
> ... and think this is "cool", "provocative", "as stark as Batman", or
> whatever.
It'd be interesting to know what kind of control Greg exerts over the
colour-scheme of the issue. But my money would be on the "artistic
bug", although I personally quite like artistic bugs, regardless of
where they might be inserted... :-)
> Scott Jensen
__
/\thagoras
--
http://www.stsm.demon.co.uk/pythoughts/ - Updated 27/3/01
... Hire teenagers while they still know everything.
Scott T. Jensen
> "Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> > What's up with the artistic
> > style of Tec? It just doesn't
> > do it for me.
>
> While I agree that sometimes
> it does just... well, lack purpose really,
That's an understatement.
> I think that I'd prefer that the
> Bat-comics continue to experiment with
> artistic styles...
As I've even stated elsewhere in this thread and a number of times in this
newsgroup, I like them to experiment. Trying out something new. Trying to
raise Bat titles to a new level. However...
> ...regardless of
> if they hit the mark or not.
This I totally disagree with. If it doesn't hit the mark, it should be
discontinued. To do otherwise if either stupid or careless. And if you're
careless with a comic title, you sure its appeal.
> The
> character has been an icon for
> so many years that I *like* seeing
> different interpretations, and
> personally support the idea that an art
> style that may not push people's
> buttons in traditional ways is tried
> and stuck with for a while.
What logic is behind that? Forcing an artistic style that you know
consumers don't like. Experimenting with an artistic style is fine. I
found the first time they did this current style to be interesting.
However, it got old and tiresome by even the second issue. Also it has an
amateurish look to it. Something I'd expect students midway through an
anatomy drawing class to be doing. Not supposedly done by some of the top
professional artists in the business.
> > The whole issue of Tec #758 was
> > in gray-blues and dull-browns. How
> > depressing!
>
> It could be argued that the world
> being portrayed is depressing. The
> writing certainly edges on the
> side of gritty and realistic.
Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed. If I want to do that, I can
just open up my mail and pay my bills. Also it was depressing regardless of
what the story was at the time.
> > And detailing is almost non-existent.
> > Lack of detail I'd expect and
> > understand for an animated television
> > series, but NOT for a comic
> > book.
>
> Hmm... Detail doesn't say quality.
> More important is panel
> composition, use of planned blank
> space, storytelling.
Then the current Tec style fails on these points ... for this reader.
> > ...and somewhat like/tolerate <the
> > art> in Batman (blocky muscles on
> > Batman seem too unreal, lack of
> > detail, too much solid colors, blah,
> > blah, blah).
>
> Possibly the difficulty for you is
> that you want a more traditionally
> realistic portrayal of Batman, ala
> Neal Adams.
No, I want professional-looking artwork. Artwork that wows me. Artwork
that I will go back and just look at regardless of what the caption says.
It can be almost any style. All I ask is that you wow me with it. That it
compliments and supports the story being told. I am all in favor of
experimentation as long as there's logic behind it. Not experimentation
simply for experimentation sake. I'd be on the constant outlook for an
artist that can take a Bat title to a higher level. An artist that when I
see their work, I go "Wow! This is impressive! Let's sign this artist up
and treat our readers to his (her) brilliance." And then I wait and see if
the fans agree with that assessment. If not, the search goes on. If so,
the search goes on for when that artist moves on, burns out, or style
because "old".
> With the artistic
> success of the animated series,
> plus a continued "hot" association with
> Manga-influenced artwork, I suspect
> you won't be happy with a lot of the
> Bat-art, or indeed mainstream comic
> art in general, that we'll be seeing
> in the future. Minimal is very popular ATM.
Please don't take this harshly, but please don't assume something about me.
Simply ask me and I'll tell you. Having said that...
I loved the animated series. I enjoyed it's artistic style immensely. That
and the stories and the character development. I haven't seen the comic
books give as much page space as the animated series gave airtime to Bruce
Wayne. And I liked how they presented Bruce Wayne.
I also see nothing wrong with carrying over this style into one of the Bat
titles, which I believe it is. However, to have all the Bat titles do this
style is something I do not agree with. You can do far more detailing in a
comic book than you can do in an animated series. Does detailing mean
quality. Of course not. But it can be done in a comic book and when it is
done right, it is a treat for the eye.
> > What I think might be going on
> > with Tec is one of two thing:
> >
> > 1) DC is trying to save money.
> > Limited colors save on printing costs.
> > Little detail speeds up production
> > of panels. They surely can't
> > reduce the number of pages since
> > the issues are embarrassing thin as
> > they are.
>
> The number of pages in a comic has
> been the same for a very long time...
Did I say they weren't?
> As for
> cost-cutting, I very much doubt it.
> If there was a large-scale move to
> reduce the palette in DC books,
> then perhaps. But for 2-thirds of one
> monthly comic book?
I've commissioned a lot of printing jobs in my life and the number of colors
you want done in a printing dramatically affects the cost of that printing.
> Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
What? Did I say there was some conspiracy? Wanting to cut costs is a
standard procedure for any business. That taking that into consideration
when picking an artistic style is logical by me and something I would
expect. Is it something I'd expect them to boast to Bat fans about? No,
but that doesn't make it evil or a "man in the bushes" conspiracy to
speculate this has been done.
> > 2) Maybe someone in DC has some
> > "artistic bug" up their ... *cough*
> > ... and think this is "cool", "provocative",
> > "as stark as Batman", or
> > whatever.
>
> It'd be interesting to know what kind
> of control Greg exerts over the
> colour-scheme of the issue.
Yes, it would be.
MadiHolmes
>and Bruce. How in a way Batman and Bruce are like Two-Face in the aspect of
>two separate identities.
>
Parallel is the word.
Most of the Batman's villians have this curious "parallelism" with the big guy.
Two-Face being right up there.
>
>Possibly somewhere between these two extreme. The closer they're to
>Batman's world, the more their colors fade, grays increase, and black and
>white starts taking over. The closer they're to Bruce's world, the opposite
>happens.
Of course, this begs the question as to where the scene deals with both Bruce
and Bats equally.
I don't know. Sounds kinda schizophrenic to me.
MadiHolmes
Matches Malone
<s...@home.com> said
>What's up with the artistic style of Tec? It just doesn't do it for me. At
>times it is amateurish (top right panel on page 3 of Tec #758). At other
>times, it is way too heavy (left mid panel on page 15 of Tec #758). The
>proportions are usually off ... not by a lot but to where my eye tells me
>they are. And since I'm already down Bitchn' Road, the coloring it
>unappealing. The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns.
>How depressing! And detailing is almost non-existent. Lack of detail I'd
>expect and understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a comic
>book.
Totally disagree here. I think the art on TEC is outstanding. I
like Martinbrough's clean, uncluttered style. Adding lots of detail
does not always improve art. I like the coloring, too, although some
schemes work better than others (I thought #742 and #747 were the
best). The coloring scheme gives the book a "night-time" look, which
IMO works really well for Batman.
--
"Oh sure, like lawyers work in big skyscrapers and have secretaries.
Look at him. He's wearing a belt! That's Hollywood for you."
- Lionel Hutz, watching L.A. Law
David Lawrence
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010521163228...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
I agree. When they 1st started using these unusual color schemes, I wasn't
sure it was a good thing, as the series has progressed (and upon rereading
the earlier issues) I've seen just how appropriate the colors can be to the
overall effect of the stories. I hope they continue this pattern for awhile
longer.
--David...I'm also enjoying the Tec covers, some of the best Bat-covers in
quite awhile.
Chris Small
>What's up with the artistic style of Tec? It just doesn't do it for me.
I'm enjoying it a lot. I liked Sean Martinbourgh's art since I was first
introduced to it in
CREEPER, (a short-lived title from the mid-90's) and it's great to see how far
he's developed his
style in such a short time since then. Martinbourgh draws unusually realistic
characters,
attractive (proportionate) women, and puts a great amount of intensity and
feeling in character's
faces. His style is a nice change from the Kirby and Adams clones the
mainstream market is
saturated in.
> And since I'm already down Bitchn' Road, the coloring it
> unappealing. The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns.
I'm enjoying the coloring as well. It creates great atmosphere, complements the
setting, and most
importantly, it's thoroughly *different* from everything else out there. New
direction, new
techniques, and a pleasant aesthetic effect at that.
>How depressing!
Depressing? In Batman? Never. ;)
> And detailing is almost non-existent.
> Lack of detail I'd expect and understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a
> comic book.
Lack of detail where? In the coloring, or the art as a whole?
As others have mentioned, details don't make a piece good or bad, but I don't
see how
Martinbrough's art has any lack of detail. He's not a minimalist, nor is he
using line-art. As far
as detail goes, I don't see that he implements any more or less then most other
artists in the field.
> I only have my comic bookstore pull three Bat titles: Tec, Batman, and
> Batgirl. What I'd like is for these to be ones I enjoy BOTH for the stories
> and the art. I'm not enjoying the art in Tec. I like it in Batgirl (though
> it would be too crisp for a Bat title featuring Batman) and somewhat
> like/tolerate it in Batman (blocky muscles on Batman seem too unreal, lack
> of detail, too much solid colors, blah, blah, blah).
I'm not a huge fan of McDaniel's work -- I like his use of unusual angles and
perspective, but his
facial features and bodies have left much to be desired in his most recent work.
I prefer his
older stuff: His work in DAREDEVIL was much more shadowy, which suited his
style well,
and his characters in TWO-FACE: Crime and Punishment much less blocky. I'm not
sure how
much the inkers have had to do with this variety.
> What I think might be going on with Tec is one of two thing:
> 1) DC is trying to save money. Limited colors save on printing costs.
> Little detail speeds up production of panels.
> 2) Maybe someone in DC has some "artistic bug" up their ... *cough* ... and
> think this is "cool", "provocative", "as stark as Batman", or whatever.
> If I had to lay down money, I'd bet it on the first one. Cost-cutting.
Absolutely not. In Denny O'Neil's 'From the Den' (was that his final one? )
which ran in the
March 2000 bat-titles O'Neil alludes to the work that went into the designs form
art director
Mark Chiarello.
It's highly experimental, and yeah, someone at the Bat-offices might have the
same artistic bug as
I do, but there's no evidence that the decision was based on cutting corners.
You might not like Martinbourgh's art, or what's being done with the colors, and
that's fine, but to
attack an artistic decision and unfoundedly dismissing the work of artists as
corporate deceit is
uncalled for.
~Chris
Scott T. Jensen
> You might not like Martinbourgh's art,
> or what's being done with the colors, and
> that's fine, but to
> attack an artistic decision and
> unfoundedly dismissing the work of artists as
> corporate deceit is
> uncalled for.
What deceit are you referring to? That's as stupid as calling what I'm
speculating as being some conspiracy.
If part or a major deciding factor in using simplistic art and only two
colors an issue was a budgetary decision, I'd understand. Not agree with
it, but understand how the business managers would be in favor of it. I
could even seen whoever wanted this artistic style using the budget angle as
one of its selling points. Just as I could see the accounting department
arguing that something like this should be at least looked into and the
editorial side saying that they'll look into it and coming up with the
current artistic style. Is this deceit? A conspiracy? Only by those that
think there's something wrong with capitalism and businesses turning a
profit. However, again, I wouldn't agree with such a decision and would say
they're hurting themselves in the long run.
Chris Small
>> The character has been an icon for
>> so many years that I *like* seeing
>> different interpretations, and
>> personally support the idea that an art
>> style that may not push people's
>> buttons in traditional ways is tried
>> and stuck with for a while.
>What logic is behind that? Forcing an artistic style that you know
>consumers don't like. Experimenting with an artistic style is fine. I
>found the first time they did this current style to be interesting.
>However, it got old and tiresome by even the second issue.
You'll not that Pi didn't say 'lousy art that no one likes', but 'art that may
not push people's
buttons in *traditional ways*'
The logic is that new things must be introduced for an art form to grow. The
initial response
might not all be positive, but give the readers credit -- they'll discover non
traditional aspects in
the art that please them in different ways then the old things.
There's no 'forcing an artistic style that you know consumers don't like.' In
regards to this
particular issue, the response here seems to have been overwhelmingly positive.
You don't like
it, and that's fine, you don't have to, but consumers aren't having anything
forced upon them.
>> It could be argued that the world
>> being portrayed is depressing. The
>> writing certainly edges on the
>> side of gritty and realistic.
> Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed. If I want to do that, I can
> just open up my mail and pay my bills.
Then you might want to consider reading ARCHIE and MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES
exclusively. Comics, like any other medium, cover a variety of story types,
moods, and genres.
There's nothing wrong with some of them being depressing.
>> Possibly the difficulty for you is
>> that you want a more traditionally
>> realistic portrayal of Batman, ala
>> Neal Adams.
>
>No, I want professional-looking artwork.
What is unprofessional about the artwork in 'Tec, other then the fact that you
don't like it?
> And then I wait and see if the fans agree with that assessment.
I think we've had this conversation before, but I'll go on again....
What the fans think is not always what is most important here.
These creators are storytellers and *artists.* Not consumer whores.
Ultimately they may run a
risk of losing money if the consumer does not like what they are doing, but that
doesn't change the
fact that they are artists. Lambasting them for their artistic choices isn't
necessary.
You wouldn't look at a Michelangelo painting and say he has no business being an
artist
because you don't like his work, you'd just move on to another painting, or go
to another chapel,
and leave him alone. Maybe everyone else will do the same, in which case it's
his loss, but
allow him to keep his integrity as an artist, and not insist that he change his
style or be replaced
just because it's not your thing.
>Please don't take this harshly, but please don't assume something about me.
He didn't 'assume' he 'suspected.' ;)
>I loved the animated series. I enjoyed it's artistic style immensely. That
>and the stories and the character development. I haven't seen the comic
>books give as much page space as the animated series gave airtime to Bruce
>Wayne. And I liked how they presented Bruce Wayne.
>I also see nothing wrong with carrying over this [the animated series] style into one of the Bat
>titles, which I believe it is. However, to have all the Bat titles do this
>style is something I do not agree with.
What indication do you have that all the bat-titles are implementing the
animated series style?
The animated series is a form of minimalist art, but not all minimalist art
looks like cartoons.
It can look like ACME NOVELTY WAREHOUSE or GOODBYE CHUNKY RICE as well.
I still don't see what about Martinbrough's art is minimalist though.
Burchett's, maybe, but he
hasn't done most of the art in the run.
>> Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
>What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
He didn't say you did -- he said 'conspiratorial' as an adjective not 'a
conspiracy' as a noun.
>> It'd be interesting to know what kind
>> of control Greg exerts over the colour-scheme of the issue.
>
>Yes, it would be.
That it would.
~Chris
Chris Small
>Chris Small wrote:
>> You might not like Martinbourgh's art,
>> or what's being done with the colors, and
>> that's fine, but to attack an artistic decision and
>> unfoundedly dismissing the work of artists as
>> corporate deceit is uncalled for.
>What deceit are you referring to? That's as stupid as calling what I'm
>speculating as being some conspiracy.
>
>Is this deceit? A conspiracy? Only by those that
>think there's something wrong with capitalism and businesses turning a
>profit.
I'm not a capitalist, no, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You've completly ignored my point and decided to rant pick apart and one word,
rather then address the point I was making.
That's a pretty good way to lose an argument.
~Chris
D. E. Kesler
I think that I will wade in a bit at this point. I am not assuming
anything, but I think I hear what Scott is saying. In my work I called
upon to present some idea or concept to those who are above me. In the
course of pitching my grand ideas I will place emphasis on any money
saving aspect of my proposal. After all, in any business, the bottom
line is indeed what it is all about. That does not mean that I was
thinking about the money when the idea initially occurred to me. It is
simply the method by which I sell the idea to those who employ me.
I think that this is what Scott is talking about here. Of course, I
could be wrong.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Scott T. Jensen
> Scott mumbled:
And with the above "Scott mumbled:" so starts Chris' condescending remarks.
> The logic is that new things must be
> introduced for an art form to grow.
You consider the current artistic style of Tec new? You need to broaden
your comic reading and also of what has been done in the past ... and not
just by DC Comics.
> There's no 'forcing an artistic style
> that you know consumers don't like.' In
> regards to this
> particular issue, the response here seems
> to have been overwhelmingly positive.
What? At the posting of this post, there has only been nine people in this
thread so far. Three of whom find the style lacking to one degree or
another. One of the nine didn't even express an opinion on the style but
posted about another matter. To then say the response is "overwhelming" is
just over-stretching it.
> >> It could be argued that the world
> >> being portrayed is depressing. The
> >> writing certainly edges on the
> >> side of gritty and realistic.
> > Sorry, I don't buy comics to get
> > depressed. If I want to do that, I can
> > just open up my mail and pay my bills.
>
> Then you might want to consider reading
> ARCHIE and MICKEY MOUSE ADVENTURES
> exclusively.
You might like consider discussing things like an adult and that means not
making demeaning comments such as the one above.
> Comics, like any other medium,
> cover a variety of story types,
> moods, and genres.
> There's nothing wrong with some
> of them being depressing.
There is something wrong when the artistic style causes a mood that doesn't
compliment the story.
> >> Possibly the difficulty for you is
> >> that you want a more traditionally
> >> realistic portrayal of Batman, ala
> >> Neal Adams.
> >
> >No, I want professional-looking artwork.
>
> What is unprofessional about the artwork
> in 'Tec, other then the fact that you
> don't like it?
How about you read the entire thread before commenting? I pointed what
you're asking about in my original post.
> > And then I wait and see if the
> > fans agree with that assessment.
>
> I think we've had this conversation before...
No, we haven't. And by your tone, I don't think I will want to.
> What the fans think is not always
> what is most important here.
Tell that to the publishers.
> These creators are storytellers
> and *artists.* Not consumer whores.
Then why do they produce for one of the longest-running comic properties?
If they're such free-will free-spirit individuals as I'm interpreting your
statement, then what's wrong with their creativity? Why can't they produce
something truly original? Why must they sponge off of the creative genius
of others?
And do you really think for a second that the publisher will allow writers
and artists to do just whatever they want with the Batman franchise? That
the publisher doesn't care what their consumers think and feel about their
product?
> Ultimately they may run a
> risk of losing money if the consumer
> does not like what they are doing, but that
> doesn't change the
> fact that they are artists.
Who have been hired to work on a long-standing corporate franchise.
> Lambasting them
> for their artistic choices isn't
> necessary.
I do not hold the artists accountable, but the editor and publisher. The
ones that hire the artists.
> You wouldn't look at a Michelangelo
> painting and say he has no business being an
> artist
> because you don't like his work, you'd
> just move on to another painting, or go
> to another chapel,
> and leave him alone. Maybe everyone
> else will do the same, in which case it's
> his loss, but
> allow him to keep his integrity as an
> artist, and not insist that he change his
> style or be replaced
> just because it's not your thing.
Unlike you, I consider the fans of Batman as much part of the process as the
artists, writers, editors, and publisher. But, then again, I'm a marketer
by profession. I don't subscribe to the concept of the "unwashed masses".
> >I loved the animated series. I enjoyed
> >it's artistic style immensely. That
> >and the stories and the character
> >development. I haven't seen the comic
> >books give as much page space as the
> >animated series gave airtime to Bruce
> >Wayne. And I liked how they presented
> >Bruce Wayne. I also see nothing wrong with
> > carrying over this [the animated series] style
> >into one of the Bat titles, which I believe it is.
> >However, to have all the Bat titles do this
> >style is something I do not agree with.
>
> What indication do you have that all the
> bat-titles are implementing the
> animated series style?
You haven't figured this out yet? Again, I suggest you read my original
post that started this thread.
> >> Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
> >What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
>
> He didn't say you did -- he said 'conspiratorial'
> as an adjective not 'a
> conspiracy' as a noun.
Look up "conspiratorial" in a dictionary. You might be surprised by what it
implies.
Scott T. Jensen
> I think that I will wade in a bit at this point. I am not assuming
> anything, but I think I hear what Scott is saying. In my work I called
> upon to present some idea or concept to those who are above me. In the
> course of pitching my grand ideas I will place emphasis on any money
> saving aspect of my proposal. After all, in any business, the bottom
> line is indeed what it is all about. That does not mean that I was
> thinking about the money when the idea initially occurred to me. It is
> simply the method by which I sell the idea to those who employ me.
>
> I think that this is what Scott is talking about here. Of course, I
> could be wrong.
No, you're not wrong. You hit it right on the head.
3.1415926535897932.....
s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> "Chris Small" wrote:
> > Scott mumbled:
>
> And with the above "Scott mumbled:" so starts Chris' condescending
> remarks.
Hey, let's all tumble free-fall into an argument about Chris' Internet
software, shall we... :-)
Scott, it's what his mail program automatically puts at the top of a
message, not a personal attack.
> > The logic is that new things must be introduced for an art form to
> > grow.
>
> You consider the current artistic style of Tec new? You need to
> broaden your comic reading and also of what has been done in the past
> ... and not just by DC Comics.
Personally, I view the development of the visual style in Batman comics,
or even mainstream comics, to exist separately from the development in
other areas of the industry. The styles of artists working in a
corporate structure is greatly limited by said structure. So, if
suddenly JLA was drawn in the style of... erm... (rats, I've forgotten
his name... the guy who draws Johnny the Homicidal Maniac... oh well,
I'll just use another example), say Crumb, that would be an
extraordinarily ground-breaking move, regardless of the fact that Crumb
happens to have been drawing comics for decades before.
To my knowledge (and I'll admit it's not comprehensive), there haven't
been many Batman comics that have utilized the kind of two-tone palette
that is currently employed in 'Tec. And, regardless of whether it is an
earth-shattering success, it is *movement*. Movement is always good in
art, and that's a *FACT*, not an opinion.
> > > > It could be argued that the world being portrayed is depressing.
> > > > The writing certainly edges on the side of gritty and realistic.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed. If I want to do that,
> > > I can just open up my mail and pay my bills.
> >
> > Then you might want to consider reading ARCHIE and MICKEY MOUSE
> > ADVENTURES exclusively.
>
> You might like consider discussing things like an adult and that means
> not making demeaning comments such as the one above.
The comment is a fair one, regardless of the tone or implications.
Comics, as a medium, are not there to improve the reader's mood. They
are telling a story. So if you "don't buy comics to get depressed", you
need to choose those which are going to lift your mood. And, with
increasing regularity, Batman is not an optimistic view of a happy world
in which the good are rewarded and the bad punished.
> > Comics, like any other medium, cover a variety of story types,
> > moods, and genres. There's nothing wrong with some of them being
> > depressing.
>
> There is something wrong when the artistic style causes a mood that
> doesn't compliment the story.
Name one issue of 'Tec under Rucka and Martinborough that hasn't, in
whole or in sections, had an edgy, saddening, depressing or otherwise
tragic mood? In fact, name me a Greg Rucka story that hasn't?
(And nobody say "Weenout"!)
> > > > Possibly the difficulty for you is that you want a more
> > > > traditionally realistic portrayal of Batman, ala Neal Adams.
> > >
> > > No, I want professional-looking artwork.
> >
> > What is unprofessional about the artwork in 'Tec, other then the
> > fact that you don't like it?
>
> How about you read the entire thread before commenting? I pointed
> what you're asking about in my original post.
Again, this is a fair point. You have criticised many elements of
Martinborough's art, but with the exception of the anatomy (which I
disagree with, I can't see anything wrong with it apart from it's
relative simplicity) all of your comments have been about personal
taste.
I don't want to have it seem like I'm just intent on jumping up and down
on your posts, but I have to say that replacing "I want artwork that
looks like other professional artwork" with "I want professional
artwork" doesn't cut it for me. And regardless of what you may think of
anatomy accuracy or any other technical aspect of art, a "professional"
is defined by the fact that he is *paid*, as in:
Professional a. Of, belonging to, connected with, a profession...
(performing for monetary reward; opp. amateur)
> > What the fans think is not always what is most important here.
>
> Tell that to the publishers.
What's important to the publishers are the *readers*, not the fans.
We're the fans, we're the ones who bother to write about the books, to
analyse the art and try and attack or defend it. The readers are the
thousands of others who *are* buying the book. That's who the
Publishers listen to. Hooray for democracy! :-)
> > These creators are storytellers and *artists.* Not consumer
> > whores.
>
> Then why do they produce for one of the longest-running comic
> properties? If they're such free-will free-spirit individuals as I'm
> interpreting your statement, then what's wrong with their creativity?
> Why can't they produce something truly original? Why must they sponge
> off of the creative genius of others?
To pay the bills, in the same way that so many writers, artists, actors,
academics and musicians hold down second jobs. I know writers who get
published, who have novels you can pick up off the shelves, who work for
supermarkets in order to supplement their income. C'e la vie.
> And do you really think for a second that the publisher will allow
> writers and artists to do just whatever they want with the Batman
> franchise? That the publisher doesn't care what their consumers think
> and feel about their product?
I'm sure that they do (although the publisher probably only talks to the
Editors, rather than with the writers and artists), but unfortunately
neither you nor I are truly indicative of what the consumers feel about
the product.
> > Ultimately they may run a risk of losing money if the consumer does
> > not like what they are doing, but that doesn't change the fact that
> > they are artists.
>
> Who have been hired to work on a long-standing corporate franchise.
So they're professional artists.
> > Lambasting them for their artistic choices isn't necessary.
>
> I do not hold the artists accountable, but the editor and publisher.
> The ones that hire the artists.
But that renders discussion of the art immaterial. If you want to
communicate with the Editor, you write a letter *to them*. If you want
to communicate with the publisher, you *stop buying the book*. If you
don't like the art, then obviously you can *also* write here and say so,
but to call them unprofessional, to criticise them for their choice of
colouring, even to say that your own art is almost as good as theirs,
that's not discussion, that's just an attack.
> > >However, to have all the Bat titles do this <animated> style is
> > >something I do not agree with.
> >
> > What indication do you have that all the bat-titles are implementing
> > the animated series style?
>
> You haven't figured this out yet? Again, I suggest you read my
> original post that started this thread.
Chris clearly doesn't agree with me that Martinborough's art is minimal
in the same way the Animated series is, or at least has been considered
commercially acceptable in the light of the success of the animated
series. But Batman (McDaniel), and to a lesser, compositional extent
Gotham Knights (Robinson) I would say are more influenced by Japanese
comic art than stuff by Toth and the other inspirators of Timm.
> > > > Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
> > > What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
> >
> > He didn't say you did -- he said 'conspiratorial' as an adjective
> > not 'a conspiracy' as a noun.
>
> Look up "conspiratorial" in a dictionary. You might be surprised by
> what it implies.
(Since I had the dictionary open for "professional"...)
It implies unlawful intent. So I was incorrect in it's usage.
"Subversive" or "insidious" might have been better.
> Scott Jensen
__
/\thagoras
--
http://www.stsm.demon.co.uk/pythoughts/ - Updated 27/3/01
... GUT : God's Undiscovered Thoughts
3.1415926535897932.....
s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> <P...@stsm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think that I'd prefer that the Bat-comics continue to experiment
> > with artistic styles...
>
> As I've even stated elsewhere in this thread and a number of times in this
> newsgroup, I like them to experiment. Trying out something new. Trying to
> raise Bat titles to a new level. However...
>
> > ...regardless of
> > if they hit the mark or not.
>
> This I totally disagree with. If it doesn't hit the mark, it should be
> discontinued. To do otherwise if either stupid or careless. And if you're
> careless with a comic title, you sure its appeal.
This is a point more about art in general than Batman comics. A single
issue of 'tec featuring the reduced colour palette wouldn't have made
much impact. Those who liked it would have noted it, those who didn't
would have shuddered a little and moved on. But the kind of feedback
that you get over a year is a much more valuable comment on the impact
of the art than that on one issue.
In the same way, a single painting (or sculpture, or installation, or
multi-media exhibition) in a controversial style is an oddity. A series
of them is a statement, and is viewed in a different light.
>
> > The
> > character has been an icon for
> > so many years that I *like* seeing
> > different interpretations, and
> > personally support the idea that an art
> > style that may not push people's
> > buttons in traditional ways is tried
> > and stuck with for a while.
>
> What logic is behind that? Forcing an artistic style that you know
> consumers don't like.
No, not that consumers don't like, it's something that you, and others
on this group, don't like. AFAIK 'Tec continues to sell well. I would
say that trying things that are not traditionally popular or commonplace
with a character that has been around for 60-odd years is a sensible
move. How many times do we *want* to see the same artists drawing the
same character with the same colour-palette sensibilities?
> > > The whole issue of Tec #758 was in gray-blues and dull-browns. How
> > > depressing!
> >
> > It could be argued that the world being portrayed is depressing.
>
> Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed.
Without trying to sound funny, it's something that you might want to
try. Books like "V for Vendetta", "Fax from Sarajevo" or "From Hell"
are all brilliant and engaging stories which, nonetheless, depress the
hell out of me. A lot of the best writing can be found in the stories
which crush your spirit and hope, as well as in those that lift you to
new heights of optimism. My favourite single Batman issue, for example,
is "Batman: Death of Innocents", a one-shot on the terror of land-mines.
A tragic ending, really powerful and engaging.
> > > And detailing is almost non-existent. Lack of detail I'd expect
> > > and understand for an animated television series, but NOT for a
> > > comic book.
> >
> > Hmm... Detail doesn't say quality. More important is panel
> > composition, use of planned blank space, storytelling.
>
> Then the current Tec style fails on these points ... for this reader.
In what way? Martinborough's action sequences never fail to be clear to
me, his art in 'Tec 743 (the first issue, post NML, I think that was the
number) was truly brilliant, use of shadow and extreme angles plus
clearly defined characters, as was a lot of the Gotham action during the
Ra's Al Ghul story (the 5-days, 5 gangs, 5 panels, 1 Batman image sticks
with me).
I can appreciate that someone might not *like* the style, minimal and
lots of flat colour panels, but technically, it's pretty good.
> No, I want professional-looking artwork. Artwork that wows me.
That's the difference then. I'm more interested in the artist's ability
to tell a story.
> > With the artistic success of the animated series, plus a continued
> > "hot" association with Manga-influenced artwork, I suspect you won't
> > be happy with a lot of the Bat-art, or indeed mainstream comic art
> > in general, that we'll be seeing in the future. Minimal is very
> > popular ATM.
>
> Please don't take this harshly, but please don't assume something
> about me. Simply ask me and I'll tell you.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make assumptions. I just based this on the fact
that your criticisms of the current Bat-art included "too crisp" for
Batgirl, "exaggerated muscles" for Batman and "lack of detail" for both
Batman and 'Tec, all of which are features whose popularity and
acceptance have their roots in the hyper-kinetic and physically unlikely
Manga-influenced art, as well as the success of the BTAS style.
> I loved the animated series.
I think everyone did. :-) But there are those who dislike the fact that
the minimalist style has been carried over into DCU titles. I don't
know if you picked up "Daredevil: Ninja", but I know of an aspiring
artist who refused to even glance at it because Rob Hayes' (sp?) artwork
was so close to his own, yet he had been turned down for a job by Marvel
only a year or so before. The fact is that the success of the animated
series changed a lot of perceptions in the comic industry.
> You can do far more detailing in a comic book than you can do in an
> animated series. Does detailing mean quality. Of course not. But it
> can be done in a comic book and when it is done right, it is a treat
> for the eye.
There are a lot of comics whose main aim is to produce "pretty" artwork,
where the artist's style is, in many respects, more important that the
writing or the story. Occasionally you find true collaboration of
talent, like on Planetary or Top Ten, where the writing is powerful, the
storytelling is solid, there's lots of detail and it *doesn't distract
from the action*. But they're few and far between, and to expect that
of the Bat-comics is, I think, a pipedream. You can't have the kind of
creative freedom with Batman as you do with creator-owned projects.
> > > 1) DC is trying to save money. Limited colors save on printing
> > > costs. Little detail speeds up production of panels. They surely
> > > can't reduce the number of pages since the issues are embarrassing
> > > thin as they are.
> >
> > The number of pages in a comic has
> > been the same for a very long time...
>
> Did I say they weren't?
No, but I thought it was worth pointing out. A film can't be
"embarrassingly short" at an hour and a half when there's a long
tradition of hour and a half films. Similarly, I would argue, a 32 page
comic can't be embarrassingly short when there have always been lots of
32 page comics around. Y'dig? :-)
> > As for cost-cutting, I very much doubt it. If there was a
> > large-scale move to reduce the palette in DC books, then perhaps.
> > But for 2-thirds of one monthly comic book?
>
> I've commissioned a lot of printing jobs in my life and the number of
> colors you want done in a printing dramatically affects the cost of
> that printing.
I bow out to you on that one. I still find it unlikely, but perhaps an
initial drop in costs at the beginning of Bob Schreck's stint might have
looked good on the books.
> > Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
>
> What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
No... but there was an implication that this was a cunning trick to rob
the Bat-fans of their rightfully owed colours.
(Maybe I'm just paranoid...)
> Scott Jensen
__
/\thagoras
--
http://www.stsm.demon.co.uk/pythoughts/ - Updated 27/3/01
... Does all the comedy on TV influence the amount of comedy on the street?
Scott T. Jensen
>s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> > <P...@stsm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I think that I'd prefer that the
> > > Bat-comics continue to experiment
> > > with artistic styles...
> >
> > As I've even stated elsewhere in this
> > thread and a number of times in this
> > newsgroup, I like them to experiment.
> > Trying out something new. Trying to
> > raise Bat titles to a new level. However...
> >
> > > ...regardless of
> > > if they hit the mark or not.
> >
> > This I totally disagree with. If it
> > doesn't hit the mark, it should be
> > discontinued. To do otherwise
> > if either stupid or careless. And if you're
>
> This is a point more about art in
> general than Batman comics. A single
> issue of 'tec featuring the reduced
> colour palette wouldn't have made
> much impact. Those who liked it
> would have noted it, those who didn't
> would have shuddered a little and
> moved on. But the kind of feedback
> that you get over a year is a much
> more valuable comment on the impact
> of the art than that on one issue.
And this artistic style has been used for over a year. At first, I thought
it was interesting. Something different. But that only lasted for a short
while. I've waited for them to change. They haven't. Again, it has been
over a year now. I don't expect any post and this thread of posts to change
anything at DC. From what I understand, they don't monitor this newsgroup
... which is just stupid in my opinion as a professional marketer. Thus my
original post is simply venting of steam. I was also hoping for a
discussion as to why they choice this style in the first place and possibly
when it might be stopped and another tried. Unfortunately, that discussion
doesn't seemed to have happened yet ... though Loren did say the style might
be coming to an end with a new artist coming aboard soon.
> In the same way, a single painting
> (or sculpture, or installation, or
> multi-media exhibition) in a
> controversial style is an oddity. A series
> of them is a statement, and
> is viewed in a different light.
And not always in a positive light. And I slightly disagree with you. One
of something can make a statement and shouldn't be repeated or the original
statement will lose some of its impact or the subsequent style copies hurt
it by not adding anything new. For example, "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" by
Art Spiegelman made a HUGE impact. Did it make a statement? Beyond
question. Would a series have improved it? No, very likely the opposite.
> > > The
> > > character has been an icon for
> > > so many years that I *like* seeing
> > > different interpretations, and
> > > personally support the idea that an art
> > > style that may not push people's
> > > buttons in traditional ways is tried
> > > and stuck with for a while.
> >
> > What logic is behind that? Forcing
> > an artistic style that you know
> > consumers don't like.
>
> No, not that consumers don't like,
> it's something that you, and others
> on this group, don't like.
Pssst. I'll let you in on a secret. *Scott looks around before whispering
into Pi's ear.* I'm a consumer. ;-)
When one of my clients gets a complaint letter from a consumer, I always
tell them that the letters represents more than just that one consumer.
That consumer got upset enough to actually take the time to compose and send
that complaint letter. That there are many others that feel the same way
but never took the time and effort to do as that one consumer did and that
there are even more that feel that the same way but to a lesser degree.
And then if you were to do an analysis of me as a Batman consumer based on
what I've written in the past in this newsgroup, you'd find that as a
consumer I haven't been that concerned with the art of Bat titles as their
stories. That I choose the Bat titles my comic bookstore pulls solely on
which had the story elements I wanted in them and/or didn't want in them.
In other words, I'm more forgiving of artwork. Now when a consumer-type
like me complains about artwork, it means the artwork is so bad that it is
now affecting my enjoyment of the story. Not a very good sign.
> AFAIK 'Tec continues to sell well.
Which is a meaningless statement since you cannot say for certain. In other
words, you do not have the circulation numbers to make such a statement. If
you did, I would assume you would have posted them to support your
statement. Also, rising dissatisfaction with one aspect of anything is hard
to judge. Even if the circulation numbers were falling, I wouldn't jump and
say they were because of the current amateurish artistic style. It could be
the storyline is what is turning people off. It could be exterior factors
out of the control of the publisher, such as a downturn in the economy.
Possibly a good chunk of Bat fans had been working for dot.com companies.
> I would
> say that trying things that are not
> traditionally popular or commonplace
> with a character that has been
> around for 60-odd years is a sensible
> move.
And I haven't said anything in this thread that would disagree with that.
> How many times do we *want*
> to see the same artists drawing the
> same character with the same
> colour-palette sensibilities?
Precisely. The current artist for Tec has been doing it for over a year
now. Time to move on.
> > > Scott Jensen wrote:
> > > > The whole issue of Tec #758 was in
> > > > gray-blues and dull-browns. How
> > > > depressing!
> > >
> > > It could be argued that the world
> > > being portrayed is depressing.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed.
>
> Without trying to sound funny, it's
> something that you might want to
> try.
And it is something I have done. I have a lot of friends who are comic
fans. Taken as a whole, we cover all the different types of comics that's
out there. We commonly lend issues to each other that we have found
surprisingly good. We have had countless discussions about the merits of
each and every title as well as the industry and trends. When
"Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud came out, it sparks some of the best
discussions we ever had. And when Mr. McCloud's "Reinventing Comics"
followed, it sparked off still another round of great discussions. And when
one doesn't know much about a title, another always lends them prime-choice
issues of that title to read over so they do get an understanding. Again,
if you had asked, I would have told you this.
> Books like "V for Vendetta", "Fax
> from Sarajevo" or "From Hell"
> are all brilliant and engaging stories
> which, nonetheless, depress the
> hell out of me.
I've read "V for Vendetta" and "From Hell". I didn't get so much depressed
as bored with them.
> A lot of the best writing can
> be found in the stories
> which crush your spirit and hope,
> as well as in those that lift you to
> new heights of optimism.
That is your perspective. I would disagree.
> My favourite single Batman issue, for example,
> is "Batman: Death of Innocents", a
> one-shot on the terror of land-mines.
> A tragic ending, really powerful and engaging.
I think you're getting what I'm saying a little confused. I'm not saying
the stories of Tec depress me. I'm saying the artistic style depresses me
... even when the story is upbeat. If you don't see this as a problem, then
I don't know what else I can say to make you see the point I'm trying to
make.
> I can appreciate that someone
> might not *like* the style, minimal and
> lots of flat colour panels, but
> technically, it's pretty good.
Read my original post for examples.
> > No, I want professional-looking
> > artwork. Artwork that wows me.
>
> That's the difference then. I'm more
> interested in the artist's ability
> to tell a story.
As am I. That is why I have only Tec, Batman, and Batgirl pulled by my
local comic bookstore. However, having said that, I do expect more of the
artwork than what I can do ... or rather at least more than one level above
what I can do with the case in point. Especially for Batman which is one of
the flagship titles of DC Comics. Thus I do not think expecting to be
wow-ed by the art is asking too much. In fact, it would surprise me if the
publisher doesn't have that as one of their goals. Great storyline being
the other.
> > > With the artistic success of the
> > > animated series, plus a continued
> > > "hot" association with Manga-influenced
> > > artwork, I suspect you won't
> > > be happy with a lot of the Bat-art,
> > > or indeed mainstream comic art
> > > in general, that we'll be seeing
> > > in the future. Minimal is very
> > > popular ATM.
> >
> > Please don't take this harshly,
> > but please don't assume something
> > about me. Simply ask me and I'll tell you.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to make
> assumptions. I just based this on the fact
> that your criticisms of the current
> Bat-art included "too crisp" for
> Batgirl,
Then possibly your problem is that you skim what I've written and get it
mixed up in your head. Re-read my comments about Batgirl's artistic style.
To quote: "I like it in Batgirl (though it would be too crisp for a Bat
title featuring Batman)..." In case you still have problems understanding
what I meant by that statement, I was saying that while it works in Batgirl,
the artistic style used for her title would be too crisp of a style for a
title where the focus is Batman.
> "exaggerated muscles" for Batman....
Please do NOT present quoted phrases that I did NOT say.
> > I loved the animated series.
>
> I think everyone did. :-) But there
> are those who dislike the fact that
> the minimalist style has been carried
> over into DCU titles.
I would be one of those.
> > You can do far more detailing in
> > a comic book than you can do in an
> > animated series. Does detailing
> > mean quality. Of course not. But it
> > can be done in a comic book and
> > when it is done right, it is a treat
> > for the eye.
>
> There are a lot of comics whose
> main aim is to produce "pretty" artwork,
> where the artist's style is, in many
> respects, more important that the
> writing or the story. Occasionally
> you find true collaboration of
> talent, like on Planetary or Top Ten,
> where the writing is powerful, the
> storytelling is solid, there's lots of
> detail and it *doesn't distract
> from the action*. But they're few and
> far between, and to expect that
> of the Bat-comics is, I think, a pipedream.
> You can't have the kind of
> creative freedom with Batman as you
> do with creator-owned projects.
No, I think just the opposite is true. I think expecting a great story and
great artwork in a creator-owned project is expecting too much of such a
venture. Expecting great story and art from a long-established flagship
franchise like Batman is a reasonable expectation. Especially one that
big-budget movies, animated television series, tons of merchandise, etc. are
based off. If the publisher of Batman is willing to accept anything but the
best for Bat titles, the corporation that owns DC needs to replace that
publisher as soon as possible with someone that realizes the importance of
keeping the cornerstone of the franchise in pristine condition.
> > > > 1) DC is trying to save money.
> > > > Limited colors save on printing
> > > > costs. Little detail speeds up
> > > > production of panels. They surely
> > > > can't reduce the number of pages
> > > > since the issues are embarrassing
> > > > thin as they are.
> > >
> > > The number of pages in a comic has
> > > been the same for a very long time...
> >
> > Did I say they weren't?
>
> No, but I thought it was worth
> pointing out.
Which is meaningless since I wasn't saying they were getting shorter.
> A film can't be
> "embarrassingly short"...
Please read up on the proper usage of quotes.
> ...at an hour
> and a half when there's a long
> tradition of hour and a half films.
> Similarly, I would argue, a 32 page
> comic can't be embarrassingly short
> when there have always been lots of
> 32 page comics around. Y'dig? :-)
If you can't understand what I meant by the above, I don't know what else I
can say. Just note that I never made reference to history. I was making a
perceived-value-for-dollar statement.
> > > As for cost-cutting, I very
> > > much doubt it. If there was a
> > > large-scale move to reduce
> > > the palette in DC books, then perhaps.
> > > But for 2-thirds of one monthly comic
> > > book?
> >
> > I've commissioned a lot of printing
> > jobs in my life and the number of
> > colors you want done in a printing
> > dramatically affects the cost of
> > that printing.
>
> I bow out to you on that one. I
> still find it unlikely, but perhaps an
> initial drop in costs at the beginning
> of Bob Schreck's stint might have
> looked good on the books.
And could have been one of the selling points for getting it tried and
having it last as long as it has been.
> > > Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
> >
> > What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
>
> No... but there was an implication that this was
> a cunning trick to rob
> the Bat-fans of their rightfully owed colours.
Again, you saw what wasn't there.
> (Maybe I'm just paranoid...)
Or possibly wanting to push me in a direction that would be easier disagree
with.
Scott T. Jensen
> s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> > "Chris Small" wrote:
> > > Scott mumbled:
> >
> > And with the above "Scott mumbled:"
> > so starts Chris' condescending
> > remarks.
>
> Hey, let's all tumble free-fall into an
> argument about Chris' Internet
> software, shall we... :-)
>
> Scott, it's what his mail program
> automatically puts at the top of a
> message, not a personal attack.
I very strongly doubt this is the default setting for any mail program.
Whether it was just used for me or all of his reply posts, it is still
condescending.
> > > The logic is that new things must
> > > be introduced for an art form to
> > > grow.
> >
> > You consider the current artistic
> > style of Tec new? You need to
> > broaden your comic reading and
> > also of what has been done in the past
> > ... and not just by DC Comics.
>
> Personally, I view the development of
> the visual style in Batman comics,
> or even mainstream comics, to exist
> separately from the development in
> other areas of the industry.
I was only referring to the comic industry.
> And, regardless of whether it is an
> earth-shattering success, it is
> *movement*. Movement is always good in
> art, and that's a *FACT*, not an opinion.
A fact? No, it's highly debatable when the style is retro. Retro styles
usually mean a lack of creativity currently in an industry.
> > > > > It could be argued that the
> > > > > world being portrayed is depressing.
> > > > > The writing certainly edges
> > > > > on the side of gritty and realistic.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't buy comics to get
> > > > depressed. If I want to do that,
> > > > I can just open up my mail and pay my bills.
> > >
> > > Then you might want to consider
> > > reading ARCHIE and MICKEY MOUSE
> > > ADVENTURES exclusively.
> >
> > You might like consider discussing
> > things like an adult and that means
> > not making demeaning comments
> > such as the one above.
>
> The comment is a fair one, regardless
> of the tone or implications.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree. If you don't understand how that
statement was demeaning, then you're either using blinders because it agrees
with your position or you also lack certain social skills. No statement is
fair when presented in a demeaning way.
> Comics, as a medium, are not there
> to improve the reader's mood.
They are here to entertain.
> They
> are telling a story. So if you "don't
> buy comics to get depressed", you
> need to choose those which are
> going to lift your mood. And, with
> increasing regularity, Batman is not
> an optimistic view of a happy world
> in which the good are rewarded and
> the bad punished.
I've been reading Bat titles for over 27 years and have collected the titles
before that time. If you don't think Batman is a symbol of hope, I would
say you don't understand what Batman represents. The good might not get
rewarded in the Bat Universe, but the bad almost always gets punished ...
usually quite personally by Batman before he turns them over to the police.
The Bat story isn't about hopelessness. Just the opposite. It is about a
man trying to change his beloved city into something better. Batman trying
to prevent it from slipping down further and Bruce trying to raise it up. I
do not get depressed reading Batman because the character NEVER gives up.
That is one of his hallmarks. It is one of his greatest features. Made
even more astounding in that Batman is "simply" a man. No super-powers. No
gift of highly-advanced alien technology given to him. No super-natural
background. It is what makes him truly unique in JLA. It is one of the
main reasons I'm a Bat fan.
> > > Comics, like any other medium, cover a variety of story types,
> > > moods, and genres. There's nothing wrong with some of them being
> > > depressing.
> >
> > There is something wrong when the artistic style causes a mood that
> > doesn't compliment the story.
>
> Name one issue of 'Tec under Rucka and Martinborough that hasn't, in
> whole or in sections, had an edgy, saddening, depressing or otherwise
> tragic mood?
#755 "Here's Your Hat, What's Your Hurry?"
> In fact, name me a Greg Rucka story that hasn't?
Also #756 "Lord of the Ring"
> > > > > Possibly the difficulty for
> > > > > you is that you want a more
> > > > > traditionally realistic portrayal
> > > > > of Batman, ala Neal Adams.
> > > >
> > > > No, I want professional-looking
> > > > artwork.
> > >
> > > What is unprofessional about the
> > > artwork in 'Tec, other then the
> > > fact that you don't like it?
> >
> > How about you read the entire
> > thread before commenting? I pointed
> > what you're asking about in my original post.
>
> Again, this is a fair point. You
> have criticised many elements of
> Martinborough's art, but with the
> exception of the anatomy (which I
> disagree with, I can't see anything
> wrong with it apart from it's
> relative simplicity) all of your
>comments have been about personal
> taste.
>
> I don't want to have it seem like
> I'm just intent on jumping up and down
> on your posts, but...
Now watch as you do.
> ...I have to say
> that replacing "I want artwork that
> looks like other professional artwork"
> with "I want professional
> artwork" doesn't cut it for me. And
> regardless of what you may think of
> anatomy accuracy or any other
> technical aspect of art, a "professional"
> is defined by the fact that he is *paid*, as in:
>
> Professional a. Of, belonging to,
> connected with, a profession...
> (performing for monetary
> reward; opp. amateur)
It is hard to have a discussion with you when you do things like this. If
you didn't understand what I meant by professional level artwork, then
there's not much I can say. You whipping out the dictionary indicates to me
that you're using poor debate techniques and/or have a problem with multiple
definitions for a single word.
> > > What the fans think is not
> > > always what is most important here.
> >
> > Tell that to the publishers.
>
> What's important to the publishers
> are the *readers*, not the fans.
That you think these two groups are separate is amazing.
> We're the fans, we're the ones who
> bother to write about the books, to
> analyse the art and try and attack
> or defend it. The readers are the
> thousands of others who *are*
> buying the book.
Right. Sure. Fans don't buy Bat titles.
> That's who the
> Publishers listen to. Hooray for
> democracy! :-)
Again, I don't know what to say to you. You seems very mixed up.
> > > These creators are storytellers
> > > and *artists.* Not consumer
> > > whores.
> >
> > Then why do they produce for
> > one of the longest-running comic
> > properties? If they're such
> > free-will free-spirit individuals as I'm
> > interpreting your statement,
> > then what's wrong with their creativity?
> > Why can't they produce something
> > truly original? Why must they sponge
> > off of the creative genius of others?
>
> To pay the bills...
Many would then call them whores of one sort or another. Personally, I
wouldn't.
> ...in the same way
> that so many writers, artists, actors,
> academics and musicians hold
> down second jobs. I know writers
> who get published, who have novels you
> can pick up off the shelves, who work for
> supermarkets in order to supplement
> their income. C'e la vie.
It is amusing how you don't want us to generalize the discussion to other
industries when doing so would go against your position and then you do with
it might support your decision. Now let me do one of your spins: Please
name someone that works on Batman that isn't a full-time artist?
> > And do you really think for a
> > second that the publisher will allow
> > writers and artists to do just
> > whatever they want with the Batman
> > franchise? That the publisher doesn't
> > care what their consumers think
> > and feel about their product?
>
> I'm sure that they do (although the
> publisher probably only talks to the
> Editors, rather than with the
> writers and artists), but unfortunately
> neither you nor I are truly indicative
> of what the consumers feel about
> the product.
Again, that you think we're somehow not consumers or that our views don't
represent segments of consumers is amazing. Then again, I might have just
realized something. You don't buy Bat titles, do you? That would explain
this outlook.
> > > Ultimately they may run a risk of
> > > losing money if the consumer does
> > > not like what they are doing, but
> > > that doesn't change the fact that
> > > they are artists.
> >
> > Who have been hired to work
> > on a long-standing corporate franchise.
>
> So they're professional artists.
Again, you're mixing two different definitions of a word I've used.
> > > Lambasting them for their
> > > artistic choices isn't necessary.
> >
> > I do not hold the artists
> > accountable, but the editor and publisher.
> > The ones that hire the artists.
>
> But that renders discussion of
> the art immaterial. If you want to
> communicate with the Editor, you
> write a letter *to them*. If you want
> to communicate with the publisher,
> you *stop buying the book*.
No, probably the best one to write a complaint letter to is the publisher.
They're usually more concerned about their consumers' views than are
editors.
> If you
> don't like the art, then obviously
> you can *also* write here and say so,
> but to call them unprofessional,
> to criticise them for their choice of
> colouring, even to say that your own
> art is almost as good as theirs,
> that's not discussion, that's just an attack.
No, that's an opinion. The original post was an opinion. What followed was
a discussion of that opinion. As for calling them unprofessional, I didn't.
I called the artwork not at a professional level. I know you have a problem
seeing the difference between these two statements, but I can't think what
else I can say to make you see it. And to criticize and compare can be
viewed as an "attack" if you want to use such harsh words, such as words
like "conspiratorial".
> > > > > Nothing as conspiratorial
> > > > > as you make out.
> > > >
> > > > What? Did I say there was
> > > > some conspiracy?
> > >
> > > He didn't say you did -- he
> > > said 'conspiratorial' as an adjective
> > > not 'a conspiracy' as a noun.
> >
> > Look up "conspiratorial" in a
> > dictionary. You might be surprised by
> > what it implies.
>
> (Since I had the dictionary open
> for "professional"...)
>
> It implies unlawful intent. So I
> was incorrect in it's usage.
> "Subversive" or "insidious"
> might have been better.
How would my statement mean that they were somehow overthrowing or
attempting to overthrow the title? Quite hard to do when you OWN it. And
did I say they were being dishonest with us? Trying to hide the facts from
us? Deceiving us? No.
jayembee
> Totally disagree here. I think the art on TEC is outstanding.
> I like Martinbrough's clean, uncluttered style.
I'm with you.
-- jayembee (jerry period boyajian at-sign eds period com)
"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."
jayembee
> What logic is behind that? Forcing an artistic style that
> you know consumers don't like.
And exactly how do you know that DC knows that consumers
don't like it, and force it on them anyway? Hell, how do you
know that consumers don't like it?
The comments on the art that appear in the lettercols seem
to suggest that reaction to the art style has been positive
across the rank and file of readers. I'd also warrant that they
are looking at sales figures for the title. If sales are up, that
would suggest that they're doing something right.
> Experimenting with an artistic style is fine. I found the first
> time they did this current style to be interesting. However,
> it got old and tiresome by even the second issue.
No, YOU found it tiresome. Why are you extrapolating your
opinion of it onto the readership at large?
> Also it has an amateurish look to it.
Not to me, it doesn't.
> Something I'd expect students midway through an anatomy
> drawing class to be doing. Not supposedly done by some of
> the top professional artists in the business.
And some people think Picasso wasn't a professional because
he didn't paint people as they appear in real life.
>> It could be argued that the world being portrayed is
>> depressing. The writing certainly edges on the side
>> of gritty and realistic.
> Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed. If I want to
> do that, I can just open up my mail and pay my bills.
So don't buy DETECTIVE any more. Buy the other Bat
titles with art styles that you prefer. But don't take this one
distinctive looking book away from those of us who like it.
> I loved the animated series. I enjoyed it's artistic style
> immensely. [...] I also see nothing wrong with carrying
> over this style into one of the Bat titles, which I believe
> it is. However, to have all the Bat titles do this style is
> something I do not agree with.
And what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
It's not as if Martinbrough's style in DETECTIVE is being
carried over to all of the other Bat-titles.
> You can do far more detailing in a comic book than you can
> do in an animated series. Does detailing mean quality. Of
> course not. But it can be done in a comic book and when it
> is done right, it is a treat for the eye.
And when it's done incorrectly, it's an eyesore. Personally, I find
that to be the case with McDaniel's work. I know a lot of people
like it, but I don't. It's *overly* detailed, and much too busy.
MadiHolmes
>I very strongly doubt this is the default setting for any mail program.
>Whether it was just used for me or all of his reply posts, it is still
>condescending.
I very strongly doubt that he changed his mail program just to be condescending
to you.
>
>A fact? No, it's highly debatable when the style is retro. Retro styles
>usually mean a lack of creativity currently in an industry.
>
Oh come on. Styles are always going "back" to something. Retro is just one of
them. I very rarely see anything truly "innovative" that doesn't have a
correlation to something that was done before <fashion and movies are just two
examples>.
And I rather like retro, especially the 20s-50s.
>
>> Comics, as a medium, are not there
>> to improve the reader's mood.
>
>They are here to entertain.
That's a bit condescending. Comics <or sequential art> is an artform <read
Scott McCloud's book on the subject>. Art is not always "entertaining." <Bosche
and David's "Death of Marat" comes to mind>.
Movies are not always "cute."
Books, television, and any other mass media is not always "entertaining."
To just write off comics in such a manner is to do them a great disservice.
> If
>you didn't understand what I meant by professional level artwork, then
>there's not much I can say.
I understood what you meant.
But you do need to clarify a bit on "professional" <as you even stated that
there was more than one definition. I'm not being condescending here, I just
want to know what you think of "professional artwork."
To make a point, many people consider Andy Warhol to be a pinnacle of
professional artwork, while I fit in the category that consider his work to be
completely overrated and idiotic.
However, I have seen advertisements from the 40s and 50s which I DO consider to
be wonderful art <Rosie the Riveter is a good example>. But here "professional
artwork" in terms of trying to sell an item means something <where it be
American propaganda, cigarettes, or pulps> different from the professional
artwork of Monet or Jack Vettriano.
I just would like to have a slight clarification on your definition.
MadiHolmes
3.1415926535897932.....
"Scott T. Jensen" <s...@home.com> wrote:
> Pssst. I'll let you in on a secret. *Scott looks around before
> whispering into Pi's ear.* I'm a consumer. ;-)
But it's difficult to say whose opinions are indicative of general
consumer feeling. I buy 'Tec partly on the strength of Martinborough's
art. Possibly that makes me a monstrosity beyond salvage in your book,
but I would hesitate before siding the consumer world on either side of
such a personal preference.
> > AFAIK 'Tec continues to sell well.
>
> Which is a meaningless statement since you cannot say for certain.
I can, I just couldn't be bothered. I admit that I'm not a great fan of
technical debate or argument, so I'm a little slack-handed.
Detective Comics sold, in May of this year, 41,070 copies, placing it at
#26 in the top 100 comics sales figures, slightly below Batman, at
43,360 and ranked at 24th.
> > How many times do we *want* to see the same artists drawing the same
> > character with the same colour-palette sensibilities?
>
> Precisely. The current artist for Tec has been doing it for over a
> year now. Time to move on.
Perhaps. At any rate, I'm sure that the publishers will follow through
on any letters of complaint, in the style you outline, and make a
judgement on whether it will continue. If the art team does change,
we might find out if Greg Rucka does have any control over the artistic
side of production; we may see the colour scheme stay the same as long
as he's writing. Or, perhaps as long as that Editor is in charge of the
book.
> > > Sorry, I don't buy comics to get depressed.
> >
> > Without trying to sound funny, it's something that you might want to
> > try.
>
> And it is something I have done.
> <snip>
> Again, if you had asked, I would have told you this.
I've gotta say, Scott, you're actually scaring me now. I truly
apologise for any assumptions or lack of clarity in my writing. I'll do
my best to avoid them in future. :-)
> I think you're getting what I'm saying a little confused. I'm not
> saying the stories of Tec depress me. I'm saying the artistic style
> depresses me .. even when the story is upbeat.
Then clearly the difference between us is that I don't find artistic
style itself depressing. Perhaps this is a limitation of my own, as I
don't have a great deal of experience with criticising fine art.
> Then possibly your problem is that you skim what I've written and get
> it mixed up in your head. Re-read my comments about Batgirl's
> artistic style. To quote: "I like it in Batgirl (though it would be
> too crisp for a Bat title featuring Batman)..."
Again, my apologies. I partly mis-read your statement, but possibly was
also influenced by my feeling that the content of Batgirl and Batman
are quite similar, both in the characters peripherally featured as well
as the actions of the protagonists. (Batgirl, obviously, has different
plotlines and focuses.)
> > "exaggerated muscles" for Batman....
>
> Please do NOT present quoted phrases that I did NOT say.
Again, you are right, I paraphrased from "...blocky muscles on Batman
seem too unreal...", taking exaggeration from "blocky" and "unreal".
Possibly my use of quotation marks was improper, but I felt the sense of
your statement was communicated. Again, I will avoid these in future.
> I think expecting a great story and great artwork in a creator-owned
> project is expecting too much of such a venture.
Looking at it from the other direction, it's not suprising that the
truly great comic artists, when presented with the opportunity, want to
work on projects that inspire them, rather than on a character they had
no part in the creation of. Perhaps this is an example of where
artistic integrity, or perhaps basic creative passion, overrules money.
> > > > 1) DC is trying to save money. Limited colors save on printing
> > > > costs. Little detail speeds up production of panels. They
> > > > surely can't reduce the number of pages since the issues are
> > > > embarrassing thin as they are.
> <snip>
> If you can't understand what I meant by the above, I don't know what
> else I can say. Just note that I never made reference to history. I
> was making a perceived-value-for-dollar statement.
I assumed history. Yet again, I am in the wrong.
> > > > Nothing as conspiratorial as you make out.
> > >
> > > What? Did I say there was some conspiracy?
> >
> > No... but there was an implication that this was
> > a cunning trick to rob
> > the Bat-fans of their rightfully owed colours.
>
> Again, you saw what wasn't there.
>
> > (Maybe I'm just paranoid...)
>
> Or possibly wanting to push me in a direction that would be easier
> disagree with.
It would have to be both, since I *am* fairly paranoid, but please
believe me when I say I take very little pleasure in disagreeing with
people. My posts are only confined to the subjects I have an opinion
on, and as some might know, while I'm often irritatingly obsessed in
trying to get my points across repeatedly, I *hate* argument. So, now
that I think I've gotten my opinion across and apologised for all my
inaccuracies in this sub-thread, I'll stop bothering you with my
contributions here.
> Scott Jensen
__
/\thagoras, genuinely scared...
--
http://www.stsm.demon.co.uk/pythoughts/ - Updated 27/3/01
... ((((((((HYPNOTIC))))))))((((((TAGLINE))))))))
3.1415926535897932.....
"Scott T. Jensen" <s...@home.com> wrote:
> <P...@stsm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > s...@home.com ("Scott T. Jensen") wrote:
> > > "Chris Small" wrote:
> > > > Scott mumbled:
> > >
> > > And with the above "Scott mumbled:"
> > > so starts Chris' condescending
> > > remarks.
> >
> > Hey, let's all tumble free-fall into an
> > argument about Chris' Internet
> > software, shall we... :-)
> >
> > Scott, it's what his mail program
> > automatically puts at the top of a
> > message, not a personal attack.
>
> I very strongly doubt this is the default setting for any mail program.
> Whether it was just used for me or all of his reply posts, it is still
> condescending.
While I'm happy to apologise for anything I've written, I can't do so
for Chris. Personally, I mumble a lot and don't think there's anything
wrong with doing so, so don't find it condescending, rather just... I
don't know, cute maybe?
> > And, regardless of whether it is an earth-shattering success, it is
> > *movement*. Movement is always good in art, and that's a *FACT*, not
> > an opinion.
>
> A fact? No, it's highly debatable when the style is retro. Retro styles
> usually mean a lack of creativity currently in an industry.
I don't see a reduced colour scheme as retro. Simplified, yes, in the
same way that, as I've mentioned, a lot has been cut down and
streamlined in the comic industry, but not retro. And I stand by my
comment about movement in art, as I personally believe that retro, while
possibly short-lived, potentially has the scope to inspire artists to
move off in other directions.
> > Comics, as a medium, are not there to improve the reader's mood.
>
> They are here to entertain.
As a medium? No, I don't think they are, no more than any other medium
is. As you mentioned in another part of the thread that you've read
"Understanding Comics", I would suggest that you're confusing the medium
with the message, as McCloud outlines.
> I've been reading Bat titles for over 27 years and have collected the
> titles before that time. If you don't think Batman is a symbol of
> hope, I would say you don't understand what Batman represents.
I haven't been reading for nearly as long as that, but I certainly feel
I understand the character. Ultimately, the character may be a symbol
of hope, but his actions are unending and often hope*less*. Batman will
never finish, never conclusively succeed, because regardless of whatever
he may overcome, there is never any conclusion. Very few problems are
cured, only stopped until the next time they surface. There is always
tomorrow night, and the next and the next. And Bruce Wayne will always
be a tragic and tortured soul, no matter how many lives he saves.
That's what I get from the character, uplifting or inspiring as his
actions may be. Ultimately, it's always a tragic story.
> > Name one issue of 'Tec under Rucka and Martinborough that hasn't, in
> > whole or in sections, had an edgy, saddening, depressing or otherwise
> > tragic mood?
>
> #755 "Here's Your Hat, What's Your Hurry?"
>
> > In fact, name me a Greg Rucka story that hasn't?
>
> Also #756 "Lord of the Ring"
Once again, I have to admit I am wrong, although I haven't yet read 756,
as I am still looking for the Superman issue to accompany it.
> > I don't want to have it seem like I'm just intent on jumping up and
> > down on your posts, but...
>
> Now watch as you do.
My intent is *not* to make you wrong. I'm attempting to apologise for
any and all innaccuracies I have made, and will withdraw once I'm happy
I've made all my (possibly flawed) points clearly.
> > ...I have to say
> > that replacing "I want artwork that
> > looks like other professional artwork"
> > with "I want professional
> > artwork" doesn't cut it for me. And
> > regardless of what you may think of
> > anatomy accuracy or any other
> > technical aspect of art, a "professional"
> > is defined by the fact that he is *paid*, as in:
> >
> > Professional a. Of, belonging to,
> > connected with, a profession...
> > (performing for monetary
> > reward; opp. amateur)
>
> It is hard to have a discussion with you when you do things like this.
> If you didn't understand what I meant by professional level artwork,
> then there's not much I can say.
I dispute your criticism of his lack of professionalism. I find it
clear, engaging, enjoyable, intelligent and fitting. And, as I say,
*regardless* of your disagreement, by *one* definition of the word, it
*is* professional. I can have more than one definition for a word in my
head, and have attempted to defend it for two of them (albiet not in the
same paragraph).
> You whipping out the dictionary indicates to me that you're using poor
> debate techniques and/or have a problem with multiple definitions for
> a single word.
It would have to be the former, as I have no "debate techiques". I'm
simply writing down what comes into my head. Again, I apologise for any
lack of technical correctness in my posting.
> > > > What the fans think is not
> > > > always what is most important here.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the publishers.
> >
> > What's important to the publishers
> > are the *readers*, not the fans.
>
> That you think these two groups are separate is amazing.
A fan is, IMO, a subset of the group "readers", namely a much more
involved and interested reader who treats the material in a more serious
and possibly academic way than a casual or occasional reader.
> > > > These creators are storytellers and *artists.* Not consumer
> > > > whores.
> > >
> > > Then why do they produce for one of the longest-running comic
> > > properties? If they're such free-will free-spirit individuals as I'm
> > > interpreting your statement, then what's wrong with their
> > > creativity? Why can't they produce something truly original? Why
> > > must they sponge off of the creative genius of others?
> >
> > To pay the bills...
>
> Many would then call them whores of one sort or another. Personally, I
> wouldn't.
Neither would I.
> It is amusing how you don't want us to generalize the discussion to
> other industries when doing so would go against your position and then
> you do with it might support your decision.
I truly don't remember saying that we shouldn't include the discussion
of other industries in this thread. Perhaps I'm forgetful.
> Now let me do one of your spins: Please name someone that works on
> Batman that isn't a full-time artist?
I couldn't. I could name someone who works elsewhere as well as for the
Bat-office, but presumably that wouldn't suffice.
To your comments about opinions, attacks, criticism and comparison,
perhaps I'm best just saying that I feel that there are constructive and
engaged versions which are open to the influence of their opposing
equivalents. But perhaps this is another example of my poor debate
technique.
> How would my statement mean that they were somehow overthrowing or
> attempting to overthrow the title? Quite hard to do when you OWN it.
> And did I say they were being dishonest with us? Trying to hide the
> facts from us? Deceiving us? No.
Indeed you did not.
> Scott Jensen
I look forward to any other opinions or corrections you may venture, and
will bother you with my poorly executed replies no longer.
__
/\thagoras
--
http://www.stsm.demon.co.uk/pythoughts/ - Updated 27/3/01
... The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it.
Matches Malone
<cs_b...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> said
>What the fans think is not always what is most important here.
>
>These creators are storytellers and *artists.* Not consumer whores.
>Ultimately they may run a
>risk of losing money if the consumer does not like what they are doing, but that
>doesn't change the
>fact that they are artists. Lambasting them for their artistic choices isn't
>necessary.
Moreover, it's often impossible to discern what "the fans think",
because fans are not a monolithic group. One can speak in
generalities, i.e. "the fans hated Hama on BATMAN", but there are
still folks out there who are true fans who loved Hama's stuff.
>I still don't see what about Martinbrough's art is minimalist though.
>Burchett's, maybe, but he
>hasn't done most of the art in the run.
I'll just throw in a gratuitous plug for Burchett here. Burchett
may be one of the 3-4 best artists in comics right now. IMO his stuff
is just amazing.
Matches Malone
<s...@home.com> said
{snipped}
Dude, you're really getting bent out of shape about this. No one is
trying to insult you here. You don't like TEC, that's fine. There
are some here who disagree with you, and no doubt some who agree. But
it's not personal. Different strokes for different folks, and all
that.
Matches Malone
<s...@home.com> said
>P...@stsm.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> ...at an hour and a half when there's a long
>> tradition of hour and a half films. Similarly, I would argue, a 32 page
>> comic can't be embarrassingly short when there have always been lots of
>> 32 page comics around. Y'dig? :-)
>
>If you can't understand what I meant by the above, I don't know what else I
>can say. Just note that I never made reference to history. I was making a
>perceived-value-for-dollar statement.
FWIW I totally agree with Scott here. Comparing a 32 page comic from
2001 with a 32 page comic from 1981 is apples and oranges. We got
much more story per issue back in the old days. I feel old.
Scott T. Jensen
> >I very strongly doubt this is the
> >default setting for any mail program.
> >Whether it was just used for me or
> >all of his reply posts, it is still
> >condescending.
>
> I very strongly doubt that he changed
> his mail program just to be condescending
> to you.
Whether it is to me or all he replies to, it is still condescending.
> >A fact? No, it's highly debatable
> >when the style is retro. Retro styles
> >usually mean a lack of creativity currently
> >in an industry.
>
> Oh come on. Styles are always going
> "back" to something.
The "nothing new under the Sun" argument. How far to do you hold this
position? Do you believe there is a difference between people who try to
innovate and those that merely copy the past?
> >> Comics, as a medium, are not there
> >> to improve the reader's mood.
> >
> >They are here to entertain.
>
> That's a bit condescending.
So they're not here to entertain?
Do you think that entertainers are somehow lower than "art for art sake"
artists? I don't. Just the opposite. I think artists that listen to what
the public likes in their work are superior to those that believe only they
know the answer. That those that listen to their public (not necessarily
always do what the public wants, but do listen) realize that they're very
likely too close to their art to judge it accurately. That something done
on a whim might actually show great flare and deserving more attention,
exploration, and development. For example, the character Gilly in the comic
book Dork Tower.
> Comics <or sequential art> is an artform <read
> Scott McCloud's book on the subject>.
If you had read this thread before replying, you would have read where I
mention that I had read both of McCloud's books on comics.
> Art is
> not always "entertaining." <Bosche
> and David's "Death of Marat"
> comes to mind>.
So you did not feel you received a good return on your money from Bosche and
David? You do not feel you got a good return for your entertainment dollar?
> Movies are not always "cute."
>
> Books, television, and any other
> mass media is not always "entertaining."
>
> To just write off comics in such a manner
> is to do them a great disservice.
You think my remark degrades comics. I do not. I think to be called an
entertainer is one of the highest compliments one can give another.
> >If
> >you didn't understand what I
> >meant by professional level artwork, then
> >there's not much I can say.
>
> I understood what you meant.
>
> But you do need to clarify a bit
> on "professional" <as you even stated that
> there was more than one definition.
> I'm not being condescending here, I just
> want to know what you think of "professional artwork."
Fourth definition of the adjective for the word "professional" at this
dictionary website:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/23/P0582300.html
Loren Di Iorio
: Though Loren did say the style might be coming to an end
: with a new artist coming aboard soon.
Yep - double checked for you. The lettercol to the latest
issue of NW does indeed mention that Jesse Delperdang
will pencil the next two issues of NW, before coming onto
a full-time gig with Tec.
I'm sure Greg Rucka could verify this for us. It's a real
shame; like I said, I've really liked what Martinbrough's
brought to the Bat-table.
: For example, "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" by Art Spiegelman
: made a HUGE impact. Did it make a statement? Beyond
: question.
Of a pleasant note, while in the YorkU bookstore a while
back, I noticed Maus on a course's booklist, with several
copies on the shelf. Comics on a reading list at York. Oh yes. :)
: Pssst. I'll let you in on a secret. *Scott looks around
: before whispering into Pi's ear.* I'm a consumer. ;-)
Well, *I* sure don't eat my books... ;)
: > AFAIK 'Tec continues to sell well.
:
: Which is a meaningless statement since you cannot say for
: certain. In other words, you do not have the circulation
: numbers to make such a statement. If you did, I would
: assume you would have posted them to support your
: statement.
I posted the estimates a couple weeks ago... Let's see:
24 43,360 Batman #591 0.9%
26 41,070 Detective Comics #758 -0.2%
Tec dropped marginally for May, but it's in the general area
of the Top 25, and that's pretty snappy. During NML in '99,
the book sold around 48k per month, on average. That was
due to the interlinked nature of the stories, through each
of the core titles.
: Even if the circulation numbers were falling, I wouldn't jump
: and say they were because of the current amateurish artistic
: style. It could be the storyline is what is turning people off.
: It could be exterior factors out of the control of the publisher,
: such as a downturn in the economy. Possibly a good chunk
: of Bat fans had been working for dot.com companies.
I like option four: maybe it was a conspiracy by Kite-Man. :)
(Well...it *could've* been Kite-Man. ;) )
: I do expect more of the artwork than what I can do ...
: or rather at least more than one level above what I can do
: with the case in point. Especially for Batman which is one
: of the flagship titles of DC Comics. Thus I do not think
: expecting to be wow-ed by the art is asking too much.
After seeing Delperdang's recent work in NW, I gotta say
I still prefer Martinbrough. But I will hold off on criticizing
Delperdang fairly, until I see his Tec work.
...Loren
http://www.geocities.com/gcpdguy/ rocks like socks!
Loren Di Iorio
: And I rather like retro, especially the 20s-50s.
Yes...! Yes, Madi, you rock! :)
: Movies are not always "cute."
There was a cute moment in MotP... When Andrea comes
upon the graveyard, and says, "Maybe they have... Maybe
they sent me."
...okay, so maybe that isn't cute, but it was an awfully
romantic moment in the rain. :)
MadiHolmes
>The "nothing new under the Sun" argument. How far to do you hold this
>position?
<not so much an entertainment as an aberration.>
Styles come and go. I suggest you research these things. Name a movie produced
today, and I'm fairly certain that I can find a direct or indirect correlation
to a movie or genre in the past.
Fashion is VERY cyclical.
Comics has about a new "innovation" about every 10-15 years. But right now,
we're very "retro" in terms of the "sampling" of prior stories, plots, and
characters.
>Do you believe there is a difference between people who try to
>innovate and those that merely copy the past?
Of course, there is. But exactly how much innovation is going on? For every one
truly innovative idea, I'd bet there's 3000 more "copiers." <probably more>
Copying is not exactly a bad thing. Sometimes we get even new innovation from
this. We can improve on previous beliefs or ideas.
But to just dismiss something as "bad" because it's not innovative is very
limiting. Innovation for the sake of innovation <like change or being avant
garde> is a bad thing. I'm sure that many consider pop art and abstract art to
be innovative, but that doesn't exclude that I find most of it to be crap.
>
>So they're not here to entertain?
Not always. It's like movies. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a Danny
Kaye movie. If I want to watch something that's poignant or "harder", I'll
watch Schindler's List or The Manchurian Candidate.
>
>Do you think that entertainers are somehow lower than "art for art sake"
>artists?
Did I say that? I also said that I find some commercial art to be on par with
"real art." For example, I find the Absolut ads to be very entertaining.
Entertainers is a hard word. Some consider that to be an entertainer is to be a
"sell out." I do believe that there is a difference between a "star" and an
"actor." Some "entertainers" I enjoy. Some I don't. But that is true for all
things.
>I think artists that listen to what
>the public likes in their work are superior to those that believe only they
>know the answer.
See.. I don't. Take "a book a year" authors. Most of the time, they just write
"what their public wants." Most cases I've seen has definitely led to lower
quality and lower standards. Sure, they still sell best sellers, but I can
definitely see a decline between their earlier and newer works.
Or take music bands that sing "corporate rock." Yeah, some of the songs have a
catchy beat, the people are all perfect, and the clothes all match their skin
tone, but that doesn't equate equality. It just means that some guy in an
off-white office somewhere decided what 14 year old girls are "into" and build
around that. It's a vicious cycle. One feeds the other.
Now, I'm taking the extreme limit here. I doubt most bands are like this. There
is a fine line as to keeping artistic integrity and keeping the "public" happy.
>That those that listen to their public (not necessarily
>always do what the public wants, but do listen) realize that they're very
>likely too close to their art to judge it accurately.
But there's also a point where the the art goes from "What I see and feel" to
"What the public expects from me." <eg. Thomas Kincade fell into this trap long
ago>
>
>> Art is
>> not always "entertaining." <Bosche
>> and David's "Death of Marat"
>> comes to mind>.
>
>So you did not feel you received a good return on your money from Bosche and
>David? You do not feel you got a good return for your entertainment dollar?
The point of the artist and the art was not to "entertain," but to say
something. David's "Death of Marat" is a visual record of an assasssination.It
has national and historical significance.
> I think to be called an
>entertainer is one of the highest compliments one can give another.
>
But what if they're not there to entertain?
MadiHolmes
D. E. Kesler
Yes. This is true. Of course, what we are really talking about here is
a plot driven tale versus a character driven tale. Personally, I, too,
would like to see a return in emphasis toward good solid plotting.
Character development can reach a point where too little is left to the
imagination; where every aspect of a character is laid bare and defined
and no enigmatic aura is left.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Monica L. Tittle
<jhinh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>I thought the coloring was an interesting artistic choice at first,
Yeah, me too. It really did fit in with that snake lady storyline, but
now it's just getting annoying. *Really* annoying. I don't mind them
dabbling into odd stuff on occation as long as it fits the story, but
this stuff has gone on way too long.
Monica Tittle
histo...@mindspring.com
Bad habits are hard to break. Especially if you like them.
--Found inside a fortune cookie
Ying Ko
>success of the animated series, plus a continued "hot" association with
>Manga-influenced artwork,
What's in the Bat Books isn't Manga Influenced art. It's complete and
utter crap. Manga has something to recommend it (highly stylized, big
dewey eyes, characters look the same from panel to panel) but
Martinbrough and McDaniel have little to recommend them.
I do think Martinbrough is a terrific artist, just not for a superhero
comic book. He's too static in a fluid genre. His style is too staid
for a book or genre that centers around action. Besides that, the
mouths of his characters don't move. And, Bruce has been looking a
lot like Dick Tracy.
While I prefer the Neal Adams approach to graphic storytelling, I
found Kelly Jones artwork to be fun. I'm glad it wasn't around for
very long, but it was fun. Jones was great on Deadman......
Just my disgruntled two cents.....
Ying Ko
Saittoh
-Sai
It's clearly Cam!
(sorry) but . . .
MadiHolmes wrote:
>
> >
> >The "nothing new under the Sun" argument. How far to do you hold this
> >position?
> I made specific references to "mass entertainment," such as movies and fashion
> <not so much an entertainment as an aberration.>
And in many ways there is nothing new under the sun, but surely just
because something is copied, doesn't mean it's not good. Can't you just
take this argument further out to life. Does anyone seriously believe
that they've managed to do something that no one else has ever done
before? In the thousands of years of human history don't we have to
repeat what is gone before, and surely art must also follow this? Just
because the same story is told with a different slant does that make it
the same story or a different one?
> But to just dismiss something as "bad" because it's not innovative is very
> limiting. Innovation for the sake of innovation <like change or being avant
> garde> is a bad thing.
Surely that depends on what you're trying to do with the change? Change
must be a good thing even if we're only talking month to month. Okay,
so having the smae story month after month is a pretty extreme argument,
but after a while don't you have to stop and say that something needs to
change.
I mean Batman's a great character, but personally I'd have to say he's
fallen into a rut. Because people expect a certain amount from him he's
reached the stage where there's very little about him that can be
changed. He's stuck in the urban legend semi-batgod thing that he's
been in IMO for far too long. His stories are starting to become
uninteresting, especially with Grayson trying to expand on the more
psychological aspect of him, the only area that hasn't really been
explored that much. Give him too long, and there just won't be enough
of him to expand upon.
What I'm trying to say (in a very bad and round about way) is haven't we
reached the stage where Batman needs a drastic change to keep him
interesting?
> >
> >So they're not here to entertain?
>
> Not always. It's like movies. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a Danny
> Kaye movie. If I want to watch something that's poignant or "harder", I'll
> watch Schindler's List or The Manchurian Candidate.
Entertainments a very difficult thing to quantify. It's kind of like
"professional" in that sense. I'd have to say that some of the best
movies, books, tv series and comic books out there AREN'T entertianing.
They're interesting, intriguing and sometimes even appalling, but
they're far from entertaining because they deal with characters in
situations that are generally terrible. But it's that very terribleness
(and yes, I'm pretty sure that's not a word) that makes the stories so
gripping. I mean what actually makes a story enjoyable? Or even just
good? Why do we watch or listen these things? Surely it's got less to
do with the happy ending, and more to do with the journey there?
> >I think artists that listen to what
> >the public likes in their work are superior to those that believe only they
> >know the answer.
>
> See.. I don't. Take "a book a year" authors. Most of the time, they just write
> "what their public wants." Most cases I've seen has definitely led to lower
> quality and lower standards. Sure, they still sell best sellers, but I can
> definitely see a decline between their earlier and newer works.
Exactly. I mean most of the famous artists, the ones that have truely
stood the test of time, have been considered bad in their own time
frames (although that's only what I believe, correct me if I'm wrong)
and have died penniless. What we consider to be important at any one
time, isn't necessarily what will stand the test of time, isn't it just
what we consider to be relevant?
But we live in a world that won't be important in ten, twenty years
time, and our own cultrue reference won't necessarily be what is
interesting to the next generation, because they will be going through
different lives to us, even if the general pattern is repeated.
> > I think to be called an
> >entertainer is one of the highest compliments one can give another.
> >
>
> But what if they're not there to entertain?
Then they're there to tell a story, or at the very least present an
idea. It might not be an idea you like or even agree with, but at the
end of the day isn't that what they're there for? To present and idea
and follow it through to it's ultimate conclusion?
> MadiHolmes
Cam