UNCLE SAM sucks
Chris Whyld
Uncle Sam is the one of the worst things I've read from Vertigo in a
long time. Alex Ross' artwork is as gorgeous as usual but the writing is
really bad. There's no sense of narration and the characters only seem
to be excuses to heavily hammer political criticism into the reader's
minds. Uncle Sam seems to drift away without some sense of purpose,
which I guess was more or less the point, but somehow I don't think it
works. Not for me at least.
David Robeson
It's probably unfair to judge until we've seen the second part. I'm not
saying it'll turn out to be brilliant, but let's at least wait 2 more
weeks before we proclaim it a failure.
Dave, who actually enjoyed the first part
Chris Whyld
David Robeson wrote:
>
> It's probably unfair to judge until we've seen the second part. I'm not
> saying it'll turn out to be brilliant, but let's at least wait 2 more
> weeks before we proclaim it a failure.
>
OK, maybe I'm a bit too harsh in my criticism, but seeing that Uncle Sam
is Vertigo's best selling issue to date (ranking 23 in the Nov. top
comic book sales) only fuelled my anger, because it seems that, in these
days and age, people still buy comics because of the artwork, and
writers can go to hell. I mean, apart from Preacher, where are the
Invisibles, Hellblazer, Transmet, etc. ? All these titles sell below
25,000 whereas anything with Alex Ross (as talented as he may be) on it
is guaranteed to become a top-seller.
Leslie Powell
Chris Whyld <chris...@virgin.net> wrote:
> OK, maybe I'm a bit too harsh in my criticism, but seeing that Uncle Sam
> is Vertigo's best selling issue to date (ranking 23 in the Nov. top
> comic book sales) only fuelled my anger, because it seems that, in these
> days and age, people still buy comics because of the artwork, and
> writers can go to hell. I mean, apart from Preacher, where are the
> Invisibles, Hellblazer, Transmet, etc. ? All these titles sell below
> 25,000 whereas anything with Alex Ross (as talented as he may be) on it
> is guaranteed to become a top-seller.
It's not fair, but the reason for this is because humans, being more
connected to images instead of words, can still be attracted to good art
with bad writing. Likewise, bad art can kill a good story with poor
visual storytelling or distractingly bad anatomy, bad backgrounds, etc.
I, for one, actually liked Uncle Sam. It wasn't revolutionary, but it
spoke to me as a black woman much more than comics generally do on a
regular basis, which is a special treat at least for me.
Leslie Powell
Editor: Chrome Virgin, Fandom Stranger
vaga...@winternet.com
Shawn Hill
Leslie Powell (vaga...@parka.winternet.com) wrote:
: It's not fair, but the reason for this is because humans, being more
: connected to images instead of words, can still be attracted to good art
: with bad writing. Likewise, bad art can kill a good story with poor
: visual storytelling or distractingly bad anatomy, bad backgrounds, etc.
My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
Or, more to the point, why is Alex Ross' (to my mind) tedious
super-realism valued over the more expressive and more appropriately
graphic (I like line-work better than painted, any day of the week -- good
inking is what comics are about to me) work of any number of other
artists? I thought the Winter's Edge art was uniformly of high quality,
and wonderfully varied from story to story, far more so than the stories
themselves were.
: I, for one, actually liked Uncle Sam. It wasn't revolutionary, but it
: spoke to me as a black woman much more than comics generally do on a
: regular basis, which is a special treat at least for me.
What did you think of the HOS issue about racism where the black Jurist
was murdered so gruesomely? I couldn't even buy it was so upsetting (give
me buried Egyptians and Black Plague sufferers any day!).
Shawn
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"You're the one who grows distant
when I beckon you near"
----bjork
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Leslie Powell
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
I never said* good anatomy=good art. Distractingly bad anatomy, when it
is not* about expressionism (i.e. Rob Liefeld's work) is* bad to me. I
don't think we differ too much on this. :) I know the difference between,
say, Dave McKean and Jim Lee, you know?
> Or, more to the point, why is Alex Ross' (to my mind) tedious
> super-realism valued over the more expressive and more appropriately
> graphic (I like line-work better than painted, any day of the week -- good
> inking is what comics are about to me) work of any number of other
> artists? I thought the Winter's Edge art was uniformly of high quality,
> and wonderfully varied from story to story, far more so than the stories
> themselves were.
I never read Winter's Edge, so I am not able to comment on this. I was
just saying that I didn't think that neither the story nor the artwork
were bad in Uncle Sam #1, and I thought they both complimented each other
well.
"Tedious super-realism"? Wow. I guess I don't find it so. I liken it to
artwork such as Norman Rockwell and some Rennaissance-era artists. Not
everyone's* cup of tea, but definitely not tedious for me.
> : I, for one, actually liked Uncle Sam. It wasn't revolutionary, but it
> : spoke to me as a black woman much more than comics generally do on a
> : regular basis, which is a special treat at least for me.
> What did you think of the HOS issue about racism where the black Jurist
> was murdered so gruesomely? I couldn't even buy it was so upsetting (give
> me buried Egyptians and Black Plague sufferers any day!).
I must be woefully underread when it comes to comics. I never did* follow
House of Secrets because it didn't grab me at first. Perhaps I should
look into this. What happened?
Being black, I cannot help but notice that the majority of
superheroes/antiheroes/regular people in comics are white and tend not to
even address the issues commonly found in black lives. (Just a note to
any threatened white person out there: I'm not saying that black
experiences should be represented to the detriment of or instead of white
people's, just that I* personally* don't see much of myself there.) With
rare exception (like Frank Miller or Kyle Baker's stuff, for example) I
don't find anyone who even attempts to depict anything close to my world.
It was a refreshing change to see someone at least try to turn an
unwavering eye on what happens/what has happened in worlds such as mine.
This is solely my own opinion. Feel free to feel otherwise. :)
Leslie
Editor: Chrome Virgin/Fandom Stranger
(vaga...@winternet.com)
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Leslie Powell said:
>Being black, I cannot help but notice that the majority of
>superheroes/antiheroes/regular people in comics are white and tend not to
>even address the issues commonly found in black lives. (Just a note to
>any threatened white person out there: I'm not saying that black
>experiences should be represented to the detriment of or instead of white
>people's, just that I* personally* don't see much of myself there.) With
>rare exception (like Frank Miller or Kyle Baker's stuff, for example) I
>don't find anyone who even attempts to depict anything close to my world.
>It was a refreshing change to see someone at least try to turn an
>unwavering eye on what happens/what has happened in worlds such as mine.
A quick off-topic suggestion: You might find a bit more of "yourself" in
the late lamented Milestone books, the late lamented Green Lantern Mosiac,
the soon-to-be-late-lamented Xero, or the not-yet-late Steel and Quantum &
Woody.
Cheers, Todd
"It may be true that never has a more important show been held in a less
important place." - NY Times cultural correspondent Bruce Weber, about the
current display in Grand Rapids of paintings by Renaissance master Perugino
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>Leslie Powell (vaga...@parka.winternet.com) wrote:
>: It's not fair, but the reason for this is because humans, being more
>: connected to images instead of words, can still be attracted to good art
>: with bad writing. Likewise, bad art can kill a good story with poor
>: visual storytelling or distractingly bad anatomy, bad backgrounds, etc.
My pal Shawn Hill said:
>My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
I think that "good anatomy" is =part= of "good art"... it's a necessary
qualification, but not sufficient by itself. Keep in mind that "good
anatomy" doesn't have to be in the realist/naturalist style; I'd argue
that even Picasso's cubist stuff had "good anatomy" because you can tell
that he knows that both eyes are =not= on the same side of the head; he
was doing it for effect. {smile} Seriously, I agree with the school that
says an artist should get realism down before abstracting things, and
Picasso definitely passes that test, so he's qualified to do whatever the
hell he wants.
>Or, more to the point, why is Alex Ross' (to my mind) tedious
>super-realism valued over the more expressive and more appropriately
>graphic (I like line-work better than painted, any day of the week -- good
>inking is what comics are about to me) work of any number of other
>artists?
I think it's because lots of people strongly value realism. Concrete
images that correspond to what we see can help us to imagine that the
images =are= real. During a local brouhaha over some publically-paid-for
abstract art, a letter to the editor of the newspaper seriously asserted
that true art was supposed to be about making an accurate image of
something in the real world. I think he's full of it thinking that's the
definition of =art=, but in terms of =craft=, he has a point. Realism is
one of the first challenges that people face when they're learning to
illustrate, and most never master it. So that's what they typically
aspire to or look up to.
So maybe it's a sign of my artistic immaturity, but I =do= admire Ross'
work. He's no Humberto Ramos, but he gets the job done pretty darn well.
{smile} Seriously, his style fits the kinds of stories he's been doing,
just as Ramos fit /Impulse/, Ted McKeever fit /Plastic Forks/, and Mike
Parobeck fit /Batman Adventures/.
Avram Grumer
In article <348e6933...@news.zippo.com>, ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd
VerBeek, gwm) wrote:
> During a local brouhaha over some publically-paid-for
> abstract art, a letter to the editor of the newspaper
> seriously asserted that true art was supposed to be about
> making an accurate image of something in the real world.
I wonder what the person who wrote that letter thinks an accurate image of
love, or injustice, or the changing quality of light over time looks
like.
> So maybe it's a sign of my artistic immaturity, but I =do= admire Ross'
> work. He's no Humberto Ramos, but he gets the job done pretty darn well.
> {smile} Seriously, his style fits the kinds of stories he's been doing,
> just as Ramos fit /Impulse/, Ted McKeever fit /Plastic Forks/, and Mike
> Parobeck fit /Batman Adventures/.
I think Ross was appropriate for _U.S._, but a bad choice for _Kingdom
Come_, which needed someone who's better at action scenes.
--
Avram Grumer av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram/
"My whole life is interactive, and that doesn't mean a lot
of it doesn't suck" -- Daniel Radosh
kingnothing
>
> >Or, more to the point, why is Alex Ross' (to my mind) tedious
> >super-realism valued over the more expressive and more appropriately
> >graphic (I like line-work better than painted, any day of the week --
good
> >inking is what comics are about to me) work of any number of other
> >artists?
>
tremendous range of feelings in his depictions of US: from confusion,
despair, rage, sadness, fear, etc. Not just in the face, but through body
language, gesture, color, etc.
The line quality of his work is not gestural, but it is certainly not
tedious. It is articulate and purposeful.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd VerBeek, gwm) wrote:
>> During a local brouhaha over some publically-paid-for
>> abstract art, a letter to the editor of the newspaper
>> seriously asserted that true art was supposed to be about
>> making an accurate image of something in the real world.
My pal Avram Grumer said:
>I wonder what the person who wrote that letter thinks an accurate image of
>love, or injustice, or the changing quality of light over time looks
>like.
A Norman Rockwell painting, perhaps?
(I think Rockwell's stuff is great, but it also appeals to people who
can't fathom that anyone would =try= to do an artistic treatment of an
abstract concept.)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Shawn Hill (sh...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: Leslie Powell (vaga...@parka.winternet.com) wrote:
: : It's not fair, but the reason for this is because humans, being more
: : connected to images instead of words, can still be attracted to good art
: : with bad writing. Likewise, bad art can kill a good story with poor
: : visual storytelling or distractingly bad anatomy, bad backgrounds, etc.
: My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
: Or, more to the point, why is Alex Ross' (to my mind) tedious
: super-realism valued over the more expressive and more appropriately
: graphic (I like line-work better than painted, any day of the week -- good
: inking is what comics are about to me) work of any number of other
: artists?
For one, I think it's more pleasing to eyes used to the hyper-realism of
television and other mass media. Hyper-realistic art like Alex's tends to
capture things more cinematically than more iconic or representational
art. To some, it's as much a leap forward as virtual reality is from old
video arcade games.
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: My pal Shawn Hill said:
: >My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
: I think that "good anatomy" is =part= of "good art"... it's a necessary
: qualification, but not sufficient by itself.
Yep, as in "you have to show you know what the rules are before you break
them."
Andrew Ducker
In article <66hjmm$3...@panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>Todd VerBeek, gwm (ver...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: >Leslie Powell (vaga...@parka.winternet.com) wrote:
>
>: My pal Shawn Hill said:
>: >My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
>
>: I think that "good anatomy" is =part= of "good art"... it's a necessary
>: qualification, but not sufficient by itself.
>
>Yep, as in "you have to show you know what the rules are before you break
>them."
I disagree. If you ignore the rules uterly, you can still have 'god
art', it's just not realistic. JTHM, for instance, has cartoony,
overdrawn black and white art in a non-realistic style. But it works
brilliantly for that comic.
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com * I'm a brit. Infer Necessary Smileys
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk * This is _not_ a rehearsal
Michael Welsh Duggan
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
[re: Alex Ross art]
> For one, I think it's more pleasing to eyes used to the hyper-realism of
> television and other mass media. Hyper-realistic art like Alex's tends to
> capture things more cinematically than more iconic or representational
> art. To some, it's as much a leap forward as virtual reality is from old
> video arcade games.
To think of Ross's work as hyper-realistic, though, is really quite a
mistake. More realistic than most comic art? Certainly. But the man is
a far cry from the Dutch Masters. Admittedly, they didn't have to turn
out 22 pages a month, either...
A problem with Ross's art is his layouts, which are usually not too
great (though not atrocious either). He seems most comfortable when
he's doing splash pages and pin-ups, but his regular story pages
really don't flow at all. I can't really think of Ross's work as
"cinematic" on a regular basis, and I can think of far more stylized
artists who capture that cinematic quality on a regular basis.
"Easy on the eyes" doesn't really work much either. Kids and adults
alike are pretty much used to iconic representations of stuff once
they start getting old enough to watch TV and read comics.
Here's another issue: Ross's art utterly fails to capture one of the
key elements of the comic medium: motion. This is a handicap that can
be worked around easily - MARVELS, for instance, was primarily a
non-action story so it worked, but KINGDOM COME suffered because
Ross's work looked oh so stiff.
This is in no way intended to be a slam on Ross, mind you. He's
certainly a wonderful painter, and I find most of his pencil roughs
tend be even more engaging than his finished work. But I'm not sure
I'd call him cinematic, or even consider him one of the top artists in
comics today.
DAVE "The Knave" WHITE, talentless hack (using Duggan's account)
"Those who induce these stressors on you, were individually not your friends
in the first place, for they wish through these stressors to either brainwash
you, transvalue your sex, or even kill you with alphabet soup."
--Owen W. Gustafson
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Andrew Ducker (and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <66hjmm$3...@panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: <fire...@panix.com> writes
: >Todd VerBeek, gwm (ver...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: >: >Leslie Powell (vaga...@parka.winternet.com) wrote:
: >
: >: My pal Shawn Hill said:
: >: >My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
: >
: >: I think that "good anatomy" is =part= of "good art"... it's a necessary
: >: qualification, but not sufficient by itself.
: >
: >Yep, as in "you have to show you know what the rules are before you break
: >them."
: I disagree. If you ignore the rules uterly, you can still have 'god
: art', it's just not realistic.
I guess it depends on what you want to convey with that art. I will
usually consider art that shows no understanding of things like anatomy
and perspective and consistency to be bad art. And again, understanding
something is separate from (but, IMHO, essential to) choosing not to
follow it.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Michael Welsh Duggan (md...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: [re: Alex Ross art]
: > For one, I think it's more pleasing to eyes used to the hyper-realism of
: > television and other mass media. Hyper-realistic art like Alex's tends to
: > capture things more cinematically than more iconic or representational
: > art. To some, it's as much a leap forward as virtual reality is from old
: > video arcade games.
: To think of Ross's work as hyper-realistic, though, is really quite a
: mistake. More realistic than most comic art? Certainly. But the man is
: a far cry from the Dutch Masters. Admittedly, they didn't have to turn
: out 22 pages a month, either...
I apologize if my term is incorrect. Would you accept "photo-realistic"
instead?
: A problem with Ross's art is his layouts, which are usually not too
: great (though not atrocious either). He seems most comfortable when
: he's doing splash pages and pin-ups, but his regular story pages
: really don't flow at all.
I think his collage pages are phenomenal. And I think he is a good
storyteller overall, so I guess we're seeing two different things here.
: Here's another issue: Ross's art utterly fails to capture one of the
: key elements of the comic medium: motion.
For you. For me, I think it captures motion very well.
JohannaLD
From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
Michael Welsh Duggan (md...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: To think of Ross's work as hyper-realistic, though, is really quite a
: mistake.
>
>instead?
How about "high-correspondence"? I was reading Understanding Mass
Media last night (a high school textbook, of all things, but it's got a
whole chapter on comics & animation!), and they use high-C & low-C
to distinguish, for instance, between a photo of a jet (high-C) and the
symbol "jet" (low-C). It seems to me that Alex Ross's art is near the
top of the high-C scale for comics.
Johanna
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>>: My pal Shawn Hill said:
>>: >My deeper question, though, is why does "good anatomy" equal "good art?"
>>
>>: I think that "good anatomy" is =part= of "good art"... it's a necessary
>>: qualification, but not sufficient by itself.
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> writes
>>Yep, as in "you have to show you know what the rules are before you break
>>them."
My pal Andrew Ducker said:
>I disagree. If you ignore the rules uterly, you can still have 'god
>art', it's just not realistic. JTHM, for instance, has cartoony,
>overdrawn black and white art in a non-realistic style. But it works
>brilliantly for that comic.
Sure, you can break and bend the rules all you want. Picasso did it a
lot: deliberately and consciously, knowing the effect that doing so would
have. And so does Jhonen Vasquez (usually).
Flipping through a random issue of /JtHM/ I see all sorts of figures with
their various parts put together properly (at least when they haven't been
violently removed {smile}). It's very stylised with lots of distortion,
but limbs bend at the joints, thumbs properly oppose fingers, etc. I
could take nearly any figure and draw a correct (albeit distorted) human
skeleton for it. (By contrast, I cannot draw a skeleton for - opening
/Previews/ and taking the first example I run across - the figure on the
cover of /WildCATS/ annual #1.)
In short, Vasquez' anatomy =is= good. If it weren't, the art wouldn't be
nearly as effective... it'd be like seeing Dilbert(*) with his head cut
off: utterly dull and unconvincing.
(*) I think it's a wonderfully-written strip, but Scott Adams' art is
nothing I'd aspire to.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Elayne Wechsler-Chaput said:
>Michael Welsh Duggan (md...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
>: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: [re: Alex Ross art]
>: > For one, I think it's more pleasing to eyes used to the hyper-realism of
>: > television and other mass media. Hyper-realistic art like Alex's tends to
>: > capture things more cinematically than more iconic or representational
>: > art. To some, it's as much a leap forward as virtual reality is from old
>: > video arcade games.
>
>: To think of Ross's work as hyper-realistic, though, is really quite a
>: mistake. More realistic than most comic art? Certainly. But the man is
>: a far cry from the Dutch Masters. Admittedly, they didn't have to turn
>: out 22 pages a month, either...
>
>I apologize if my term is incorrect. Would you accept "photo-realistic"
>instead?
I think "realist" is the appropriate term for Ross' work. The most
extreme form of Realism ("Naturalism") insists on representing things
photographically, but Realism (in the 19th century sense) attempted to
mimic photographic rendering, while allowing for simplification and
(relatively) iconic use of images for the sake of making a statement.
That's /Uncle Sam/, definitely.
(My memory about earlier periods of European/American art is a bit hazy,
but I don't think Realist is the appropriate term for the Dutch masters.
Baroque, perhaps?)