McFarlane=Bad art
MShock1036
Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say the
Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork is
not that good. The "detail" in his pencils is just adding an obcene amount of
inexplicable lines and dots. I contend that when placed side by side with the
truly great artists, of before and today, his artwork is nothing if not poor.
Can anybody honestly lay claim that the work of Neal Adams, Will Eisner,Alex
Ross or Adam Hughes is somehow lowly enough to be placed with the preschool
scribblings that McFarlane put in his books?
andrew (MELBOURNE)
MShock1036 (mshoc...@aol.com) wrote:
: Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say the
Yes.
--
Andrew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>THEY DON'T HAVE SPORKS IN LONDON, BUT THEY *DO* HAVE KNORKS!<<--
"Hmm. This feels like a Ron Marz tries to go indy with art by Tom
Grummet, inked by Bill Sienkiewicz sort of life." -- me
Kirk Chritton
MShock1036 wrote:
>
> Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say the
> Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork is
> not that good. The "detail" in his pencils is just adding an obcene amount of
> inexplicable lines and dots. I contend that when placed side by side with the
> truly great artists, of before and today, his artwork is nothing if not poor.
> Can anybody honestly lay claim that the work of Neal Adams, Will Eisner,Alex
> Ross or Adam Hughes is somehow lowly enough to be placed with the preschool
> scribblings that McFarlane put in his books?
For a very brief time I worked for Jim Steranko. Now, I'm not Jim's
biggest
fan on a personal basis, but I respect his opinions about art. (This was
before MacFarlane's time, BTW).
One day, while discussing artists (Wrightson maybe?) he said something
to the
effect of: "You know why the kids love him? It's all the lines. Kids
love lines.
If you want to be popular with kids, fill up every panel with lots and
lots
of lines." (that's a major paraphrase... Jim doesn't talk like that.)
Boy if MacFarlane and Liefeld haven't proven this axiom, nobody ever
will!
BTW, under the lines, I think MacFarlane's is pretty damn talented....
Liefeld..., well, that's another story.
Kirk Chritton
Michael Lehmeier t771202
Kirk Chritton (kel...@iland.net) wrote:
: For a very brief time I worked for Jim Steranko. Now, I'm not Jim's
: biggest
: fan on a personal basis, but I respect his opinions about art. (This was
: before MacFarlane's time, BTW).
: One day, while discussing artists (Wrightson maybe?) he said something
: to the
: effect of: "You know why the kids love him? It's all the lines. Kids
: love lines.
: If you want to be popular with kids, fill up every panel with lots and
: lots
: of lines." (that's a major paraphrase... Jim doesn't talk like that.)
: Boy if MacFarlane and Liefeld haven't proven this axiom, nobody ever
: will!
Wow.
Then kids must secream for Gerhard and Drew Hayes.
NOT!
--
The Nightshade Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
http://rphc1.physik.uni-regensburg.de/~lem11441/
Lehmeier Michael (Michael....@stud.uni-regensburg.de)
The world is going to end! Musashimaru actually smiled and even
laughed at the Hatsu Basho 1998! http://www.sumoweb.com/
donh...@yahoo.com
In article <6hf1q4$p...@rrzs3.uni-regensburg.de>,
Michael....@stud.uni-regensburg.de wrote:
>
> Kirk Chritton (kel...@iland.net) wrote:
>
> : For a very brief time I worked for Jim Steranko. Now, I'm not Jim's
> : biggest
> : fan on a personal basis, but I respect his opinions about art. (This was
> : before MacFarlane's time, BTW).
>
> : One day, while discussing artists (Wrightson maybe?) he said something
> : to the
> : effect of: "You know why the kids love him? It's all the lines. Kids
> : love lines.
> : If you want to be popular with kids, fill up every panel with lots and
> : lots
> : of lines." (that's a major paraphrase... Jim doesn't talk like that.)
>
> : Boy if MacFarlane and Liefeld haven't proven this axiom, nobody ever
> : will!
>
> Wow.
> Then kids must secream for Gerhard and Drew Hayes.
>
> NOT!
I DO! Gerhard kicks mad ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
sjo...@ili.net
mshoc...@aol.com (MShock1036) wrote:
>
> Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say
the
> Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork
is
> not that good. The "detail" in his pencils is just adding an obcene amount
of
> inexplicable lines and dots. I contend that when placed side by side with
the
> truly great artists, of before and today, his artwork is nothing if not
poor.
> Can anybody honestly lay claim that the work of Neal Adams, Will Eisner,Alex
> Ross or Adam Hughes is somehow lowly enough to be placed with the preschool
> scribblings that McFarlane put in his books?
Some of the most exciting artwork I remember from my twenty-odd years of
reading comics was Todd McFarlane on Amazing Spider-Man, Jim Lee on Uncanny
X-Men, and Whilce Portacio on Punisher. These books featured a clean,
detailed, dynamic style of pencils that made the rest of comicdom's offerings
look like the work of children. Marvel was then still on the verge of its
"hottest publisher" status, and at that time you couldn't have *given* me a DC
comic, what with its stylistic eye still looking back to the '70s. Lee,
McFarlane and Portacio went on to lead Marvel to record sales in the early
'90s, then to set even more sales records with their own breakaway company,
Image Comics.
And now? Ten years later, other artists have replaced them as the cutting
edge: Joe Madureira, Salvador Larrocca and Leinel Francis Yu are now (or were)
Marvel's hot up-and-comers. Do McFarlane's Spawn covers still catch my eye
like Yu's Wolverine covers? No, not really. Would Joe Mad, Sal Larrocca
or Leinel Yu be where they are not without McFarlane and his generation? No,
probably not. Will I ever pay $5.95 for *any* comic just for the McFarlane
cover? No, but Alex Ross's Superman Forever gets my money any day of the week,
for both covers just because they're so damn beautiful.
So no, McFarlane's art isn't the best. If you were paying attention to his
work you'd realize that he's no longer draws Spawn, and soon will do even less
plotting and scripting of the title. When I think of Todd McFarlane I think of
a businessman more than a comic book creator, and "businessman" is what will
probably be printed on his business card someday soon. Does his art matter
anymore? As the foundation for much of what the comic book industry is today,
yes it does. As a leading force in today's comic book industry? No, not
really.
Smiles,
Steve J.
Tom127
>mshoc...@aol.com (MShock1036) wrote:
>>
>> Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say
>the
>> Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork
>is
>> not that good. The "detail" in his pencils is just adding an obcene amount
>of
>> inexplicable lines and dots. I contend that when placed side by side with
>the
>> truly great artists, of before and today, his artwork is nothing if not
>poor.
>> Can anybody honestly lay claim that the work of Neal Adams, Will Eisner,Alex
>> Ross or Adam Hughes is somehow lowly enough to be placed with the preschool
>> scribblings that McFarlane put in his books?
>
>
>Some of the most exciting artwork I remember from my twenty-odd years of
>reading comics was Todd McFarlane on Amazing Spider-Man, Jim Lee on Uncanny
>X-Men, and Whilce Portacio on Punisher. These books featured a clean,
With all due respect to the named artists- those books were anythiing but
clean, and I suspect they'd be the first to admit it. "Clean" is the
absence of excessive linework and detail- lots of pure b&w with minimal
cross hatching.
Eisner's SPIRIT is clean. Mike Ploog's stuff is clean. Curt Swan's stuff
was clean. Romita sr., Mike Zeck, Steve Rude, Steve Moncuse, Wendy Pini,
Wally Wood, Rand Holmes- their artwork is what would be considered "clean".
--
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Kirk Chritton
> : One day, while discussing artists (Wrightson
> : maybe?) he said something to the effect of: "You
> : know why the kids love him? It's all the lines.
> : Kids love lines. If you want to be popular with
> : kids, fill up every panel with lots and lots of
> : lines." (that's a major paraphrase... Jim doesn't
> : talk like that.)
>
> : Boy if MacFarlane and Liefeld haven't proven this
> : axiom, nobody ever will!
>
>Wow.
>Then kids must secream for Gerhard and Drew Hayes.
>
> NOT!
There's a difference between "lots of lines" and
crosshatching/stippling. Admittedly, some artists
use "a lot of lines" to create images in styles that
aren't especially appealing to kids. But you
have to admit that Gerhard's work does not
look merely like "lots of lines." It looks like
grey tones and texture. Its clearly not a style
targeted at kids. Liefeld and MacFarlane's styles are.
This is not to say, however, that adults can't
appreciate their work -- only that their technique
has extra appeal to kids.
I think MacFarlane is a very talented illustrator.
Kirk Chritton
MShock1036
To clarify EXACTLY what I posted and not what was attributed to my original
post:
I do not care about "clean" artwork.My contention is that McFarlane has little
talent and DESPITE the fact that he does no longer draw SPAWN, people still
refer to him so HE IS RELEVENT!!
NOW then I find it interesting how so many people who claim to be McFarlane
fans always compare him to Liefeld. It's an easy comparison, and that's why it
keeps cropping up. No, not Jim Lee or Whilce Portacio or
Mark SIlvestri. Y'know why? Because it's obvious that they have real talent.
With McFarlane and Liefeld, it's not so obvious. AND that makes people groan
when some idiot goes along with the Marvel-induced hype and gives homage to
them.
McFarlane's run on Spider-Man was so poor that I cancelled my subscription.
Despite the claim that Spawn is the hottest property around,
we will soon put Spawn in the same shelf as the Spice Girls, Power Rangers and
Vanilla Ice.
I, for one, will cheer and the world of comics will be that much better for it.
I want my money to go to great aretists that promote and expand the medium,
such as Alex Ross or Bernie Wrightson or Terry Dodson.
Barrett Lombardo
The art that sells is the art that's good, and preschool scribblings sell
very well these days.
Besides, Toddles doesn't even draw much these days; Greg Capullo is much
better at it.
The biggest weakness to Spawn is the story. Toddles can't write a plot, but
the word bubbles sure look goooood.
MShock1036 wrote in message
<199804190246...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Robin Riggs
In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>Some of the most exciting artwork I remember from my twenty-odd years of
>>reading comics was Todd McFarlane on Amazing Spider-Man, Jim Lee on Uncanny
>>X-Men, and Whilce Portacio on Punisher. These books featured a clean,
>With all due respect to the named artists- those books were anythiing but
>clean, and I suspect they'd be the first to admit it. "Clean" is the
>absence of excessive linework and detail- lots of pure b&w with minimal
>cross hatching.
But, Tom, "clean" can also be applied to the quality of line. Lee's X-Men
and Portacio's Punisher were both inked by Scott Williams and he uses
extremely clean, precise pen lines. Despite the amount of cross hatching
used in these books, I would still say that the art was "clean".
>Eisner's SPIRIT is clean. Mike Ploog's stuff is clean. Curt Swan's stuff
>was clean. Romita sr., Mike Zeck, Steve Rude, Steve Moncuse, Wendy Pini,
>Wally Wood, Rand Holmes- their artwork is what would be considered "clean".
I would say that while all these artists use a clean line the difference
between them and Lee and Portacio's work would be better described as
"open" or "uncluttered".
Robin.
MShock1036
Oh,and in answer to all those who point to sales and claim that sales equal
quality, I add this:
"If a million people do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-Berke Breathed
And if preschool scribblings sell, they are still preschool scribblings.
COMICKAZE
> MShock1036 wrote:
> >
> > Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say the
> > Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork is
> > not that good.
That's a pretty ignorant statement. Art "quality" is completely
subjective. There is absolutely no way that art styles will ever
be distilled to one form that all will like, so just like Baskin-
Robbins has 31 flavors, the beauty of artwork will always be found
in the eyes of the beholder.
Artwise I'd much rather look at McFarlane than Kirby or Ditko.
--
Thanx,
Robert
COMICKAZE- SD's #1 source for Comics, Cards & Video -
in CA call(619)278-0371, all others(800)869-5275
Our Online Connection- http://www.comickaze.com
Comic Retailers Forum- http://www.customforum.com/COMICKAZEonline
Comic Retailers Forum- http://www.customforum.com/retailforum/
sjo...@ili.net
The ever-charming ka...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>
> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
> >>Some of the most exciting artwork I remember from my twenty-odd years of
> >>reading comics was Todd McFarlane on Amazing Spider-Man, Jim Lee on
Uncanny
> >>X-Men, and Whilce Portacio on Punisher. These books featured a clean,
>
> >With all due respect to the named artists- those books were anythiing but
> >clean, and I suspect they'd be the first to admit it. "Clean" is the
> >absence of excessive linework and detail- lots of pure b&w with minimal
> >cross hatching.
>
> But, Tom, "clean" can also be applied to the quality of line. Lee's X-Men
> and Portacio's Punisher were both inked by Scott Williams and he uses
> extremely clean, precise pen lines. Despite the amount of cross hatching
> used in these books, I would still say that the art was "clean".
>
Thank you very much for the defense, Robin. That's exactly what I meant by
"clean". I'm glad someone has the clarity of vision to get my point. Sounds
like somebody has a problem with '90s-style comic book art, eh? Hey Tom, would
you consider James Kochalka's art "clean"? He doesn't cross-hatch...
Jones
Tom127
>Artwise I'd much rather look at McFarlane than Kirby or Ditko.
It's interesting that you say that- I thought I saw a lot of Ditko
influence in his Spidermans, although I can't speak to Spawn because I
don't read it.
Tom127
In article <6hidcc$c...@zeus.para-net.com>, "Barrett Lombardo"
<bal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The art that sells is the art that's good, and preschool scribblings sell
>very well these days.
>
>Besides, Toddles doesn't even draw much these days; Greg Capullo is much
>better at it.
Capullo is actually a much better artist than you'd ever know from looking
at Spawn. He's really capable of producing magic on the paper, but
unfortunately Spawn seems to be more an illusion.
Tom127
In article <B1627A5F9...@ac038.du.pipex.com>, ka...@dial.pipex.com
(Robin Riggs) wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
>tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
>>>Some of the most exciting artwork I remember from my twenty-odd years of
>>>reading comics was Todd McFarlane on Amazing Spider-Man, Jim Lee on Uncanny
>>>X-Men, and Whilce Portacio on Punisher. These books featured a clean,
>
>>With all due respect to the named artists- those books were anythiing but
>>clean, and I suspect they'd be the first to admit it. "Clean" is the
>>absence of excessive linework and detail- lots of pure b&w with minimal
>>cross hatching.
>
>But, Tom, "clean" can also be applied to the quality of line. Lee's X-Men
>and Portacio's Punisher were both inked by Scott Williams and he uses
>extremely clean, precise pen lines. Despite the amount of cross hatching
>used in these books, I would still say that the art was "clean".
I disagree, Robin. There's a difference to me between "clean" and "neat".
"Neat" is not spilling coffee on your pages and cleaning up the stray lines.
"Clean" is when everything is clearly defined, and the lines are bold,
flowing and precise.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it Scott Williams who brought the current
"broken line" style of inking to the fore? This is not to disparage
Williams in the least, nor the style. Indeed, I think Williams is a
brilliant inker with a nice and distinctive line. I just don't consider it
"clean" style. Kevin Conrad works in that style, and as loose as it looks
every single line is thought out and planned before pen hits paper. You've
met Kevin- his working style is every bit as meticulous as his appearance,
but even he doesn't consider his style to be "clean". (He'll even take
white out sometimes to "break up" his lines if they're too continuous). The
whole point is NOT to be "clean" or too "slick".
Another example- BWS on WEAPON X was "clean", even with the cross hatch and
feathering. BWS on STORYTELLER was not. I'm not claiming one to be better
than the other (tho' I do have my prefrences), just that they're different.
When you look at a page of the art from across the room and can see
distinctions between objects, black and white, to me that's clean.
When you look at a page from across the room and have difficulty telling
what's what through the greys, then it's not.
At least, that's how I see it.
>>Eisner's SPIRIT is clean. Mike Ploog's stuff is clean. Curt Swan's stuff
>>was clean. Romita sr., Mike Zeck, Steve Rude, Steve Moncuse, Wendy Pini,
>>Wally Wood, Rand Holmes- their artwork is what would be considered "clean".
>
>I would say that while all these artists use a clean line the difference
>between them and Lee and Portacio's work would be better described as
>"open" or "uncluttered".
Or "clean". :-)
(Oh- btw- tho I haven't seen Portacio's stuff in quite a while, I recall it
being of the "scratchy ink" school, which is DEFINITELY not "clean".)
yet another from the damon feed
In article <199804212138...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mshoc...@aol.com (MShock1036) wrote:
i might have been more sympathetic towards
your orginal post if you hadn;t mentioned that hack
alex ross in with all the other
artists.
but preschool dribblings have quality.
they are not bad, they are good.
it's silly to say that sales equal quality.
the only thing that equals quality is 'i like it'.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <199804211402...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mshoc...@aol.com (MShock1036) wrote:
>
> To clarify EXACTLY what I posted and not what was attributed to my original
> post:
>
> I do not care about "clean" artwork.My contention is that McFarlane has
little
> talent and DESPITE the fact that he does no longer draw SPAWN, people still
> refer to him so HE IS RELEVENT!!
> NOW then I find it interesting how so many people who claim to be McFarlane
> fans always compare him to Liefeld. It's an easy comparison, and that's why
it
> keeps cropping up. No, not Jim Lee or Whilce Portacio or
> Mark SIlvestri. Y'know why? Because it's obvious that they have real talent.
> With McFarlane and Liefeld, it's not so obvious.
maybe not to you.
> McFarlane's run on Spider-Man was so poor that I cancelled my subscription.
i thought it was the second best thing beign written at marvel
at the time.
still do.
> Despite the claim that Spawn is the hottest property around,
> we will soon put Spawn in the same shelf as the Spice Girls,
i'd rather listen to the spice girls than mahler.
> I want my money to go to great aretists that promote and expand the medium,
> such as Alex Ross or Bernie Wrightson or Terry Dodson.
there you go again with that hack ross.
you want somebody like ross with real talent
to expand the medium, try
looking at some dave mckean or john muth,
both of whom do ross's style better than ross,
but also show some diversity in their ability.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <353C41...@sprynet.com>, comi...@geocities.com wrote:
>Artwise I'd much rather look at McFarlane than Kirby or Ditko.
It's interesting that you say that- I thought I saw a lot of Ditko
influence in his Spidermans, although I can't speak to Spawn because I
don't read it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mmm. ditko always seemed
way too simple to me;
mcf likes to elaborate.
if you look at the lines, i'd say mcf also uses more curves;
while ditko isn't as blocky as kirby, he
still uses a lot of straight lines
for people.
i think the influence you see is that
mcf drew spidey as very skinny,
which was an homage/tribute/whatever back to ditko.
i think larsen's spidey reminds me of ditko's style more than mcf's.
MShock1036
Tom Vincent wrote:
"Capullo is actually a much better artist than you'd ever know from looking at
Spawn. He's really capable of producing magic on the paper, but
unfortunately Spawn seems to be more an illusion."
You are so correct. Capullo's brilliant style has been diluted from it's truly
great form to appease the so-called "realism-seeking" masses.
Capullo's art on Spawn was not so at first...sales dropped when he subbed on
the book originally. This is most likely due to the fact that while today's
readers CLAIM that they desire grim realistic entertainment, they want SAFE
(i.e. "cartoony")blood and guts, not the true depiction of the story and it's
hellish content.
It's sad to see a great artist such as Capullo on a book like Spawn. The
reality of the current comic market is that it is a "lowest common denominator"
driven market,and Capullo is making money the best way available. I hope he
enjoys the work, but I wonder if that can be entirely possible where he's at.
With his formidable talent, he must surely feel confined to be reproducing
Todd's sophomoric art. I hope that soon he gets the opportunity to return to
his original style and begin pushing the envelope again. He deserves to be in
Wizard's Top Ten and in every breath in which someone mentions Adam Hughes or
Jim Lee.
One last note: I can say one thing in favor of Mr. McFarlane, and that is he
has consistently produced his book (nearly) every month since Image's
inception.This has no doubt aided his success, since not many other artists,
good or bad, can seem to do this, even on a bi-monthly basis.
But one must then wonder if just showing up for work every day is just cause
for the success he has reaped. Maybe if some of these other artists would get
cracking on a consistent character or book, McFarlane might actually have to
compete with somebody.
GDKskills
>From: mshoc...@aol.com
>One last note: I can say one thing in favor of Mr. McFarlane, and that is he
>has consistently produced his book (nearly) every month since Image's
>inception.This has no doubt aided his success, since not many other artists,
>good or bad, can seem to do this, even on a bi-monthly basis.
>But one must then wonder if just showing up for work every day is just cause
>for the success he has reaped. Maybe if some of these other artists would get
>cracking on a consistent character or book, McFarlane might actually have to
>compete with somebody.
Don't forget that Erik Larsen has writened, penciled, and inked over fifty
issues worth of Savage Dragon.
MShock1036
In reply to gdks...@aol.com who wrote:
"Don't forget that Erik Larsen has writened, penciled, and inked over fifty
issues worth of Savage Dragon"
Point taken.I think Mr.Larson is a fine artist, and I think he's done an
admirable job of trying to promote readable comics.He has seemed to balance art
with story, and consistently so.Maybe not with the flair of say, Jim Lee or Joe
Madureira, but his art is consistent and he HAS stuck with a single character.I
can only assume that his success has been moderate compared to McFarlane, but
he has had success.Maybe if we, the readers, would push for these guys instead
of chasiing after the McFarlanes and Liefelds that have been shoved in our
face, this medium would begin to enjoy a better level of fare.
Andrew Ducker
In article <199804212138...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, MShock1036
<mshoc...@aol.com> writes
>Oh,and in answer to all those who point to sales and claim that sales equal
>quality, I add this:
>
>"If a million people do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> -Berke Breathed
>
>And if preschool scribblings sell, they are still preschool scribblings.
Hasn't MacFarlane left school?
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
Robin Riggs
>When you look at a page of the art from across the room and can see
>distinctions between objects, black and white, to me that's clean.
>When you look at a page from across the room and have difficulty telling
>what's what through the greys, then it's not.
Then by your own definition the Lee/Williams Uncanny X-Men art would be
considered "clean". Those pages worked extremely well as b/w art, I've
handled many of the originals and can testify to their clarity.
I don't think we're going to agree on terms on this one, my friend. It
definitely sounds like one to be discussed at length over a few beers to
me. :)
Robin.
donh...@yahoo.com
Alex Ross's style is making his characters and everything he paints look real.
I don't see how he is "copying" someone's style.
Don
donh...@yahoo.com
Wheeee! Everyone support Savage Dragon! It kicks ass!
JudeD Dude
First off, IMHO, McFarlane is an okay artist with a lot of flair and style.
Yes, he uses lots of lines, but that's what gives his work its "oomph."
However, I would agree that his knowledge of anatomy is definitely lacking and
his representations of things (like trash cans, for instance) which could be
found in the real world look nothing like reality. So what, though? He has a
"cartoony" style. If you like it, you like it. If you don't you don't.
Now, I have got a real bone to pick with the NUMB NUT who posted:
>there you go again with that hack ross.
This person has at least once before referred to Ross as a "hack." Alright, you
don't like his art. So be it. I think you're wrong, there, but okay.
However, one thing Ross definitely is NOT is a "hack." Go buy a dictionary! A
"hack" is either a driver of a taxi cab or a WRITER, not an illustrator or
visual artist (I say "visual" because some writing is an art).
So, stop it! Call him something else. A bad drawer. Whatever. But he is
definitely NOT a hack.
-- Brian Bell
Tom127
In article <B16397CD9...@0.0.0.0>, ka...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs)
wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
>tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
>>When you look at a page of the art from across the room and can see
>>distinctions between objects, black and white, to me that's clean.
>
>>When you look at a page from across the room and have difficulty telling
>>what's what through the greys, then it's not.
>
>Then by your own definition the Lee/Williams Uncanny X-Men art would be
>considered "clean". Those pages worked extremely well as b/w art, I've
>handled many of the originals and can testify to their clarity.
Fair enough, Rob.
I've never seen them in the original, but I have colored some. As you know
stuff looks a lot different in the original than when it's reduced 65%.
(Again, I have to state emphatically that I DO Like The Work. I like it a
lot, and the few pieces I was lucky enough to work on are among my
favorites) However, when it's been reduced and ONLY the black and white
shows thru (i.e. no ghosts of pencils or blue lines, nor dents from pencil
lines on the paper), it can appear confusing.
>I don't think we're going to agree on terms on this one, my friend. It
>definitely sounds like one to be discussed at length over a few beers to
>me. :)
Okay- sounds good to me. You buyin'?
Robin Riggs
>Fair enough, Rob.
>I've never seen them in the original, but I have colored some. As you know
>stuff looks a lot different in the original than when it's reduced 65%.
>(Again, I have to state emphatically that I DO Like The Work. I like it a
>lot, and the few pieces I was lucky enough to work on are among my
>favorites) However, when it's been reduced and ONLY the black and white
>shows thru (i.e. no ghosts of pencils or blue lines, nor dents from pencil
>lines on the paper), it can appear confusing.
I know what you mean, it can make a lot of difference. I was really
impressed with how they looked on the boards but, as you say, that isn't
guaranteed to survive the repro processes.
>>I don't think we're going to agree on terms on this one, my friend. It
>>definitely sounds like one to be discussed at length over a few beers to
>>me. :)
>Okay- sounds good to me. You buyin'?
Sure. I think I owe you a few. I'll bring the Digestive biscuits, okay?
Robin.
PatDOneill
>>When you look at a page from across the room and have difficulty telling
>>what's what through the greys, then it's not.
>
>Then by your own definition the Lee/Williams Uncanny X-Men art would be
>considered "clean". Those pages worked extremely well as b/w art, I've
>handled many of the originals and can testify to their clarity.
And here's where reasonable people can differ. I look at the Lee/Williams work
and all I see is "flat". The level of detail is so dense, on both foeground and
background elements, that it all flattens out to a single plane.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
COMICKAZE (comi...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: > MShock1036 wrote:
: > >
: > > Okay, it's time to get this out in the open. I realize no one wants to say the
: > > Emperor has no clothes, but the truth of the matter is McFarlane's artwork is
: > > not that good.
: That's a pretty ignorant statement. Art "quality" is completely
: subjective.
This has GOT to be part of the rac* drinking game:
* Drink every time someone claims art quality is subjective
* Chug every time Mike Chary responds as to why it's not
* Get completely plastered if subjectivity vs. objectivity becomes a
zombie thread ('cause, frankly, you'll need to)
: There is absolutely no way that art styles will ever
: be distilled to one form that all will like...
Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
- 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
Barrett Lombardo
"It is only foolish to the 'unfoolish'"
-Barrett Lombardo
How would kids know any better these days? The classic artists are gone!
Flashy, sexy, long-legged, wide-eyed, footless, well-equipped, g-stringed,
big breasted bimbos and top-heavy, large-chinned, snarling, oversized-necked
numb-nuts are the Cash Cows!
The problem is not the art. The problem is the stories which require such
wittless art. How many times can Spiderman kick the Green Goblin's ass? How
many 15 foot behemoth wrestlers in nice tights can you fit on one cover next
to the mastermind good guy midget? Why are all the sexy g-stringed
superladies total asskickers with large swords and dainty hands? Did the
Fantastic Four just become too boring to write any new stories that they had
to start reruns? (I'm glad they redid the Avengers cuz now the youngsters
can appreciate some real heroes.)
Spawn is a boring character. Spawn is a boring story. Spawn is a crappy
movie. Spawn is an incredibly well produced comic book. Spawn sells better
than any comic today for one reason. The panel art looks cool.
I just hope the readers can read and comprehend the absurdity of this
character.
Andrew Ducker wrote in message ...
Tom127
In article <B163EA159...@aj221.du.pipex.com>, ka...@dial.pipex.com
(Robin Riggs) wrote:
>Sure. I think I owe you a few. I'll bring the Digestive biscuits, okay?
Jo's waiting.
W Lee or T Beatty
When the word "clean" is used to describe comic art, I usually think of
the clean-line work of cartoonists such as Chester Gould or Herge --
artists who use slick bold outlines and crisp clean lines to outline
detail -- with an absence of feathering or line-work for shading. The
slick inks of George Klein on Curt Swan come to mind. Dick Sprang's
Batman qualifies, too. As does Jack Cole's Plastic Man and Ditko's
Spider-man. Kurtzman is clean -- Elder isn't.
I wouldn't classify Eisner in this category, as his inking style (on The
Spirit) is quite lush, with a lot of feathering -- more out of the Alex
Raymond school than the Gould tradition (his current work is darn near
"sketchy") -- some of the other artists mentioned in previous posts,
however talented, don't strike me as "clean" either...the term, by the
way, describes a style, not a level of quality -- though I tend to think
clean-line artists have to produce superior quality work in order to get
away with being that bold and simple in their approach.
I like to think that what Rick Burchett and I are doing in Batman:Gotham
Adventures (following in the footsteps of Bruce Timm and Mike
Parobeck) qualifies as "clean-line" work... as for its quality, that's
for others to judge...
Terry Beatty
(cartoonist/fanboy/ink slinger)
Bad Acid
W Lee or T Beatty wrote:
>
> When the word "clean" is used to describe comic art, I usually think of
> the clean-line work of cartoonists such as Chester Gould or Herge --
> artists who use slick bold outlines and crisp clean lines to outline
> detail -- with an absence of feathering or line-work for shading. The
> slick inks of George Klein on Curt Swan come to mind. Dick Sprang's
> Batman qualifies, too. As does Jack Cole's Plastic Man and Ditko's
> Spider-man. Kurtzman is clean -- Elder isn't.
>
Would anyone consider Geoff Darrow's inking to be "Clean"? It is
certainly unencumbered by an excess of hatchwork (none, to be exact),
and yet his line definately lacks the elegance you find in inkers like
Farmer or Wiaceck (sp). What category do you suppose Darrow's inking
falls into? I'd proffer the term "Utilitarian". This is not meant to
sound derogatory, however. His style clearly serves him well.
Bad Acid
--
Visit "Plop Fiction" at http://plopfiction.info-data.com
It's Piss Your Pants Funny!
Andrew Ducker
In article <6hl3q7$g...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>: There is absolutely no way that art styles will ever
>: be distilled to one form that all will like...
>
>Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
>make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
>the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
>panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
>I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
>like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
Unless, of course, it's in a Grant Morrison Comic, in which case it's
_supposed_ to move about like that.
Kevin J. Maroney
Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
>>make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
>>the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
>>panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
>>I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
>>like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
>
>Unless, of course, it's in a Grant Morrison Comic, in which case it's
>_supposed_ to move about like that.
Damn. I was going to make that point, but you made it a lot funnier
than I would have.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Kevin J. Maroney
"Barrett Lombardo" <bal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>How would kids know any better these days? The classic artists are gone!
>Flashy, sexy, long-legged, wide-eyed, footless, well-equipped, g-stringed,
>big breasted bimbos and top-heavy, large-chinned, snarling, oversized-necked
>numb-nuts are the Cash Cows!
I believe that much of the best art in comics has been produced in the
last ten to fifteen years, and that the average quality of art in
comics in the 1980s surpassed every previous era. I do not expect
everyone to agree with me.
Ken Small
Kevin J. Maroney yammered...
>I believe that much of the best art in comics has been produced in the
>last ten to fifteen years, and that the average quality of art in
>comics in the 1980s surpassed every previous era. I do not expect
>everyone to agree with me.
I agree as well, but I also think that that's happened almost
entirely out of the mainstream.
--
-Ken
Magic 8-Ball sez: Don't count on it
yet another from the damon feed
In article <199804221510...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jude...@aol.com (JudeD Dude) wrote:
> Now, I have got a real bone to pick with the NUMB NUT who posted:
>
> >there you go again with that hack ross.
>
> This person has at least once before referred to Ross as a "hack." Alright,
you
> don't like his art. So be it. I think you're wrong, there, but okay.
>
> However, one thing Ross definitely is NOT is a "hack." Go buy a dictionary!
A
> "hack" is either a driver of a taxi cab or a WRITER, not an illustrator or
> visual artist (I say "visual" because some writing is an art).
>
> So, stop it! Call him something else. A bad drawer. Whatever. But he is
> definitely NOT a hack.
okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
excessively soft pallette,
in an effort to explain that were someone to cite examples of great
painters 'expanding' [or whatever word was used]
comics, that someone would do much better to cite
one of 5-10 other better painters than ross.
if i mistakenly used 'hack', i apologize.
Tom127
In article <6hjeps$ddn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sjo...@ili.net wrote:
>The ever-charming ka...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>>
>> In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
>> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>
>> >With all due respect to the named artists- those books were anythiing but
>> >clean, and I suspect they'd be the first to admit it. "Clean" is the
>> >absence of excessive linework and detail- lots of pure b&w with minimal
>> >cross hatching.
>>
>> But, Tom, "clean" can also be applied to the quality of line. Lee's X-Men
>> and Portacio's Punisher were both inked by Scott Williams and he uses
>> extremely clean, precise pen lines. Despite the amount of cross hatching
>> used in these books, I would still say that the art was "clean".
>>
>
>Thank you very much for the defense, Robin. That's exactly what I meant by
>"clean". I'm glad someone has the clarity of vision to get my point. Sounds
>like somebody has a problem with '90s-style comic book art, eh? Hey Tom, would
>you consider James Kochalka's art "clean"? He doesn't cross-hatch...
I don't have a problem with it. And who's Kochalka?
One last note- it's really not necessary to post AND email your response.
Just posting it is sufficient.
Tom127
In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
from the damon feed) wrote:
>
>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>soul,
Waitaminnit- how can you claim a human painter to have a lack of soul, when
you like drum machines?
PatDOneill
>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
>to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
>draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
>excessively soft pallette,
Leonardo da Vinci never painted anything without a "reference" (in his case, a
model since photography was 300 years away).
Andrew Ducker
In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>, Tom127
<tom...@capital.net> writes
>
>>
>>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>>soul,
>
>you like drum machines?
How about if you don't expect Drum machines to have soul but you do
expect painters to have soul?
Having said that, I find most peoples use Drum Machines to be
unimaginative, but they are just a tool. They can do anything a human
drummer can do, they just require a lot of work to be put in to make
them do that.
MShock1036
db...@po.cwru.edu wrote(regarding Alex Ross)
"i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
excessively soft pallette,"
Now let me type this in short,easy to understand words so that you may
understand this.
How,praytell, do you expect someone, anyone, to draw, paint or render an object
without reference? How can you draw something if you don't know what it looks
like?
Magic?
Oh, wait! I know!
What you could do is just MAKE UP some scenery,some ships, some really big guns
that are too elaborate to be functional,and all the characters you draw could
all look the same.Once you had the basic body style down you could just
slightly change the skin tight costume!
Of course! Who needs photorealism? (That's the term for Ross's art style by the
way.)
I'd love to pick apart each individual nuance of that statement, but my
time(and everyone else's) would be better spent elsewhere.
Andrew Ducker
In article <199804241323...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, MShock1036
<mshoc...@aol.com> writes
>db...@po.cwru.edu wrote(regarding Alex Ross)
>
>"i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
>to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
>draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
>excessively soft pallette,"
>
> Now let me type this in short,easy to understand words so that you may
>understand this.
>How,praytell, do you expect someone, anyone, to draw, paint or render an object
>without reference? How can you draw something if you don't know what it looks
>like?
>time(and everyone else's) would be better spent elsewhere.
While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
Danny 3:16!!
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>
> >okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
> >soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
> >to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
> >draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
> >excessively soft pallette,
>
> model since photography was 300 years away).
>
> Best, Pat
>
We're talking about comic book artists, not Renaissance painters!
--Dan
JudeD Dude
Someone from the damon feed posted, regarding calling Ross a "hack" and my
calling him a "NUMB NUT" for it:
>if i mistakenly used 'hack', i apologize.
No problem.
By the way, I'm sorry, too, for calling you a "NUMB NUT." It was pretty rude
and after reading my post I realized it was arrogant. My sincerest apologies.
I'm sorry.
Respectfully,
Brian Bell
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Andrew Ducker wrote:
>
> While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
> that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
> gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
> photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
Finally, a DECENT criticism of Ross. I love his work but I can see
your complaint. Fortunately most books he'd sone work as narration
against the "photo's". I'd hate to see a collaboration with someone
who can't do narration and exposition well (say Ron Marz for example).
I've also found a few of Ross's references to be too transparent.
Looking at a STORY page and seeing a well know movie clip can be
distracting. And while I like the level of detail he includes he
just pushes the line of including "cute" bits in the backgrounds.
(That worked for KC, but seems out of place elsewhere).
That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
better comics painter?
--
Yes, I've finally resorted to a Spam block.
To respond, remove the letters BLOCK from my address.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rich.
PJW
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <richBL...@erols.com> writes:
> Andrew Ducker wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
> > that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
> > gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
> > photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
>
> Finally, a DECENT criticism of Ross. I love his work but I can see
> your complaint. Fortunately most books he'd sone work as narration
> against the "photo's". I'd hate to see a collaboration with someone
> who can't do narration and exposition well (say Ron Marz for example).
>
> That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
> better comics painter?
I haven't really seen enough of Ross' work to judge whether I like or
dislike his output. What I have seen, I must say I have liked, though
I've read neither MARVELS nor KINGDOM COME.
I generally dislike "painted" comic book art. For me anyway, placing
word balloons on painted artwork sort of breaks the illusion. (Word
balloons on inked artwork, however, works just fine.)
"Painters" I do like include Jon J. Muth (thinking of MYSTERY PLAY here)
and Dave McKean (though McKean would be more of a multi-media artist).
M. High
In article <6hppbq$f...@rrzs3.uni-regensburg.de> Michael Lehmeier t771202,
lem11441@rggs14 writes:
>I have said it before and I will day it again:
>In Germanys booming magazine market only one half to one third of the
>issues at newsstands actually sell. And still they make profit.
>Readership increases because they are everywhere.
>If it works here, why not in the states?
Disclaimer: I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert on
the newsstand market. When it comes to the newsstand market, I bow to
the superior knowledge of others such as Pat O'Neill (who has long-term
firsthand experience).
For comic books, 25% sell-through on the newsstand is considered good.
With the proper amount of advertising and a high enough volume of sales,
just about anything can be sold on the newsstand.
Also, I have been told by Those In The Know that the newsstand market
itself is *dying*. I personally do not see the newsstand as the
salvation of the comic market - I am much more interested in selling
comics through the internet in some form or fashion, but that's another
discussion for another time.
Best,
- mlh
William C Wendel
I think Dan Brereton is probably my favorite painter. I like his murky
eerie style. Check it out in the Nocturnals one-shot, coming in May
from Dark Horse.
But I like Ross, too.
bc
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
William C Wendel wrote:
>
> I think Dan Brereton is probably my favorite painter. I like his murky
> eerie style. Check it out in the Nocturnals one-shot, coming in May
> from Dark Horse.
I agree, Brereton's great. I DON'T usually like murky but he pulls it
off.
My only complaint is his faces look like the result of WAY too much
plastic
surgery. I mean you could cut glass with those noses!
PatDOneill
>> >okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>> >soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
>> >to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
>> >draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
>> >excessively soft pallette,
>>
>> Leonardo da Vinci never painted anything without a "reference" (in his
>case, a
>> model since photography was 300 years away).
>>
>> Best, Pat
>>
>What The HELL kind of analogy is THAT?
>
>We're talking about comic book artists, not Renaissance painters!
>
We're talking about painters (Alex Ross/da Vinci). It is my impression that
better art is produced when working from "life" (or at least photographs
thereof) than when making it up from memory.
Xeq
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> It is my impression that
> better art is produced when working from "life" (or at least photographs
> thereof) than when making it up from memory.
Most paintings made exclusively from photos come across as flat and dull.
Photo-realistic paintings are best made from a combination of photo's,
memory, and most important, experiance/practice. As for "better art", well
that's a matter of opinion.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
> In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>
> >
> >okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
> >soul,
>
> you like drum machines?
[1] i think the tape i sent you makes my case.
[2]his characters just seem so stiff.
[3] goober.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <199804241323...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mshoc...@aol.com (MShock1036) wrote:
>
> db...@po.cwru.edu wrote(regarding Alex Ross)
>
> "i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
> to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
> draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
> excessively soft pallette,"
>
> understand this.
hey, thanks! did you get them from your jim lee comics?
> How,praytell, do you expect someone, anyone, to draw, paint or render an
object
> without reference? How can you draw something if you don't know what it
looks
> like?
> Magic?
> Oh, wait! I know!
> What you could do is just MAKE UP
wow. you answered your question yourself. i'm impressed.
> What you could do is just MAKE UP
well, i tend to belive j muth could
paint a tricycle in a tree wihtout needed to
see a tricycle in a tree.
an't say the same for ross.
> Of course! Who needs photorealism? (That's the term for Ross's art style by
the
> way.)
duh.
> I'd love to pick apart each individual nuance of that statement, but my
> time(and everyone else's) would be better spent elsewhere.
i agree. everyone else's time would be much better spent if you were
elsewhere.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <01bd6fc6$5e59e7c0$1f99...@xeq.resnet.wsu.edu>,
"Xeq" <j...@cocougs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It is my impression that
> > better art is produced when working from "life" (or at least photographs
> > thereof) than when making it up from memory.
>
> Most paintings made exclusively from photos come across as flat and dull.
well, that's my opinion of ross's work.
> Photo-realistic paintings are best made from a combination of photo's,
> memory, and most important, experiance/practice. As for "better art", well
> that's a matter of opinion.
no, i like photorealistic style the best myself.
i just think ross isn't the best example of that style.
or even close to it.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Gwydion wrote:
>
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <richBL...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
> >better comics painter?
>
Good one. Another of my favorites.
> His art is nothing short of
> spectacular (with bonus points for not only giving Dawn the proper
> shape for the incarnation of the Goddess, but also knowing how to draw
> hips that actually match the proportions for a woman's breasts.)
And sometimes even the waists!
Devil's advocate time:
Lisner's faces are TOO pretty and feminine (even the guys).
Kinda like Colleen Doran's.
And too many of his characters look exactly alike except for
their cloth and hair.
But man, does he do cool armor.
Bradly E. Peterson
tom...@capital.net (Tom127) done said this here deal:
>In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>from the damon feed) wrote:
>>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>>soul,
>Waitaminnit- how can you claim a human painter to have a lack of soul, when
>you like drum machines?
Let's not be TOO hard on drum machines. They ARE good tools,
when writing, making demos or practicing. A great bit of advice
from Ted Nugent is, "You never wanna play without a drummer." If
the machine is what you have available to you, use it, or a
metronome.
However... It's not good for recording. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"The Goat is a great idea which hasn't been
pimped and over-exposed to death. Much like
how Hanson is a wonderully original pop trio
of gosh-darn cute kids who just make you feel
good about setting yourself on fire."
(Hosun Lee)
Gwydion
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <richBL...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
>That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>better comics painter?
Joe Lisner, of Cry For Dawn fame. His art is nothing short of
spectacular (with bonus points for not only giving Dawn the proper
shape for the incarnation of the Goddess, but also knowing how to draw
hips that actually match the proportions for a woman's breasts.)
Gwydion
Come Visit Harry's Homepage-O-Rama:
http://don.skidmore.edu/~domalley
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>from the damon feed) writes:
>>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>>soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
>>to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
>>draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
>>excessively soft pallette,
>Leonardo da Vinci never painted anything without a "reference" (in his case, a
>model since photography was 300 years away).
I don't either. I NEED a reference, as do many really spiffy
painters. Scott Hampton uses reference as well, & I don't see
anyone downing HIM for it. Hell, I think this dude's jealous
that Alex Ross has gotten so much popularity. Just an opinion,
of course.
Bradly E. Peterson
jude...@aol.com (JudeD Dude) done said this here deal:
> However, one thing Ross definitely is NOT is a "hack." Go buy a dictionary!
>A "hack" is either a driver of a taxi cab or a WRITER, not an illustrator
>or visual artist (I say "visual" because some writing is an art).
>> So, stop it! Call him something else. A bad drawer. Whatever. But he is
>> definitely NOT a hack.
He's not a "hack", but neither is a cab driver. It's the cab
ITSELF that is the "hack", as in "I drive a hack on the lower
eastside."
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Bradly E. Peterson
Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> done said this
here deal:
>While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
>that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
>gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
>photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
Yep. He's learning. I think the best work, as far as
storytelling is concerned came in the piece he did for the
"Sandman Mystery Theatre" Annual. Very nice work, indeed.
Bradly E. Peterson
"Danny 3:16!!" <DCO...@murray.fordham.edu> done said this here
deal:
>PatDOneill wrote:
>> Leonardo da Vinci never painted anything without a "reference" (in his case, a
>> model since photography was 300 years away).
>What The HELL kind of analogy is THAT?
>We're talking about comic book artists, not Renaissance painters!
Quite a good analogy, actually. Renaissance painters WERE the
pop artists of their day, Dan. Besides, we're not talking about
comic books per se, we're talking about painting. So, Alex's
paintings are published in comic books... So what?
I suggest you check out "Chiarascuro", publlished by DC/Vertigo
for a quick refresher course on how these men were viewed in
their day. They've done all the research for you, and it's a
damn fine read at that.
BRUHED
Love Brereton too. Ross is wonderful, but a bit too dependent on photos for my
tastes (I think Dan paints more from his imagination).
Also check out Dean Armstrong, who paints with a digital paintbrush like no one
can--check out his covers for Bru-Hed and Nasti: Monster Hunter
(He also just won a Spectrum Award for Bru and the book ...ONE TO GO)
BTW, Dan will be a guest at Motor City Con May 15-17 in Novi, MI and he and
Alex will both (I think) be at San Diego in August.
Mike P.
Schism Comics
BRU-HED'S GUIDE TO GETTIN' GIRLS NOW!
Bru-Hed
Drake
On 22 Apr 1998 15:10:53 GMT, jude...@aol.com (JudeD Dude) wrote:
>Now, I have got a real bone to pick with the NUMB NUT who posted:
>
>>there you go again with that hack ross.
>
>This person has at least once before referred to Ross as a "hack." Alright, you
>don't like his art. So be it. I think you're wrong, there, but okay.
>
>However, one thing Ross definitely is NOT is a "hack." Go buy a dictionary! A
>"hack" is either a driver of a taxi cab or a WRITER, not an illustrator or
>visual artist (I say "visual" because some writing is an art).
>
>So, stop it! Call him something else. A bad drawer. Whatever. But he is
>definitely NOT a hack.
>
>
>-- Brian Bell
>
Actually, I've quite often heard the term "hack" as applied to artists
& illustrators in the commercial arts. It's not necessarily a
reflection of the person's ability, although it does have negative
connotations. I've even heard artists themselves say something along
the lines of "I'm gonna hack this out over the weekend." Generally
they are referring to turning something out with some degree of speed,
and not necessarily putting their hearts into it.
Whether or not Ross is a hack is certainly open to discussion. I get a
kick out of his work myself, but I would consider him to be more of an
illustrator than an artist, given his rather prodigious use of
photographs, models and the like.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <6hrfoh$2...@news.cybernews.net>,
dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>
> patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>
> >In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
> >from the damon feed) writes:
>
> >>okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
> >>soul, lack of panel flow, seeming inability
> >>to paint anything/one without a reference, lack of ability to
> >>draw many facial expressions, extremely limited style, and
> >>excessively soft pallette,
>
case, a
> >model since photography was 300 years away).
>
> painters. Scott Hampton uses reference as well, & I don't see
> anyone downing HIM for it.
scott hampton's characters don't look eactly like their references,
and i don't think he uses movie stars.
Hell, I think this dude's jealous
> that Alex Ross has gotten so much popularity. Just an opinion,
> of course.
rather i think that people are underservedly hung up on ross
instead of, say, john muth,
who does everything ross does,
only better, and also does more.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <3540C0...@erols.com>,
richBL...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Andrew Ducker wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
> > that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
> > gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
> > photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
>
well, i said that too.
> I've also found a few of Ross's references to be too transparent.
that's what i meant by saying 'his seeming iability to
work without references'.
others SEEM to be able to paint without
references, regardless of whether or not they do.
> That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
> better comics painter?
photorealism:
dave mckean, john muth, bill sienkewicz.
iconic realism[anatomy/expressions, and backgrounds
realistic, but facial features more inconic]:
linsner, micheal zulli, and
possibly the hepcat's martin wagner[tho he's not a painter, he's
working in pen and ink]
stylistic: charles vess, scott hampton, and the artist who painted
the kid eternity mini [maybe duncan fregredo].
about the same level of quality as ross, but
better in some aspects: john bolton, glenn fabry.
Tom127
In article <WJm2QBAR...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Ducker
<and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>, Tom127
><tom...@capital.net> writes
>>Waitaminnit- how can you claim a human painter to have a lack of soul, when
>>you like drum machines?
>
>
>How about if you don't expect Drum machines to have soul but you do
>expect painters to have soul?
That makes sense.
>
>Having said that, I find most peoples use Drum Machines to be
>unimaginative, but they are just a tool.
Damon sent me a tape containing music which didn't use a single human
drummer, and it was pretty good. Lacking in soul, but pretty good
nonetheless.
>They can do anything a human
>drummer can do, they just require a lot of work to be put in to make
>them do that.
heh, heh. You haven't heard any great drummers, have you? There is not, nor
will there ever be, a machine in existance that can do what Keith Moon,
Ainsley Dunbar, or even Cozy Powell could do.
--
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Tom127
In article <6hrorg$6v1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
from the damon feed) wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>
>> In article <6hoign$r44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>> from the damon feed) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >okay. i was searching for a single word to encompass his lack of
>> >soul,
>>
>> Waitaminnit- how can you claim a human painter to have a lack of soul, when
>> you like drum machines?
>[1] i think the tape i sent you makes my case.
>[2]his characters just seem so stiff.
Some do, some don't. I find a lot of soul in the application of the paint
itself. It's a very academic approach, to be sure, but it's still great,
IMO.
>[3] goober.
HEY! That's MISTER goober to you!
Tom127
In article <353EA6...@muscanet.com>, W Lee or T Beatty
<wl...@muscanet.com> wrote:
>I wouldn't classify Eisner in this category, as his inking style (on The
>Spirit) is quite lush, with a lot of feathering -- more out of the Alex
>Raymond school than the Gould tradition (his current work is darn near
>"sketchy") --
I was actually referring to the SPIRIT stuff, which I still see as "clean"
despite the lush feathering, Terry. I agree completely with your assesment
that "describes a style, not a level of quality", as well as your followup
statement re: quality.
>I like to think that what Rick Burchett and I are doing in Batman:Gotham
>Adventures (following in the footsteps of Bruce Timm and Mike
>Parobeck) qualifies as "clean-line" work...
Yup- and I was sloppy for not having mentioned you in my first list of
"clean" style artists. Sorry.
>as for its quality, that's
>for others to judge...
I like it.
yet another from the damon feed
>
> >In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>, Tom127
> ><tom...@capital.net> writes
>
> >>Waitaminnit- how can you claim a human painter to have a lack of soul,
when
> >>you like drum machines?
> >
> >
> >expect painters to have soul?
how about if i expect singers to have soul,
but not drum machines?
how about if i expect the painted characters to have
soul, but not the buildings?
> That makes sense.
>
> >
> >Having said that, I find most peoples use Drum Machines to be
> >unimaginative, but they are just a tool.
>
> Damon sent me a tape containing music which didn't use a single human
> drummer, and it was pretty good.
incorrect.
while i think most of the human drummers
were left out due to dummy getting a 60min tape
\instead of a 90, atleast two songs did
use human drumming.
i figured you would be able to tell because
you were a drummer.
nyah nyah.
Lacking in soul, but pretty good
> nonetheless.
if you think those songs were lacking in soul, then
there's something wrong with your
soul.
probably sold it to someone.
> >They can do anything a human
> >drummer can do, they just require a lot of work to be put in to make
> >them do that.
>
> heh, heh. You haven't heard any great drummers, have you? There is not, nor
> will there ever be, a machine in existance that can do what Keith Moon,
> Ainsley Dunbar, or even Cozy Powell could do.
but those guys can't do what drum machines can do,
unless they can simultaneously drum at least 8 separate rhythms.
and drum machines don't lose arms, or die.
as easily.
Brandon Blatcher
In article <6hu0rv$2re$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
from the damon feed) wrote:
>In article <3540C0...@erols.com>,
> richBL...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Ducker wrote:
>> >
>> > While I agree with the 'Reference' comment, I have to say that I find
>> > that Ross' work doesn't flow well. Hid one of panels/ pages are
>> > gorgeous, but his work lookds more like a collections of carefully posed
>> > photo's than a comic designed to tell a story(to me).
>>
>> Finally, a DECENT criticism of Ross.
>
>
>well, i said that too.
>
>
>> I've also found a few of Ross's references to be too transparent.
>
>that's what i meant by saying 'his seeming iability to
>work without references'.
>others SEEM to be able to paint without
>references, regardless of whether or not they do.
There's an interesting sample of P. Craig Russell's artwork in a Comics
Journal issue from a while back. It shows how he used Jill Thompson
(Sandman, Scary Godmother) as a photo reference. He had a picture of
Thompson posing with arm outstretched and clutching hands in a dramatic
way. The final comic drawn panel had a man in similar pose. In short
Russell used the photo as a reference but didn't copy it word for word so
to speak.
Technically speaking all artists are using reference, even those that are
drawing strictly from the mind. It's simply that the artist has down enough
physical reference where he/she's got the forms memorized. Drawing without
anytype of reference, by it physical or memorized can also result in very
stiff drawings.
Ross IS great because he can be so sharp with watercolors which are
notorious for being difficult. The man has great control. However you are
quite correct in that he artwork often seems to be lacking soul. I was
looking at his cover to a Marvel hardbound book, the one with a close up of
the Human Torch's hand, all ablaze, against a black background. It was
interesting noting how dead the picture seemed, when it should have been
much more compelling. Ah well. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
>> That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>> better comics painter?
>
>
>photorealism:
>dave mckean, john muth, bill sienkewicz.
Yeah.
>iconic realism[anatomy/expressions, and backgrounds
>realistic, but facial features more inconic]:
>linsner, micheal zulli, and
>possibly the hepcat's martin wagner[tho he's not a painter, he's
>working in pen and ink]
>
>stylistic: charles vess, scott hampton, and the artist who painted
>the kid eternity mini [maybe duncan fregredo].
Yep, it was duncan fregredo.
>about the same level of quality as ross, but
>better in some aspects: john bolton, glenn fabry.
Please tell me you're not putting Bolton and Fabry in same class as Ross in
any respect. They've got much more soul than Ross, which it seems would
count more in your book.
------------------------------------------
noma...@mindspring.com
"He did everything better than anybody. Public school bastard."
-The Invisibles#15
Bradly E. Peterson
Hey yah'll...
Since this has become severely off-topic, I thought I'd just toss
this out there...
What do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians?
SPOILERS AHEAD!
A DRUMMER!
HAW!
yet another from the damon feed
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>
> In article <6hu0rv$2re$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
> from the damon feed) wrote:
> >> I've also found a few of Ross's references to be too transparent.
> >
> >that's what i meant by saying 'his seeming iability to
> >work without references'.
> >others SEEM to be able to paint without
> >references, regardless of whether or not they do.
>
> There's an interesting sample of P. Craig Russell's artwork in a Comics
> Journal issue from a while back. It shows how he used Jill Thompson
> (Sandman, Scary Godmother) as a photo reference. He had a picture of
> Thompson posing with arm outstretched and clutching hands in a dramatic
> way. The final comic drawn panel had a man in similar pose. In short
> Russell used the photo as a reference but didn't copy it word for word so
> to speak.
>
> Technically speaking all artists are using reference,
right.
even those that are
> drawing strictly from the mind. It's simply that the artist has down enough
> physical reference where he/she's got the forms memorized. Drawing without
> anytype of reference, by it physical or memorized can also result in very
> stiff drawings.
>
> Ross IS great because he can be so sharp with watercolors which are
> notorious for being difficult. The man has great control.
granted,
and he is amazing ar the technical aspects of photorelaism.
>We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
speak for yourself.
i have no strengths.
>
> >iconic realism[anatomy/expressions, and backgrounds
> >realistic, but facial features more inconic]:
> >linsner, micheal zulli, and
> >possibly the hepcat's martin wagner[tho he's not a painter, he's
> >working in pen and ink]
> >
> >stylistic: charles vess, scott hampton, and the artist who painted
> >the kid eternity mini [maybe duncan fregredo].
>
> Yep, it was duncan fregredo.
>
> >about the same level of quality as ross, but
> >better in some aspects: john bolton, glenn fabry.
>
> Please tell me you're not putting Bolton and Fabry in same class as Ross in
> any respect. They've got much more soul than Ross, which it seems would
> count more in your book.
i don't htink fabry has soul.
he's good at one style, which i find
kinda ugly.
but he's very good, and in a horror context,
it worksvery very well.
bolton has more soul, and he's also a good
photrealist,
but he tends to drift or wash out
the backgrounds,
which i think is sometimes a plus and sometimes a minus.
on the backgorund thing,
i'd put ross ahead, but on
people, panel flow, and soul, i'd put bolton ahead.
by a nudge.
BRUHED
<<That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
> better comics painter?>>>
For covers, definitely Frazetta (the Master). Also Glen Fabry and
Dean Armstrong are absolutely great.
(I love looking at Ross's covers--his compositions are
quite striking. I just wish he'd get the hang of using reflected
light more, and using more colors--like Boris, Frazetta, Corben, etc.)
For interiors, I'd offer Bisley and Liberatore (RANXEROX), altho I'm
cheating with the latter, 'cause he mostly uses markers and smears
'em with his finger. (But it looks painted!)
Mike Pascale
Schism Comics
Publisher of
BRU-HED'S BUNNIES, BADDIES & BUDDIES,
on sale now)
Bru-Hed
Andrew Ducker
In article <3540C0...@erols.com>, "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr."
<richBL...@erols.com> writes
>
>That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>better comics painter?
muth
McKean
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
Andrew Ducker
In article <199804270920...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, BRUHED
<bru...@aol.com> writes
><<That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>> better comics painter?>>>
>
>cheating with the latter, 'cause he mostly uses markers and smears
>'em with his finger. (But it looks painted!)
Some of Bisley's painted stuff is awesome, although a lot of people have
only seen his pencilled/inked stuff. And they do tend to get put off by
his subject matter.
DERVISH M
>><<That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>>> better comics painter?>>>
I enjoy Mark Chiarello's covers. I would take a guess that they are water
colors not oil though. It's hard for me to tell, could be only the colors are
painted but they give a different feel than most cover.
M J Moran
yet another from the damon feed
> from the damon feed) wrote:
>
another
> >> from the damon feed) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >soul,
> >>
when
> >> you like drum machines?
>
>
> >[2]his characters just seem so stiff.
>
> Some do, some don't. I find a lot of soul in the application of the paint
> itself. It's a very academic approach, to be sure, but it's still great,
> IMO.
.....
kinda like finding soul in the application of drum machines if you ask me.
> >[3] goober.
>
> HEY! That's MISTER goober to you!
sorry.
forgot how old you were.
Nat Gertler
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
> make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
> the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
> panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
> I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
> like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
1) It is a subjective judgment that those are "elements of quality".
Someone else's view of quality could be totally divorced from
questions of sloppiness or consistency.
2) "Sloppy" in this case is a subjective judgment. If a bureau moved in
every panel of a Krazy Kat comic, or in each new shot in a David Lynch
film, would it be because the creative folks were being sloppy? Or could
it be something of intent?
WindyTWise
Elayne:
>> Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
>> make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
>> the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
>> panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
>> I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
>> like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
Nat:
>1) It is a subjective judgment that those are "elements of quality".
>Someone else's view of quality could be totally divorced from
>questions of sloppiness or consistency.
Absolutely correct. I had a nice convesation Thursday with a woman who is a
paid judge of photographic art (among other things) and she agrees with the
above point.
However I disagree. And I am not a judge of art.
>
>2) "Sloppy" in this case is a subjective judgment. If a bureau moved in
>every panel of a Krazy Kat comic, or in each new shot in a David Lynch
>film, would it be because the creative folks were being sloppy? Or could
>it be something of intent?
We probably won't know. Unless someone asks. Does anyone know of any article
that queries Mr. Liefeld on his artistic stylings?
I suppose it depends on who the artist thinks his/her audience is.
- - Whether the audience will notice
- - Whether the audience will care.
Walt "waiting for DAREDEVIL artists to move a bureau around from one panel to
the next" Stone
****************************
the comics sales chart has been updated for April 1998 and is located at:
http://members.aol.com/windytwise/sales.htm
sales are cumulative and broken down by sales rank.
EgoistX
>From: nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher)
>Ross IS great because he can be so sharp with watercolors which are
>notorious for being difficult. The man has great control. However you are
>quite correct in that he artwork often seems to be lacking soul. I was
>looking at his cover to a Marvel hardbound book, the one with a close up of
>the Human Torch's hand, all ablaze, against a black background. It was
>interesting noting how dead the picture seemed, when it should have been
>much more compelling. Ah well. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
>
Ross has very great technical skill. What he needs now is more of an
expressive mastery of gesture. If he could make his work a bit more gestural,
then it wouldn't appear so stiff and frozen. Anther thing he needs to work on
is his sense of color - he's definitely improved, but he could still be better.
I don't know how much life-painting he does, but he should definitely do more.
This will help him see colors better and render them better. Colors aren't as
flat and homogeneous as he depicts them (reflected light will introduce other
colors onto surfaces as well), and when one works in a realistic style, one
needs to make that leap. This is not just a criticism of Ross either. I've
seen this flatness of color in the works of other artists like Luis Royo (whose
work really does nothing for me at all because it's way too stiff all around)
and a bunch of others.
EgoistX
"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion. . ." - Mentat Piter de Vries
EgoistX
>better comics painter?
>From: Andrew Ducker
>muth
>McKean
>
>
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Ross is talented, but he is nowhere near as painterly
as these fellows.
Andrew Ducker
In article <6i2a4e$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Nat Gertler
<n...@gertler.com> writes
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>>
>> Agreed; however, there are always elements of quality on which one can
>> make an objective judgement. If Rob Liefeld draws a bureau on one side of
>> the room in panel 1, the bureau's moved to the other side of the room in
>> panel 2, and it's completely missing from the shot of the room in panel 3,
>> I think it can be agreed that the art is sloppy and inconsistent. Stuff
>> like that is pretty easy to judge objectively.
>
>Someone else's view of quality could be totally divorced from
>questions of sloppiness or consistency.
>
>every panel of a Krazy Kat comic, or in each new shot in a David Lynch
>film, would it be because the creative folks were being sloppy? Or could
>it be something of intent?
If it moved and this was not intended to convery something, but was
merely because the artist could not be bothered to draw it in the same
palce, or check where it was supposed to be, that wold be sloppy. I
believe that is why EWC chose a Rob Liefield comic, as he is not known
for using this kind of subtle background mechanism for introducing
plots/whatever. Mostly because his readers don't have the two brain
cells to rub together.
Alan Moore writing a Rob Liefield comic, on the other hand....
Bradly E. Peterson
bru...@aol.com (BRUHED) done said this here deal:
><<That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
>> better comics painter?>>>
Well, I'd argue that John Bolton definitely ranks up there, as
well as Joe Lisner and Jeff Amano.
But then, I LIKE Ross. heh... Hell, I like my own paintings
too, so maybe I'm not the best guy to ask. heh..
Bradly E. Peterson
Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> done said this here deal:
>2) "Sloppy" in this case is a subjective judgment. If a bureau moved in
>every panel of a Krazy Kat comic, or in each new shot in a David Lynch
>film, would it be because the creative folks were being sloppy? Or could
>it be something of intent?
That doesn't apply. You're talking about "creative" people.
Elayne was talking about Rob Liefeld. heh...
Tom127
In article <6i05cv$gs3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
from the damon feed) wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>>
>how about if i expect singers to have soul,
>but not drum machines?
Better yet, why not expect _all_ the musicians to have soul?
>
>how about if i expect the painted characters to have
>soul, but not the buildings?
Buildings _do_ have soul. Any buidling designed bt F.L.Wright will attest
to that. Many of the buildings I've been in have tremendous soul.
>>
>> Damon sent me a tape containing music which didn't use a single human
>> drummer, and it was pretty good.
>
>incorrect.
>while i think most of the human drummers
>were left out due to dummy getting a 60min tape
>\instead of a 90, atleast two songs did
>use human drumming.
>
>i figured you would be able to tell because
>you were a drummer.
Back in the 70's we had this joke that the easiest jobs for a musician at
the time were : playing drums in a disco band ( "thump, thump, thump" to a
perfec 4/4 beat), and playing bass in a southern rock band
("beem-boom","beem-boom", "beem-boom" to a perfec 4/4 beat)
Now we should update it to include being a drummer in an alternative band.
when all that's required is time keeping, I can understand the prevalance
of drum machines.
>
>Lacking in soul, but pretty good
>> nonetheless.
>
>if you think those songs were lacking in soul, then
>there's something wrong with your
>soul.
The beats were mechanical. The singing was very nice, the melodies were
pleasing. There was a certain mechanical quality to the underlying
consistancy of it all, though. You've stated you don't like the blues. BB
King (?) said it best: "If ya don't like the blues, ya got a hole in ya
soul."
>probably sold it to someone.
Yes- the comic industry.
>>
>> heh, heh. You haven't heard any great drummers, have you? There is not, nor
>> will there ever be, a machine in existance that can do what Keith Moon,
>> Ainsley Dunbar, or even Cozy Powell could do.
>
>but those guys can't do what drum machines can do,
>unless they can simultaneously drum at least 8 separate rhythms.
True. but that's awfully tough to do with only four appendages. I'm much
more impressed by Ainsley Dunbad using two hands and two feet to do four
different things than I am with a glorified metronome doing twenty.
>and drum machines don't lose arms, or die.
Which is why they're no fun. Come on- who *didn't* want to see what that
guy from (?) would do behind the drum kit with his stump?
Tom127
In article <6hrfom$2...@news.cybernews.net>,
dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>"Danny 3:16!!" <DCO...@murray.fordham.edu> done said this here
>deal:
>>PatDOneill wrote:
>
>>> Leonardo da Vinci never painted anything without a "reference" (in his
case, a
>>> model since photography was 300 years away).
>
>>What The HELL kind of analogy is THAT?
>>We're talking about comic book artists, not Renaissance painters!
>
>Quite a good analogy, actually. Renaissance painters WERE the
>pop artists of their day, Dan. Besides, we're not talking about
>comic books per se, we're talking about painting. So, Alex's
>paintings are published in comic books... So what?
>
>I suggest you check out "Chiarascuro", publlished by DC/Vertigo
>for a quick refresher course on how these men were viewed in
>their day. They've done all the research for you, and it's a
>damn fine read at that.
Bood point, Bradley. I have long held the belief that the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel is the world's largest comic book. (And I'm being serious)
Brandon Blatcher
>In article <6i05cv$gs3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another
>from the damon feed) wrote:
>
>>Lacking in soul, but pretty good
>>> nonetheless.
>>
>>if you think those songs were lacking in soul, then
>>there's something wrong with your
>>soul.
>
>The beats were mechanical. The singing was very nice, the melodies were
>pleasing. There was a certain mechanical quality to the underlying
>consistancy of it all, though. You've stated you don't like the blues. BB
>King (?) said it best: "If ya don't like the blues, ya got a hole in ya
>soul."
>
>>probably sold it to someone.
And I want my damn money back for this tawdry soul.
>Yes- the comic industry.
>
>
>>>
>>> heh, heh. You haven't heard any great drummers, have you? There is not, nor
>>> will there ever be, a machine in existance that can do what Keith Moon,
>>> Ainsley Dunbar, or even Cozy Powell could do.
>>
>>but those guys can't do what drum machines can do,
>>unless they can simultaneously drum at least 8 separate rhythms.
>
>True. but that's awfully tough to do with only four appendages. I'm much
>more impressed by Ainsley Dunbad using two hands and two feet to do four
>different things than I am with a glorified metronome doing twenty.
>
>>and drum machines don't lose arms, or die.
>
>Which is why they're no fun. Come on- who *didn't* want to see what that
>guy from (?) would do behind the drum kit with his stump?
Def Leppard?
------------------------------------------
noma...@mindspring.com
Andrew Ducker
>Sistine Chapel is the world's largest comic book. (And I'm being serious)
Surely it's more of a one-sheet than it is a cimic book. After all,
where are the staples?
Andrew Ducker
Def Leppard (I assume that's who you mean, as their drummer lost an
arm).
Bradly E. Peterson
Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> done said this
here deal:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>, Tom127
><tom...@capital.net> writes
>>Bood point, Bradley. I have long held the belief that the ceiling of the
>>Sistine Chapel is the world's largest comic book. (And I'm being serious)
>Surely it's more of a one-sheet than it is a cimic book. After all,
>where are the staples?
In the navel, ya big silly! heh...
Tom127
In article <nomadic-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
nom...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
>tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
>
>> db...@po.cwru.edu (yet another from the damon feed), regarding me, wrote:
>>>if you think those songs were lacking in soul, then
>>>there's something wrong with your
>>>soul.
>>>probably sold it to someone.
>
>
>And I want my damn money back for this tawdry soul.
Sorry, bub. This ain't K-Mart. NO REFUNDS!!
>>>and drum machines don't lose arms, or die.
>>
>>Which is why they're no fun. Come on- who *didn't* want to see what that
>>guy from (?) would do behind the drum kit with his stump?
>
>Def Leppard?
YEAH! That's it! I couldn't remember the name. Thanks.
Tom127
In article <6i4nt7$k...@news.cybernews.net>,
dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> done said this
>here deal:
>
>>In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>, Tom127
>><tom...@capital.net> writes
>>>Bood point, Bradley. I have long held the belief that the ceiling of the
>>>Sistine Chapel is the world's largest comic book. (And I'm being serious)
>
>
>>Surely it's more of a one-sheet than it is a cimic book. After all,
>>where are the staples?
>
>In the navel, ya big silly! heh...
Y'know, I was gonna try an' come up with some centerfold/staple comeback,
and you went an' stole my thunder!
Kevin J. Maroney
Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan Moore writing a Rob Liefield comic, on the other hand....
Causes real problems, as was demonstrated in _Judgment Day_, which
was, among other things, a murder mystery. However, because of the
Liefeld factory's legendary inattention to detail, it was impossible
to tell if discrepancies (and some of them were pretty substantial,
like a character falling asleep on his bed dressed in a trenchcoat and
waking up without it) were clues or errors.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
yet another from the damon feed
> from the damon feed) wrote:
>
> >In article <tom127-ya0236800...@news.capital.net>,
> > tom...@capital.net (Tom127) wrote:
> >>
> >but not drum machines?
>
> Better yet, why not expect _all_ the musicians to have soul?
better yet, hwy not just expect the 8songs* to have soul,
and not care about the musicians?
> >how about if i expect the painted characters to have
> >soul, but not the buildings?
>
> Buildings _do_ have soul. Any buidling designed bt F.L.Wright will attest
> to that. Many of the buildings I've been in have tremendous soul.
that doesn't answer my question.
which would you *prefer* in your reading,
the buildings to have soul, or the people?
[ignoring the Adventures of Buildings comics and der Lift movie].
> >> Damon sent me a tape containing music which didn't use a single human
> >> drummer, and it was pretty good.
> >
> >incorrect.
> >while i think most of the human drummers
> >were left out due to dummy getting a 60min tape
> >\instead of a 90, atleast two songs did
> >use human drumming.
> >
> >i figured you would be able to tell because
> >you were a drummer.
>
> Back in the 70's we had this joke that the easiest jobs for a musician at
> the time were : playing drums in a disco band ( "thump, thump, thump" to a
> perfec 4/4 beat), and playing bass in a southern rock band
> ("beem-boom","beem-boom", "beem-boom" to a perfec 4/4 beat)
>
> Now we should update it to include being a drummer in an alternative band.
> when all that's required is time keeping, I can understand the prevalance
> of drum machines.
i wouldn't call those bands 'alternative' in that sense,
and the the live drummer did more than just keep the beat.
> >Lacking in soul, but pretty good
> >> nonetheless.
> >
> >if you think those songs were lacking in soul, then
> >there's something wrong with your
> >soul.
>
> The beats were mechanical. The singing was very nice, the melodies were
> pleasing. There was a certain mechanical quality to the underlying
> consistancy of it all, though.
i'm going to hammer this analogy to the ground, because
it's on topic:
do you *really* mean to imply that if panles
are fixed at say 4 per page, all exactly the same size,
then the artists adhering to this structure cannot
produce art that has soul?
are you *really* judging the 'soul' of a piece
of music by the DRUMMING!!!???!!!
i rather thought you were before.
i stand by my assertion, that the music i sent
you has soul.
in fact, i find this stance somewhat strange---
you find soul in the excecution of ross's painting,
the technique, [apparently] rather than in the
actual images.
i think you're doing the same thing with the music.
You've stated you don't like the blues. BB
> King (?) said it best: "If ya don't like the blues, ya got a hole in ya
> soul."
i like blues songs.
i don't like most blues songs that are defined as traditional
blues-- i could send you a tape of blues
'alternative' music to make my point here--
which is that the strictures of that genre music
are unapealing to me, tho the emotional intent
is not.
> >probably sold it to someone.
>
> Yes- the comic industry.
they didn't do much with it.
> >> heh, heh. You haven't heard any great drummers, have you? There is not,
nor
> >> will there ever be, a machine in existance that can do what Keith Moon,
> >> Ainsley Dunbar, or even Cozy Powell could do.
> >
> >but those guys can't do what drum machines can do,
> >unless they can simultaneously drum at least 8 separate rhythms.
>
> True. but that's awfully tough to do with only four appendages. I'm much
> more impressed by Ainsley Dunbad using two hands and two feet to do four
> different things than I am with a glorified metronome doing twenty.
why do you have to be impressed wih the drummer/
why not *just* be impressed with the song?
do the componenets really carry that much more weight
for you than the whole?
when you read a comic, do you really
thik of the finished prodct in terms
of inking and coloring,
or as a holistic story?
> >and drum machines don't lose arms, or die.
>
> Which is why they're no fun. Come on- who *didn't* want to see what that
> guy from (?) would do behind the drum kit with his stump?
0KAY!! I ADMIT IT!!!!!!
HUMAN DRUMMERS ARE MORE FUN THAN DRUM MACHINES!!! THEREFORE
MUSIC MADE WITH DRUM MACHINES IS SOULLESS AND LESS INTERESTING.
MISTER goober.
yet another from the damon feed
In article <6i3f20$c...@news.cybernews.net>#1/1,
dr...@OMELETTEDUFROMAGEfastlane.net wrote:
>
> bru...@aol.com (BRUHED) done said this here deal:
>
> ><<That said, for those who DON'T like Ross, who do you think IS a
> >> better comics painter?>>>
>
> Well, I'd argue that John Bolton definitely ranks up there, as
> well as Joe Lisner and Jeff Amano.
>
> But then, I LIKE Ross. heh... Hell, I like my own paintings
> too, so maybe I'm not the best guy to ask. heh..
no, you are not.
i am.