Whats the fuss about George Perez?
Rob Graham
with Immonen on board. Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly
he can get very detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures
look shit! not that im after pnuematic Image style characters - i
think Hitch and Neary would be the best! (thank god they are replacing
the DC version of Perez - Howard Porter on JLA). will someone please
point out to me why everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the
messiah or something?
- an outspoken voice
Ben Pridmore
Rob Graham <ajgr...@dircon.co.uk> wrote ...
Each to his own. Me, I thought Immonen's art was cartoony and generally not
all that good. Perez is one of my favourite artists, and he's just great
with human figures, if you ask me. Better than most other artists in the
business in fact. I hope he stays with Avengers for a long time to come.
Oh the other hand, my brother, who unlike me is a pretty good artist, has
never been a Perez fan, and extolls the virtues of Mark Bagley at every
opportunity. YMMV.
--
Ben
"All waiting for the Age Of Aquarius to arrive with noise and light and
fireworks, they were.
But it never came, see?"
Siadwel Rhys, Y Ddraig Goch
Holden Caulfield
"Rob Graham" <ajgr...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38bd8132...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> I cant understand it. I thought the Avengers looked much better in #26
> with Immonen on board. Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly
> he can get very detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures
> look shit! not that im after pnuematic Image style characters - i
> think Hitch and Neary would be the best! (thank god they are replacing
> the DC version of Perez - Howard Porter on JLA). will someone please
> point out to me why everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the
> messiah or something?
Well, it seems everyone has their own opinion regarding quality artists.
Guys to be slagged in the last seven days: first Seinkiewicz, then BWS, then
Miller and now Perez. I would imagine Wrightson, Bissette, Simonson, Art
Adams, Kent Williams and Chaykin
should be coming up.
I have never, ever takein issue with the body structure or facial expression
of a Perez character.
The Messiah? That may be pushing it, but if The New Teen Titans 1 - 45
doesn't make for an adequate explanation then I guess you a) just don't get
it; b) don't like his style.
UPennBiLLy
>doesn't make for an adequate explanation then I guess you a) just don't get
>it; b) don't like his style.
>
>
I couldn't agree more! GEORGE PEREZ RULES ALL!!!
--BH
Grimbiskit
everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the messiah or something?>>
I like Perez's stuff okay, but he certainly doen't make me cream my shorts like
some folks.
I think, for many people, they rate art by the amount of detail, and sometimes
how "realistic" it is, as in terms of being photorealistic or how
representative it is (theres a difference between photo-realism and cartooning
with characters that feel real because of the "acting").
George's art is of course very detailed, and while not photorealistic, it is
very grounded as he doesn't do much in the way of stylization. I think to some,
this reads as "better" art; and there is also sometimes the misconception that
art that is sparse in extraneous detail is "simple" and therefore not as much
work has gone into it as has gone into say, Perez's. You might get the same
reaction at an art museum. Surely you'll hear someone calling one piece crap
because of it's abstract nature, but then call a photo-realistic landscape
painting genius merely because it "looks like a real forrest" or somesuch.
I hate to compare Perez to Todd macfarland, but I've known plenty of people who
have to same reasoning for loving Todd's work, they just think all the detail
means more work, and therefore means better art (although in Todd's case it's
just detail covering up lack of drawing skills). I'm thinking it just comes
downt to different ways of thinking about comic art: somepeople want
photographs with word balloons, some want to see an artist go wild and use
their imagination to the upmost, some fall in the middle somwhere.
I agree though, I much prefer Hitch and Immonen, but George is a solid artist.
Too many bells and whistles I think (I'm a less-is-more kinda guy), but I don't
think his art is hard on the eyes by any means.
CleV
<dekar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Rob Graham" <ajgr...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:38bd8132...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>> I cant understand it. I thought the Avengers looked much better in #26
>> with Immonen on board. Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly
>> he can get very detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures
>> look shit! not that im after pnuematic Image style characters - i
>> think Hitch and Neary would be the best! (thank god they are replacing
>> the DC version of Perez - Howard Porter on JLA). will someone please
>> point out to me why everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the
>> messiah or something?
>
>Well, it seems everyone has their own opinion regarding quality artists.
>Guys to be slagged in the last seven days: first Seinkiewicz, then BWS, then
>Miller and now Perez. I would imagine Wrightson, Bissette, Simonson, Art
>Adams, Kent Williams and Chaykin
>should be coming up.
>
>I have never, ever takein issue with the body structure or facial expression
>of a Perez character.
>The Messiah? That may be pushing it, but if The New Teen Titans 1 - 45
>doesn't make for an adequate explanation then I guess you a) just don't get
>it; b) don't like his style.
Well I do think he (Perez) was at his best in the past, specifically
his covers (all of them!) for Wonder Woman, when he was inking
himself. The detail and complexity of those covers is still
mind-boggling!
Grimbiskit
agreed
<< Me, I thought Immonen's art was cartoony..>>
This I don't get. How is Immonen cartoony. if you break down his figures,
Stuart's are far more realistic than George's. Is it the linework? The
difference in the amount of surface detail?
<<...and generally not
all that good. >>
gah!
Rob Graham
he puts in too much detail and spoils the whole picture. i think maybe
this is a problem with the inking.
and as im at it - i cant stand his costume designs recently i think
Goliath is abysmal, and they would have been better off sticking with
Giant Man. i wonder
how his pencils would look with different inks and colours. lets have
palimotti on inks and Depuy on colours. that would be interesting.
On 01 Mar 2000 21:38:26 GMT, upenn...@aol.comnospam (UPennBiLLy)
wrote:
>>if The New Teen Titans 1 - 45
>>doesn't make for an adequate explanation then I guess you a) just don't get
>>it; b) don't like his style.
>>
>>
Ben Pridmore
Grimbiskit <grimb...@aol.com> wrote
>
> << Me, I thought Immonen's art was cartoony..>>
> This I don't get. How is Immonen cartoony. if you break down his figures,
> Stuart's are far more realistic than George's. Is it the linework? The
> difference in the amount of surface detail?
>
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that at all. "Far more realistic"? How? I'm
comparing Avengers #s 25 and 26 right now, and I've got to say, George's
figures look more like real people than Stuart's. For one thing, the poses
throughout 26 look stagy and artificial, Perez's seem natural almost all the
time. The faces are very inconsistent in Immonen's artwork. He seems to
have a problem with noses. The over-shading doesn't help, either. Sorry
again, but I just didn't like it all that much. (please feel free to say
"Gah!" again to that last bit).
CleV
><< I cant understand it. ..<snipage>...will someone please point out to me why
>everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the messiah or something?>>
>
>I like Perez's stuff okay, but he certainly doen't make me cream my shorts like
>some folks.
>I think, for many people, they rate art by the amount of detail, and sometimes
>how "realistic" it is, as in terms of being photorealistic or how
>representative it is (theres a difference between photo-realism and cartooning
>with characters that feel real because of the "acting").
>George's art is of course very detailed, and while not photorealistic, it is
>very grounded as he doesn't do much in the way of stylization.
Check out the cover of Wonder Woman #18 (? - the one with the sun
shining between columns) - I thought it was a photograph at first.
Again, it's when he inks himself that he's his best.
CleV
wrote:
> and as im at it - i cant stand his costume designs recently i think
>Goliath is abysmal, and they would have been better off sticking with
>Giant Man.
Have to admit I've never liked his costume designs. Okay, except for
Raven.
Ben Pridmore
Grimbiskit <grimb...@aol.com> wrote
> I think, for many people, they rate art by the amount of detail, and
sometimes
> how "realistic" it is, as in terms of being photorealistic or how
> representative it is (theres a difference between photo-realism and
cartooning
> with characters that feel real because of the "acting").
> George's art is of course very detailed, and while not photorealistic, it
is
> very grounded as he doesn't do much in the way of stylization. I think to
some,
> this reads as "better" art; and there is also sometimes the misconception
that
> art that is sparse in extraneous detail is "simple" and therefore not as
much
> work has gone into it as has gone into say, Perez's. You might get the
same
> reaction at an art museum. Surely you'll hear someone calling one piece
crap
> because of it's abstract nature, but then call a photo-realistic landscape
> painting genius merely because it "looks like a real forrest" or somesuch.
Yeah, that's me. Abstract art leaves me cold, I have to say. I admire
super-realism in art. I'll always prefer an artist who can reproduce their
subject perfectly over one who can make a few random scribbles and claim to
be a genius. In comics, I don't want photographs with word balloons, but I
want clear, crisp pictures of heroes fighting villains in the traditional
style. Larger than life, but lifelike, if you see what I mean. And not many
artists do it better than Perez.
Adam Cadre
> Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly he can get very
> detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures look shit!
I'd say the exact opposite. Perez's faces are quite possibly the
best I've seen in superhero comics -- each character gets a distinctive,
recognizable face, rather than being saddled with an interchangeable
cookie-cutter mug differentiated only by hairstyle and mask. Facial
expressions are generally well done, though the occasional bizarre
angle does distort things every now and again. As for his "human
figures" -- what's not to like? Anatomy's good, body language is
terrific. Looking at a Perez-drawn character, you know who you're
looking at (even out of costume -- that this should be a rarity is
quite damning to the bulk of artists out there), what they're doing,
and the subtle nuances of how they're feeling. What more do you want?
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
http://adamcadre.ac
Dave Whiteley
storytelling. Rather than a series of pinups, his pages actually
cooperate with the writer's plots and tell a tale. More often than
not, George will embellish with added details that have often
surprised the writers as well.
George draws people with varied anatomies and facial expressions.
Along with John Byrne, probably has one of the largest "visual
vocabularies" out there, having drawn pretty well any scene
imaginable. Many of today's hot artists cite George as an influence
but do not display anywhere near the mastery that George has
accomplished.,
As examples, if you dressed Captain America, Hawkeye, and Goliath, all
blones, in normal street clothes, you would actually be able to tell
who is who. George knows when to lay on the details and when to be
sparse . He can have a splash page focusing on a closeup of a face or
a pic with dozens of characters.
For the record, I fail to see ANY similarities between Howard Porter
and George Perez.
Dave W
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:49:51 GMT, ajgr...@dircon.co.uk (Rob Graham)
wrote:
>I cant understand it. I thought the Avengers looked much better in #26
>with Immonen on board. Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly
>he can get very detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures
>look shit! not that im after pnuematic Image style characters - i
>think Hitch and Neary would be the best! (thank god they are replacing
>the DC version of Perez - Howard Porter on JLA). will someone please
>point out to me why everyone on this group seems to hail Perez as the
>messiah or something?
>
>- an outspoken voice
Ellen Bailey
I agree about the way he draws his women now. His Wonder Woman and Titan's
women stuff looked good in the past, but the way he draws them now are
hideous.
> I do think he's showing
> signs of slipping (his Scarlet Witch, for example, is looking 50 years
> old of late).....
--
Thanks,
Ellen Bailey
My HOMEPAGE- http://www.homestead.com/DJRobE/3.html
Adam Cadre
> I do think he's showing signs of slipping (his Scarlet Witch, for
> example, is looking 50 years old of late).....
Well, no. What's she's looking like is Pietro, who has never exactly
been a matinee idol. And it makes sense that she'd look a bit like
Pietro, since they're freakin' related. So that means that she
deviates from the cookie-cutter generic female face that most artists
stick her with? GOOD! It's more important that she look like herself
than that she look attractive.
Ellen Bailey added:
> I agree about the way he draws his women now. His Wonder Woman and
> Titan's women stuff looked good in the past, but the way he draws
> them now are hideous.
Er, but he draws them different ways. See, this is the great thing
about Perez -- when given a woman to draw, he doesn't just draw "a
woman" and slap a costume on her: he draws *that particular woman*.
And looks vary from person to person. Not everyone is a frigging
model. So Carol Danvers doesn't look 18? GOOD! So Silverclaw looks
more like an actual native South American with lots of precolumbian
blood than like Jennifer Lopez? *GOOD*! Again -- it's much, MUCH
more important that the characters look like themselves than that they
fit some rigid mold of what is attractive. The world is diverse!
Perez is one of the few artists who seems to recognize this.
Tom Galloway
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:31:59 GMT, ajgr...@dircon.co.uk (Rob Graham)
>wrote:
>> and as im at it - i cant stand his costume designs recently i think
>>Goliath is abysmal, and they would have been better off sticking with
>>Giant Man.
>Have to admit I've never liked his costume designs. Okay, except for
>Raven.
For what it's worth, save for some minor tweaking, I don't think the current
Goliath costume is a Perez design, any more than Hank's last Giant-Man
costume was (said tweak there was the goggles color and design). The
current costume is basically, including color, the costume that Hawkeye
first wore when he took on the Goliath id (the more commonly seen red
color added version appeared a few issues after that).
tyg t...@netcom.com
Andy Sheets
> The Messiah? That may be pushing it, but if The New Teen Titans 1 - 45
> doesn't make for an adequate explanation then I guess you a) just don't get
> it; b) don't like his style.
I was rereading his Wonder Woman issues recently and I'd add those as a great
example of his work as well. Some of the page layouts he did in those issues (as
in most of his comics, really) were really remarkable.
Andy
blac...@my-deja.com
ajgr...@dircon.co.uk (Rob Graham) wrote:
> I cant understand it. I thought the Avengers looked much better in #26
> with Immonen on board. Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly
> he can get very detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures
> look shit!
Well, if you had seen the man in his heydey--i.e. during the TEEN TITANS
run, the later-half of his AVENGERS run and his run on THE FANTASTIC
FOUR (which I admit to a soft spot), you'd probably understand it a lot
better--the man's pencils just cracked with energy and movement, and
he still is one of the frew artists who doesn't skimp when it comes to
complicated, multi-layered compositions.
However, I have to admit that I find a lot of his AVENGERS work somewhat
tired. There's still moments of brilliance, but I do think he's showing
signs of slipping (his Scarlet Witch, for example, is looking 50 years
old of late).....
What you're seeing is a shadow of a truly great, exciting artist--but
he's still unbeatable when it comes to choreographing multi-person
action, and when it comes to sheer energy, he's still better 75% of the
time than the various Image Clones that clot the landscape....
--Thomas Deja
Founder, The Pete Wisdom Rehabilitation Brigade
Haven't Burned Down a Building, But Give Us Time
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
blac...@my-deja.com
"Ben Pridmore" <B...@pridmore.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh the other hand, my brother, who unlike me is a pretty good artist,
has never been a Perez fan, and extolls the virtues of Mark Bagley at
every opportunity. YMMV.
>
first class when it comes to action scenes involving multiple persons is
Bagley--in fact, I think both Bagley and Perez *prefer* multiple
characters...every time they do solo hero books, there's something
lacking.
Something about having 50 people in the same room hitting each other
over the head just fires up both Mark and George...go figure!
--Thomas Deja
Founder, The Pete Wisdom Rehabilitation Brigade
We Use Two Fingers For That, Sunshine....
Christopher Griffen
Perez is the master of fine detail. He's famous for those huge,
panoramic drawings of dozens (or even hundreds) of heroes.
Maybe you're only looking at the surface. Check out Perez' storytelling
skills, too. You don't get lost reading a Perez book like you do with
some of today's artists. Furthermore, you can understand the facial
expressions of his characters. He has a full range of artistic skills.
I'll admit that I don't think every illustration he's ever done has
been top-notch. His figures can sometimes be a bit stiff and I've
seen him draw a few misshapen heads, but all in all, he's one of the
best. Perez certainly ranks in my all-time top 10 artists list, and
currently I'd say in the top 3!
I guess there's no accounting for taste.
As for Immonen's fill in, I enjoyed it, too. I like Immonen's very
clean art quite a bit, but comparing him with Perez is really like
night and day. They don't draw from the same school of artistic
expression.
--
Christopher Griffen
Black Panther - Artistic Impressions
http://www.geocities.com/~cgriffen/blackpanther/
Dale Hicks
> (thank god they are replacing
> the DC version of Perez - Howard Porter on JLA).
Take that back. Right now.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
(who's not joking)
Grimbiskit
shining between columns) - I thought it was a photograph at first.
Again, it's when he inks himself that he's his best. >>
I remember that one. i actually thought that was pretty stylized though. Very
design oriented as I recall. Think that's why i liked it.
Grimbiskit
super-realism in art. I'll always prefer an artist who can reproduce their
subject perfectly over one who can make a few random scribbles and claim to
be a genius. >>
But why not just take a photograph then? I think if you learned why certain
abstract works were produced the way they were, you might change your mind.
Often the concept behind the piece is more important than the finished product.
You still might hate the piece or think the artist is a doofus, but you might
have a better understanding of why he/she did what they did or what they were
trying to say.
Grimbiskit
again, but I just didn't like it all that much. (please feel free to say
"Gah!" again to that last bit). >>
Gah!
KRothst402
I like the way he draws the human body. No one looks roided up like they do
when many other artists draw them. I like the way he composes a page, and how
no matter how complicated the layout, every panel smoothly flows into the next.
I like the way he is willing to draw more than three panels per page. In a
Perez drawn comic, you typically find more words because of the extra panels.
I like as much story as possible, so this is a good thing for me. I like that
his style is different from anyone else. I like that while it is highly
detailed, he doesn't mind spaces with no lines (like a solid area of a
costume). He doesn't feel that there has to be muscles that don't really
exist. Plus, and this is most important, I like that Perez always knows what
the panel should be focusing on. Like a movie, one can butcher a scene by
choosing a wrong camera shot and thus ruin the drama. Perez never does. I
also like that no matter what comic he takes over, it always seems like a
breath of fresh air. Finally, I like that he doesn't make characters look like
they are 12, and doesn't have a fetish for big feet on men. And I like that
there are few money shots like needless pages of a girl arching her back in a
3/4 page panel.
I would take Perez in any comic on any subject. From Batman to spaceships,
Perez can draw it all with equal finesse.
Alan Travis
> I think George Perez is one of the best.
Everyone has their own tastes, but I can't imagine anyone not recognizing the man's
skills. He's simply the best artist Marvel has on their roster. I have nothing
but respect and admiration for him.
Alan
Ojerasmus
>super-realism in art. I'll always prefer an artist who can reproduce their
>subject perfectly over one who can make a few random scribbles and claim to
>be a genius.
Well yes but decent non-photo realistic comic artists aren't putting down lines
randomly. If anything they are putting far more thought into where they go than
the photo realists who after all are pretty much limited by reality and the
need to reproduce an actual object. An Alex Ross line or brush stroke is there
because thats what his models face demands, an Alex Toth line is there because
thats what the panel demands and as someone who wants to read a comic not look
at a photo that is better for me.
I like good comic art in all sorts of styles, I'm not knocking Perez or Ross or
whoever but photorealism isn't the be all and end all and in a lot of cases
isn't even the best available option to tell a story.
In comics, I don't want photographs with word balloons, but I
>want clear, crisp pictures of heroes fighting villains in the traditional
>style. Larger than life, but lifelike, if you see what I mean. And not many
>artists do it better than Perez.
>
True, he is one of the few artists in that kind of style who I enjoy.
Owen
Allen W. Wright
Adam Cadre wrote:
> Rob Graham wrote:
> > Perez just looks very sketchy to me - admitadly he can get very
> > detailed when he wants but his faces and human figures look shit!
>
> I'd say the exact opposite. Perez's faces are quite possibly the
> best I've seen in superhero comics -- each character gets a distinctive,
> recognizable face, rather than being saddled with an interchangeable
> cookie-cutter mug differentiated only by hairstyle and mask. Facial
> expressions are generally well done, though the occasional bizarre
> angle does distort things every now and again. As for his "human
> figures" -- what's not to like? Anatomy's good, body language is
> terrific. Looking at a Perez-drawn character, you know who you're
> looking at (even out of costume -- that this should be a rarity is
> quite damning to the bulk of artists out there), what they're doing,
> and the subtle nuances of how they're feeling. What more do you want?
I really like Perez's faces.
Clint Barton looks different from Steve Rogers (who originally had a
Garney-ish face I think, which was a nice touch), and Wanda
Frank/Maximoff/No last name looks different from Janet van Dyne or Jennifer
Walters.
I think it may be that his faces aren't cookie cutter generic that bothers
some people. His characters don't have a "superhero" face. They have real
faces. Comic fans aren't used to seeing their characters with unique
expressions.
Also, maybe it's like what Scott McCloud said about how people more
strongly identify with generic faces.
Giving the characters such individual faces is gutsy, and a superb
creative decision in a team book like Avengers.
Allen
Rami Rautkorpi
<blac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:89kg1t$j83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <89k17o$drg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Ben Pridmore" <B...@pridmore.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Oh the other hand, my brother, who unlike me is a pretty good artist,
> has never been a Perez fan, and extolls the virtues of Mark Bagley at
> every opportunity. YMMV.
> >
> 's funny, Ben--Of all the artists out there, the only one I rank as
> first class when it comes to action scenes involving multiple persons is
> Bagley--in fact, I think both Bagley and Perez *prefer* multiple
> characters...every time they do solo hero books, there's something
> lacking.
then I read the NW TPB (Beginnings?) and realized his genius :-). The reason
why his art on Spidey looked so boring was because he didn't have enough
people to put in the panels! So, when I found out he was doing a team book
again, I thought to myself "This Thunderbolts is gonna kick ass!" (Who is
that Kurt Busiek fellow anyway ;-)
As for the topic itself... To my eye, Perez, Immonen and Bagley are actually
pretty close in terms of technique, though Immonen definitely strives for a
more photorealistic result with his impression of light and shadow. Now
Porter, on the other hand, seems to be much more expressionistic with his
use of the line itself. His anatomy and facial expressions don't come
anywhere near Perez's.
BTW did you know that Immonen is a Finnish name? We are such a talented
people...
Rami Rautkorpi
rami.ra...@mbnet.fi
http://koti.mbnet.fi/ramir
Rob Graham
even the hair style!
Paulo Costa
news:38BE1F...@adamcadre.ac...
>
> Well, no. What's she's looking like is Pietro, who has never exactly
> been a matinee idol. And it makes sense that she'd look a bit like
> Pietro, since they're freakin' related. So that means that she
> deviates from the cookie-cutter generic female face that most artists
> stick her with? GOOD! It's more important that she look like herself
> than that she look attractive.
And I have to say she never looked more attractive. She went from generic
girl to distinctive look. More real - more beautiful.
> Er, but he draws them different ways. See, this is the great thing
> about Perez -- when given a woman to draw, he doesn't just draw "a
> woman" and slap a costume on her: he draws *that particular woman*.
> And looks vary from person to person. Not everyone is a frigging
> model. So Carol Danvers doesn't look 18? GOOD! So Silverclaw looks
> more like an actual native South American with lots of precolumbian
> blood than like Jennifer Lopez? *GOOD*! Again -- it's much, MUCH
> more important that the characters look like themselves than that they
> fit some rigid mold of what is attractive. The world is diverse!
> Perez is one of the few artists who seems to recognize this.
And that's important. Air Force Majors (or Colonels for that matter) are
not teenagers. They are experienced, and therefore, older people. They have
to be recognized as such. And Silverclaw looks more like any generic south
american person than if she had a generic look. Then she'd look like a
generic south american comic book character.
--
Paulo Costa
The Brazilian is the next stage in evolution for the Portuguese.
eri...@my-deja.com
>
> Oh the other hand, my brother, who unlike me is a pretty good artist,
has
> never been a Perez fan, and extolls the virtues of Mark Bagley at
every
> opportunity. YMMV.
> --
> Ben
I'm a pretty crap artist myself but I can't udnerstand how anyone
can use Mark Bagley as an example of a good artist. He may have solid
storytelling skills, but his figure drawing is typical of someone who's
learned to draw people from comic books, not life. He only uses a few
basic facial expressions and his characters always look like they're
about to fall over.
/ erik lehman
--
This is my opinion, NOT the truth.
Ojerasmus
>I'm a pretty crap artist myself but I can't udnerstand how anyone
>can use Mark Bagley as an example of a good artist. He may have solid
>storytelling skills, but his figure drawing is typical of someone who's
>learned to draw people from comic books, not life. He only uses a few
>basic facial expressions and his characters always look like they're
>about to fall over.
>
I've always thought his characters look like action figures rather than people.
His Thunderbolts designs in particular (fairly good action figures in the case
of Citizen V and Mach 1 but still somehow plasticy).
Owen Erasmus
Joe Ankenbauer
> >
> > Oh the other hand, my brother, who unlike me is a pretty good artist,
> has
> > never been a Perez fan, and extolls the virtues of Mark Bagley at
> every
> > opportunity. YMMV.
> > --
> > Ben
>
> I'm a pretty crap artist myself but I can't udnerstand how anyone
> can use Mark Bagley as an example of a good artist. He may have solid
> storytelling skills, but his figure drawing is typical of someone who's
> learned to draw people from comic books, not life. He only uses a few
> basic facial expressions and his characters always look like they're
> about to fall over.
>
> / erik lehman
I enjoyed Mark Bagley's art when he drew Spider-Man. He may not be the
greatest artist, but I still enjoy his work, unlike someone such as Rob
Leifeld.
JMA
Balvenanco
>
> Thomas Deja wrote:
> > I do think he's showing signs of slipping (his Scarlet Witch, for
> > example, is looking 50 years old of late).....
>
> been a matinee idol. And it makes sense that she'd look a bit like
> Pietro, since they're freakin' related. So that means that she
> deviates from the cookie-cutter generic female face that most artists
> stick her with? GOOD! It's more important that she look like herself
> than that she look attractive.
To you it is. But it's not like it has to be one extreme(cookie-cutter
generic, attractive Image faces) or the other(distinctive, unattractive
faces) anyway.
lir...@iinet.net.au
Just wanted to chime in on this thread in support of Stuart's work. As
a dedicated Stuart Immonen fan, I admit I'm biased, however, my liking
for Stuart's work springs from his realistic style, the fluid movement
of his (well-proportioned) figures and his panel composition to name a
few points. I'm afraid that I don't see your criticism of the
stagy/artificial poses or the bit about the noses :)
I've also been a fan of George Perez's work since I picked up Avengers
#148 (I think it was, I'll have to check) off the shelves and follow
almost everything he does. However, I've never thought of George's work
as realistic. I enjoy his work for different reasons including his
amazing attention to detail, his incredible fight scenes etc. but have
never considered it realistic in style.
Of course, this is only my 2 cents worth :) Double Gah! By the way,
anyone interested in seeing some cool original Stuart Immonen artwork
should visit my site, address shown below. Regards from Downunder,
Royd Burgoyne
Perth, Western Australia
http://www.iinet.net.au/~liroyd/
In article <89k8cu$j0p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Ben Pridmore" <B...@pridmore.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grimbiskit <grimb...@aol.com> wrote
> >
> > << Me, I thought Immonen's art was cartoony..>>
> > This I don't get. How is Immonen cartoony. if you break down his
figures,
> > Stuart's are far more realistic than George's. Is it the linework?
The
> > difference in the amount of surface detail?
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't see that at all. "Far more realistic"?
How? I'm
> comparing Avengers #s 25 and 26 right now, and I've got to say,
George's
> figures look more like real people than Stuart's. For one thing, the
poses
> throughout 26 look stagy and artificial, Perez's seem natural almost
all the
> time. The faces are very inconsistent in Immonen's artwork. He seems
to
> have a problem with noses. The over-shading doesn't help, either.
> --
> Ben
>
> "All waiting for the Age Of Aquarius to arrive with noise and light
and
> fireworks, they were.
>
> But it never came, see?"
>
> Siadwel Rhys, Y Ddraig Goch
>
>
Todd VerBeek
>super-realism in art. I'll always prefer an artist who can reproduce their
>subject perfectly over one who can make a few random scribbles and claim to
>be a genius. >>
My pal Grimbiskit said:
>But why not just take a photograph then? I think if you learned why certain
>abstract works were produced the way they were, you might change your mind.
>Often the concept behind the piece is more important than the finished product.
>You still might hate the piece or think the artist is a doofus, but you might
>have a better understanding of why he/she did what they did or what they were
>trying to say.
I find super-realism easier to accomplish than "random scribbles". All the
former takes is time and patience (or an incredible knack for it). Loose,
expressionist art takes... something else. A kind of genius, if you're
going to be good at it. This is something I never really appreciated until
I tried it myself.
I still prefer realistic art, both to look at and to create. (I'm a very
left-brained kinda guy for an artist.) Which is one reason I admire Perez.
But the art of someone like Ted McKeever or Marc Hempel intimidates me.
Cheers, Todd
--
"A drawing is always dragged down to the level of its caption." - James Thurber