Inproportionate Art
Ryan Brewster
books is hogwash. C'mon! I mean, they're _drawings_, not _photos_, and
in my opinion, they wouldn't be as enjoyable if they were _too_
realistic. If you think about them, they make absolutely no sense. It's
like arguing:
Bone:
"Aw, come on! _NOBODY_ is that short and has that big of a nose! And
look how he's shaped! Jeff Smith is a really terrible artist..."
I don't hear anyone complaining about Jeff Smith.
Hulk:
"Oh, geeze. You've gotta be kidding. _Nobody_ has green skin, is that
tall and has arms that humongous!"
I don't hear anyone complaining about Gary Frank.
Spawn:
"Yeah, right! Like they can twist their faces into expressions like
_that_."
I don't hear anyone complining about Todd's art.
I could go on....
Best,
-Ry-
RIME: ->22 FIDO: 1/151:107 Internet: ryan.b...@delta.com
* RM 1.3 02322 * Without the last minute, how much would ever get done?
Jason Fliegel
Ryan Brewster <ryan.b...@delta.com> wrote:
>I think that peoples' criticisms about inproportionate art in comic
>books is hogwash. C'mon! I mean, they're _drawings_, not _photos_, and
>in my opinion, they wouldn't be as enjoyable if they were _too_
>realistic. If you think about them, they make absolutely no sense. It's
>like arguing:
>
>Bone:
>"Aw, come on! _NOBODY_ is that short and has that big of a nose! And
>look how he's shaped! Jeff Smith is a really terrible artist..."
>I don't hear anyone complaining about Jeff Smith.
>
>Hulk:
>"Oh, geeze. You've gotta be kidding. _Nobody_ has green skin, is that
>tall and has arms that humongous!"
>
>I don't hear anyone complaining about Gary Frank.
>
>Spawn:
>"Yeah, right! Like they can twist their faces into expressions like
>_that_."
>
>I don't hear anyone complining about Todd's art.
>
>I could go on....
>
> Best,
>
> -Ry-
>
The difference is, of course, that we accept the existence of
Bones when we read Bone, we accept the existence of big green men when we
read the Hulk. As for Spawn, I don't know, not having read it since it
first came out, but I remember when Todd was drawing Spider-Man, there
would sometimes be complaints about the poses he put Spidey in, to
which the response was always that Spidey is nimble -- that's his power,
so that's how he does those things. These are all basic premises
we go into the comic with.
Nobody, however, reads the X-Men thinking "Here's a book
about people with mutant powers like the ability to shoot lasers out
of their eyes, absorb other peoples' memories, or have an eighty-six
inch bust." Artistic license is all well and good, but it should not
be abused. Most comics today are set in our world for the most part.
They make a few changes -- Spider-Man's powers, for example -- but
other than the fact that Spider-Man and his enemies have the powers
they do, we are reading about our world. No transporter beams. No
talking fish. And no impossibly shaped people.
--
Jason Fliegel | jb...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu | (804) 979-0339
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You think you big time? You gonna DIE big time!"
Al Pacino in _Carlito's_Way_
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>I think that peoples' criticisms about inproportionate art in comic
>books is hogwash. C'mon! I mean, they're _drawings_, not _photos_, and
>in my opinion, they wouldn't be as enjoyable if they were _too_
>realistic. If you think about them, they make absolutely no sense. It's
>like arguing:
>
>Bone:
>"Aw, come on! _NOBODY_ is that short and has that big of a nose! And
>look how he's shaped! Jeff Smith is a really terrible artist..."
>
>I don't hear anyone complaining about Jeff Smith.
That's because the Bone cousins aren't =supposed= to look human; they're
not. His humans =do= have reasonable proportions (except for the purposes
of caricature, such as Lucius the tavern owner).
>Hulk:
>"Oh, geeze. You've gotta be kidding. _Nobody_ has green skin, is that
>tall and has arms that humongous!"
>
>I don't hear anyone complaining about Gary Frank.
That's because the Hulk is =supposed= to be out of proportion and a wrong
color. It's part of who the character is. And Frank's normal humans =do=
have reasonable proportions.
>Spawn:
>"Yeah, right! Like they can twist their faces into expressions like
>_that_."
>
>I don't hear anyone complining about Todd's art.
<smile> You aren't paying attention.
I've got nothing against an artist who draws "non-realistic" characters.
There are lots of great artists whose styles are far from "realism" but do
it very well. Mike Mignola's characters don't look like photos, but
neither do his props or backgrounds. It's a consistent style and it works.
But when an artist is supposedly drawing close to the "realistic" edge of
McCloud's triangle (see *Understanding Comics*), I expect them to get it
right. If they draw heads smaller than fists, I dismiss them as silly.
And if the proportions keep changing, I chalk it up to incompetence.
Cheers, Todd
the inspiration behind Sire Records' new CD "Just Say Roe!"
(disclaimer: my org Radio Zero enterprises has no relationship to Zero Hour)
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>books is hogwash. C'mon! I mean, they're _drawings_, not _photos_, and
>in my opinion, they wouldn't be as enjoyable if they were _too_
>realistic. If you think about them, they make absolutely no sense. It's
You're confusing the concepts of proportion and realism. No one is asking
for photorealism or the aboliton of fantastical drawing. But badly drawn
art seems to be in fashion lately. I'm not talking about personal taste,
I'm talking about the artist's lack of skill. Smith, Frank, and even
outlandish artists like Sienkiewicz have a firm grounding in necessary
artistic skills like knowledge of human anatomy and proportion, which
they use as a foundation for drawing bizarre things like giant green men,
little bones, and demon bears. On the other hand, "artists" like Liefeld
lack these basic skills. His bad proportions do not come from stylistic
choices, but from just plain bad drawing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Fernandez | Two Worlds Publishing |
| rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu | 3837 Northdale Blvd. #225 |
| University of South Florida | Tampa, FL 33624 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Stewart Brower
Brewster) wrote:
>Spawn:
>"Yeah, right! Like they can twist their faces into expressions like
>_that_."
>
>I don't hear anyone complining about Todd's art.
You've never heard _anyone_ complain about Todd McFarlane's crappy art?
Lord, boy, you must be livin' right!
Later!
Stewart.
======================================================================
Stewart Brower Reference Librarian
sbr...@rex.uokhsc.edu R. M. Bird Health Sciences Library
(405)271-2606 University of Oklahoma
My views do not necessarily reflect those of the Bird.
======================================================================
Tom Galloway
Robert Fernandez (ENG) <rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu.> wrote:
>In article <ac.35524.51...@delta.com> ryan.b...@delta.com (Ryan Brewster) writes:
>>I think that peoples' criticisms about inproportionate art in comic
>>books is hogwash. C'mon! I mean, they're _drawings_, not _photos_, and
>for photorealism or the aboliton of fantastical drawing. But badly drawn
>art seems to be in fashion lately. I'm not talking about personal taste,
>I'm talking about the artist's lack of skill. Smith, Frank, and even
I'm fond of the "cow test" here. My understanding is that it dates back
to Picasso wannabes who thought abstract art meant they didn't have to be
able to actually draw or paint. Before one can break the rules of art and
representation in a realistic manner, one must prove one can do a realistic
drawing of a cow. Sienkiewicz can draw a cow. Jeff Smith can *definitely*
draw a cow.
"A lady came up to me on the street and pointed to my suede jacket. `You know a
cow was murdered for that jacket?' she sneered. I replied in a psychotic tone,
`I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have to kill you too.'"
-- Jake Johansen
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>
>I'm fond of the "cow test" here. My understanding is that it dates back
>to Picasso wannabes who thought abstract art meant they didn't have to be
>able to actually draw or paint. Before one can break the rules of art and
>representation in a realistic manner, one must prove one can do a realistic
>drawing of a cow. Sienkiewicz can draw a cow. Jeff Smith can *definitely*
>draw a cow.
I know this is changing the subject, but wasn't there an editor at Marvel
who had a wall of cows?
matt hardy
Tom Galloway <t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>I'm fond of the "cow test" here. My understanding is that it dates back
>to Picasso wannabes who thought abstract art meant they didn't have to be
>able to actually draw or paint. Before one can break the rules of art and
>representation in a realistic manner, one must prove one can do a realistic
>drawing of a cow.
With or without a photo reference? :)
matt hardy
Doug Shaw
In article <ac.35524.51...@delta.com>, ryan.b...@delta.com (Ryan Brewster) writes:
|> Spawn:
|> "Yeah, right! Like they can twist their faces into expressions like
|> _that_."
|>
|> I don't hear anyone complining about Todd's art.
|>
|> I could go on....
I hate Todd's art. That's why.
Doug