5 best comic artists ao all time
Teun
I agree. There's too many uncompareble styles. And it's always still a
matter of personal opinion.
Darryl Sheakley
>># 2 J Scott Campbell.<<
'yeargh'
I have all the DG issues, and the guy can draw, but please, there are a
million guys that should be here, IMHO.
>># 1 Alex Ross.there is no competition.<<
What? Have you seen Geof Darrow? What about Sienkiewicz? Comic art, to
me, denotes line art, not painting. No question, AR is a very solid
painter, but when it comes to sequential art and storytelling, there are
others that throw down actual chops, rather than simply painting
duplicates of homemade photo reference, such as...
>>Frank Miller<<
_Master_ of sequential art. No reference. This guy deserves more than an
honorable mention for changing comics. A contender for #1.
>>Travis Charest<<
Better than me and every other artist in this ng put together. I agree
with you at last! Due to a limited resume, Trav hardly qualifies as much
more than an HM, but I pore over every line.
--
Check out some comic book art that no one has took a hit off of since
the late seventies at
http://community.webtv.net/padawanlearner/DARRYLSHEAKLEYSKING
On some Steve Gadd type of shit.
eternally
Ridley99 wrote:
> As we approack the millenium best of lists will abound,here is my best
> of..,In the Artist area.25 years of reading comics goes into this.
my own favorites, briefly:
1. Frank Miller
2. George Perez
3. Alex Ross
4. Neal Adams
5. and Geof Darrow
I also usually love work by Art Adams, Frank Quitely, or Bill Seinkewicz (sp?)
but i'm more of a writers' fan, to be honest.
-= e.
Sandy & Calum
1. Will Eisner
The Spirit is just amazing. What Eisner could do in 7-8 pages can barely
be done today in 32. His recent work is also very powerful and expressive.
Contract with God, the building, dropsie avenue, and more, they're
wondrful.
2. Carl Barks
His Uncle Scrooge stories could take you places you'd never imagine and
would teach you something as well.
3. Sergio Aragones
He just kills me. Sergio can draw anything.
4. Steve Rude
His work is so graceful and fluid, I can look at it for hours.
5. Alex Toth
A real master. So little and yet he gets so much into every line.
I'm also a big fan of Moebius, Michael Golden, Marshall Rogers and Kyle Baker.
Calum Johnston
Strange Adventures Comic Bookshops
http://welcome.to/strange_adventures
Steve Lieber
(Ridley99) wrote:
> there is nobody now or ever ,working in the field of comic art,that can do the
> things that Alex Ross can do.
> He can literally turn the world upside down with his gift of perspective and
> vanishing points.
Not to take anything away from Mr Ross, but perspective and vanishing
points aren't his gifts, they're Filippo Brunelleschi's. It's
Brunelleschi's world. We just live in it.
> Geof Darrow is a name unfamilar to me,what comic does he do.
He's best known for his teo collaborations with Frank Miller: HARD BOILED
and The Big Guy and Rusty, the Boy Robot. If you like the dramatic use of
deep perspective, you'd do well to investigate his work.
Steve Lieber
--
http://www.geocities.com/slieber234/
The WHITEOUT tpb, and the first issue of its sequel, WHITEOUT:MELT, are now
available in stores. Previews of both are available on my webpage.
SDunbier
1940's
Eisner
Fine
Raboy
Kirby
Crandall
1950's
Frazetta
wood
Kirby
Hampson
Krigstein
1960's
Crumb
Toth
Kirby
Bellamy
Williamson
!970's
Neal Adams
Kubert
Wrightson
Jones
Smith
1980's
Bolland
Golden
Art Adams
Mazzuchelli
Kyle Baker
1990's
Golden
Charest
Mignola
Campbell
Nowlan
Kyle Baker
Damn! Ran over on the last one.
These are my fave comic artists today. Now, if you want to ask me what my
favorite Westerns are...
Ridley99
things that Alex Ross can do.
He can literally turn the world upside down with his gift of perspective and
vanishing points.
the expressions or body language of his subjects.
Go back and look at Marvels and compare it to anything,and i mean anything
else.The characters seem to literrally jump off the page.
Sienkiewicz has done some interesting stuff and has a unique style but he is
not in mr Ross league.Nobody is.
DVillas472
5. Moebius - He didn't do a lot of mainstream comics work, but I always thought
he was remarkable, and his range went well beyond the relatively spare work he
did for Heavy Metal. Steve Dillon's most recent work (Preacher) reminds me a
lot of Moebius.
4. George Perez - Never less than very good and at times spectacular.
Incredibly prolific. I'm really enjoying his run on the Avengers.
3. Jim Steranko - Highly original and dramatic in his layouts. IMHO, he
produced some of the best covers ever.
2. John Byrne - I admit, I'm biased. His run on Uncanny X-Men is probably my
favorite of all time. I haven't seen any of his new X-Men work yet, but I'm
looking forward to it a great deal.
1. Neal Adams - There have been better storytellers in terms of the flow of
panels, but for stunning, creative, jaw dropping art, no one touches Adams. He
could take a crumpled wad of paper and make it look fascinating through his
uncanny use of light and shading. Comic art was "Adams-ized", for better or
for worse, for decades after he left the industry.
BTW, among old time artists, Lou FIne would be my pick. His knowledge and
depiction of anatomy was second to none. Incredibly realistic and far, far
ahead of his time.
Also, if you want top-notch cheesecake, J. Scott Campbell is the king...;-)
Cheers,
JD
the damon club
Ridley99 wrote:
> there is nobody now or ever ,working in the field of comic art,that can do the
> things that Alex Ross can do.
except for dave mckean, jon muth, bill sienkewitz, all of whom do better work.
>
> He can literally turn the world upside down with his gift of perspective and
> vanishing points.
> Ross can literraly tell a story,without need for words of any kind,just by
> the expressions or body language of his subjects.
> Go back and look at Marvels and compare it to anything,and i mean anything
> else.
black orchid.
moonshadow.
> The characters seem to literrally jump off the page.
> Sienkiewicz has done some interesting stuff and has a unique style but he is
> not in mr Ross league.
stray toasters.
big numbers.
--
"...stop. With your feet on the air and your head on the ground
try this trick and spin it, yeah!
your head will collapse
but there's nothing in it and you'll ask yourself" the pixies
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> ridl...@aol.com (Ridley99) wrote:
> >there is nobody now or ever ,working in the field of comic art,
> >that can do the things that Alex Ross can do.
>
> Copy photographs?
Try getting a live model to hold a "flying through the air" pose for
six hours. Even better, see if you can keep someone looking dour in a
doofy Galactus mask long enough to capture the moment on canvas. And
could you copy photos that well? Certainly I couldn't. Besides, his
penciling is more than adequate, as you can see in the various ASTRO
CITY trades, and he's no slouch on original character design either.
Reverend Jake
Richard Pace
Ridley99 wrote:
> there is nobody now or ever ,working in the field of comic art,that can do the
> things that Alex Ross can do.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Ross's water-colour style is a learned technique -
often used in advertising art pre 1980s but becoming less and less frequent as
photography and computers became more and more prevalent.
He's very, very talented, but his photo realism isn't even unique to comics, merely
superhero comics.
>
> He can literally turn the world upside down with his gift of perspective and
> vanishing points.
Like Neal Adams did?
>
> Ross can literraly tell a story,without need for words of any kind,just by
> the expressions or body language of his subjects.
Like Frazetta or Eisner did?
>
> Go back and look at Marvels and compare it to anything,and i mean anything
> else.The characters seem to literrally jump off the page.
Like they did in Moonshadow or The Mystery Play?
>
> Sienkiewicz has done some interesting stuff and has a unique style but he is
> not in mr Ross league.Nobody is.
I'd argue that it's Ross who is a late joiner to the league of Sienkiewicz and
Adams - in bringing illustration technique to comics.
>
> Geof Darrow is a name unfamilar to me,what comic does he do.
If you're so limited in your knowledge of who's who in the comics art world, how
can you feel confident to even begin to assert your opinion on this matter?
Richard
--
While I assemble my web site you're more than welcome to check out my very spartan
first attempt with a few pages of artwork at http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
Sam Edmisten
1.Alex Raymond
2. Jack Kirby
3. Brian Bolland
4. John Buscema
5. Neal Adams
And honorable mentions to George Perez, John Bolton, John Byrne, Sam Keith,
Dave Gibbons,Carlos Pacheco
Sam Edmisten
http://www.redhillsonline.com
Dale Hicks
>
> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
1 - He takes the photos, right?
2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
it such that it looks like it has form.
Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
>>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
>>
>>1 - He takes the photos, right?
>
> So?
>
>>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
>
> I don't know.
>
>>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
>>it such that it looks like it has form.
>
> It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
>for you.
>
> Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
>his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
>suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
>
>>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>
> He's good. Could be better, 'though.
What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
>
> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
> >
> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>
> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
> swing or Jordan about his jump shot.
Thing is, Ross isn't a Palmer or a Jordan in the art world - he'd make the cut
but he wouldn't be a starter. Stepping outside of comics into the real world
of commercial art you see the Jordans and Palmers. Ross is akin to one of the
best pitchers in semi-pro baseball, perhaps good enough to make a real go of it
in the bigger world and may eventually become a star.
> If you want to argue about
> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
> that until now wasn't there.
How does Ross's rendering photorealistic superheroes bring any respect to the
medium? In the genre WATCHMEN did more, and in general Maus and Sandman did
more. Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued output
in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
Ross's artwork
> When you can do what he can do
> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
I don't think WAM was ranting about how Ross could improve, more about how he
isn't the godlike talent so many in fandom think he is.
I admire the love, effort and obvious skill he pours into every page he
creates, but I prefer the works of Muth or Sienkiewicz for the artistry and
personality they imbue into their oeuvre.
John McMahon
> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
> he can improve.
Nonsense.
You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
J.
--
http://www.insanerantings.com
Free web space, no banner adverts, for those with something to say.
http://www.comicbookfansites.com
Free web space, no banner adverts, for sites dedicated to comic books.
Ken
wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>
>> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
>> he can improve.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
Obviously if you know how to be a great artist wouldn't you be one?
If you can't follow the same advice you give and become a great artist
what value is your advice?
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."
Richard Pace
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>>
>> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>> >
>> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>>
>> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>> swing or Jordan about his jump shot.
>
>Thing is, Ross isn't a Palmer or a Jordan in the art world - he'd make the cut
>but he wouldn't be a starter. Stepping outside of comics into the real world
>of commercial art you see the Jordans and Palmers. Ross is akin to one of the
>best pitchers in semi-pro baseball, perhaps good enough to make a real go of it
>in the bigger world and may eventually become a star.
The examples were not to compare Ross relative to his standing in his
craft but to talk about how someone can make sweeping comments on how
someone else, who's at the top in his field (Ross in comic art *not*
the art world), can improve. It's incredibly egotisical to think what
you have to say is somehow groundbreaking and ingenius especially when
you're not a comparable talent.
>
>> If you want to argue about
>> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>> that until now wasn't there.
>
>How does Ross's rendering photorealistic superheroes bring any respect to the
>medium? In the genre WATCHMEN did more, and in general Maus and Sandman did
>more. Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
>garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued output
>in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
Whatever! ;) Watchmen is a superhero comic for one thing and Superman
(a superhero) pretty much defines the comic medium. You will *never*
be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts. Who
wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
surreal. IMO most comic readers want a fantasy world with a touch of
realism and that is what Ross delivers -- you get superman et al but
drawn in photorealism detail.
>
>
>> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>
>I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
>to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
>would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
>Ross's artwork
I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
paper.
>
>> When you can do what he can do
>> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>
>I don't think WAM was ranting about how Ross could improve, more about how he
>isn't the godlike talent so many in fandom think he is.
Ok, I can agree with that in the sense there's Vess, Bisley, etc etc
but saying Ross isn't talented and calling him a hack is BS.
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:32:43 GMT, John McMahon <jmcm...@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ken wrote:
>> >
>> >> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
>> >> he can improve.
>> >
>> >Nonsense.
>> >
>> >You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
>>
>> Obviously if you know how to be a great artist wouldn't you be one?
>> If you can't follow the same advice you give and become a great artist
>> what value is your advice?
>
>"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."
Isn't there a bit of sarcasm hidden in that saying. ;)
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I can agree with that in the sense there's Vess, Bisley, etc etc
> but saying Ross isn't talented and calling him a hack is BS.
Just checked - he didn't.
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:14:13 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ken wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
> >> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
> >> >
> >> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
> >>
> >> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
> >> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
> >> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
> >> swing or Jordan about his jump shot.
> >
> >Thing is, Ross isn't a Palmer or a Jordan in the art world - he'd make the cut
> >but he wouldn't be a starter. Stepping outside of comics into the real world
> >of commercial art you see the Jordans and Palmers. Ross is akin to one of the
> >best pitchers in semi-pro baseball, perhaps good enough to make a real go of it
> >in the bigger world and may eventually become a star.
>
> The examples were not to compare Ross relative to his standing in his
> craft but to talk about how someone can make sweeping comments on how
> someone else, who's at the top in his field (Ross in comic art *not*
> the art world), can improve.
'Could be better' isn't a sweeping statement about how Ross can improve, but a
comment on the work itself.
> It's incredibly egotisical to think what
> you have to say is somehow groundbreaking and ingenius especially when
> you're not a comparable talent.
>
Ya must be confusing me with someone else, it's unlikely you've seen my commercial
colour art (unless you've bought any pharmaceutical trades in the last few years),
which is photo realistic and, IMO, comparable in technique to Ross's. My comics
work is different.
>
> >
> >> If you want to argue about
> >> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
> >> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
> >> that until now wasn't there.
> >
> >How does Ross's rendering photorealistic superheroes bring any respect to the
> >medium? In the genre WATCHMEN did more, and in general Maus and Sandman did
> >more. Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
> >garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued output
> >in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
>
> Whatever! ;) Watchmen is a superhero comic for one thing and Superman
> (a superhero) pretty much defines the comic medium.
What part of 'In the _genre_ WATCHMEN did more . . .' didn't you get? And Superman
only defines a genre, not the medium.
> You will *never*
> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because Superman's
obviously intended for children - Nothing can be done with the character to make
adults in the general populace give a crap about him - beyond killing him. MARVELS
and KINGDOM COME were targeted to a comics fan base, and they succeeded
wonderfully, they were hardly mature or appealing to the general audience or worthy
of garnering respect for the medium for their indulgence in comics universe trivia.
>
> Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
> the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts.
When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit. Superheroes, as
originally conceived, are low entertainment - often aimed at children and a tired
genre. You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to have a
mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
> Who wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
> only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
> surreal.
You mean, earn respect the same way other, literary and film work achieves respect:
by appealing to a mass audience while achieving a level of quality to keep the
audience interested.
Alex has done two works wrapped around Superman and the medium hasn't gained an iota
of additional respect based upon his work, impressive as it is for a superhero
genre. In case you hadn't noticed, the industry has been in a bit of a slump during
his two projects. I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that somehow a
photo realistic Superman is good for comics as a medium. It hasn't increased sales
or attracted a new, larger audience for the industry or even the works Ross was
involved in.
> IMO most comic readers want a fantasy world with a touch of
> realism and that is what Ross delivers -- you get superman et al but
> drawn in photorealism detail.
You got that with Neal Adams back in the 70s. But the issue isn't what comic
readers want if you're taking the stance that Ross's work earns respect for the
medium, it's what would earn respect. The greater audience doesn't care about
Superman unless there's some stunt involved (married, dead, gay), it doesn't care
about Superman in photo realism because they could throw in a cassette of any of the
films or TV shows for a quick fix of that. You cannot gain any new measure of
respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the albatrosses
around the industry's neck over its treatment of the character's creators.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
> >> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
> >
> >I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
> >to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
> >would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
> >Ross's artwork
>
> I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
> post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
> does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
> paper.
I read his post, and while abrasive and inflammatory as usual, he merely asserts a
belief that Ross is greatly overrated for what he actually does.
>
>
> >
> >> When you can do what he can do
> >> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
> >
> >I don't think WAM was ranting about how Ross could improve, more about how he
> >isn't the godlike talent so many in fandom think he is.
>
> Ok, I can agree with that in the sense there's Vess, Bisley, etc etc
> but saying Ross isn't talented and calling him a hack is BS.
I'd have to double check - I missed the hack and untalented bits.
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:14:13 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Ken wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>> >> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>> >> >
>> >> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>> >>
>> >> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>> >> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>> >> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>> >> swing or Jordan about his jump shot.
>> >
>> >Thing is, Ross isn't a Palmer or a Jordan in the art world - he'd make the cut
>> >but he wouldn't be a starter. Stepping outside of comics into the real world
>> >of commercial art you see the Jordans and Palmers. Ross is akin to one of the
>> >best pitchers in semi-pro baseball, perhaps good enough to make a real go of it
>> >in the bigger world and may eventually become a star.
>>
>> The examples were not to compare Ross relative to his standing in his
>> craft but to talk about how someone can make sweeping comments on how
>> someone else, who's at the top in his field (Ross in comic art *not*
>> the art world), can improve.
>
>'Could be better' isn't a sweeping statement about how Ross can improve, but a
>comment on the work itself.
I was thinking of his statements:
"It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it
all for you. Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be
desired in his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as
would oil. I'd suggest he just go to Photoshop, however."
I mean come on! The first part implies he has no talent, that Kodak
has more to do with the end product them him, then he goes into art
instructions.
>
>> It's incredibly egotisical to think what
>> you have to say is somehow groundbreaking and ingenius especially when
>> you're not a comparable talent.
>>
>
>Ya must be confusing me with someone else, it's unlikely you've seen my commercial
>colour art (unless you've bought any pharmaceutical trades in the last few years),
>which is photo realistic and, IMO, comparable in technique to Ross's. My comics
>work is different.
No, no, I didn't mean your post. ;) Note the quote above.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> If you want to argue about
>> >> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>> >> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>> >> that until now wasn't there.
>> >
>> >How does Ross's rendering photorealistic superheroes bring any respect to the
>> >medium? In the genre WATCHMEN did more, and in general Maus and Sandman did
>> >more. Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
>> >garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued output
>> >in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
>>
>> Whatever! ;) Watchmen is a superhero comic for one thing and Superman
>> (a superhero) pretty much defines the comic medium.
>
>What part of 'In the _genre_ WATCHMEN did more . . .' didn't you get? And Superman
>only defines a genre, not the medium.
Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
>
>> You will *never*
>> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
>
>In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because Superman's
>obviously intended for children - Nothing can be done with the character to make
>adults in the general populace give a crap about him - beyond killing him. MARVELS
>and KINGDOM COME were targeted to a comics fan base, and they succeeded
>wonderfully, they were hardly mature or appealing to the general audience or worthy
>of garnering respect for the medium for their indulgence in comics universe trivia.
hehehehe But if a non-comic fan came across a Ross cover is it
inconceivable that it would stir that persons interest more than a
large percentage of the artists out there? I'd argue that you could
sell Ross sketches to non-comic fans based on his style.
>
>>
>> Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
>> the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts.
>
>When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
>reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit. Superheroes, as
>originally conceived, are low entertainment - often aimed at children and a tired
>genre. You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
>of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to have a
>mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
I'd disagree as how many Tintin or Snoopy movies exist that appeal to
an all age audience? Now this is getting into semantics as what would
you get as an answer if you said comic "book" vs comic "strip" ? I
think a large percentage of the population knows very little of the
comic medium and doesn't understand its varying forms. Superhero's
may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
thats all comics have to offer.
>
>> Who wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
>> only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
>> surreal.
>
>You mean, earn respect the same way other, literary and film work achieves respect:
>by appealing to a mass audience while achieving a level of quality to keep the
>audience interested.
Thats sort of an oxymoron isn't it. I can't tell if you're being
sarcastic. ;)
>
>Alex has done two works wrapped around Superman and the medium hasn't gained an iota
>of additional respect based upon his work, impressive as it is for a superhero
>genre. In case you hadn't noticed, the industry has been in a bit of a slump during
>his two projects. I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that somehow a
>photo realistic Superman is good for comics as a medium. It hasn't increased sales
>or attracted a new, larger audience for the industry or even the works Ross was
>involved in.
I know for a fact that there's some people who got back into comics
due to Marvels and Kingdom Come because they showed the medium is
still producing quality products (not to under rate Busiek's or Waid's
writing either). Now I never said Ross was bringing comics to the
masses but that his art is giving it a new respect. Vess, Boltan and
others did the same in giving comics a less cartoony feel and a more
mature look and feel.
>
>> IMO most comic readers want a fantasy world with a touch of
>> realism and that is what Ross delivers -- you get superman et al but
>> drawn in photorealism detail.
>
>You got that with Neal Adams back in the 70s. But the issue isn't what comic
>readers want if you're taking the stance that Ross's work earns respect for the
>medium, it's what would earn respect. The greater audience doesn't care about
>Superman unless there's some stunt involved (married, dead, gay), it doesn't care
Gay.. hehe don't give them any ideas.
>about Superman in photo realism because they could throw in a cassette of any of the
>films or TV shows for a quick fix of that. You cannot gain any new measure of
>respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the albatrosses
>around the industry's neck over its treatment of the character's creators.
Well I can't argue about that. You know if they could make a Superman
movie that was any good that might change. I also think that DC and
Superman death, rebirth, and new costume crap has killed the Superman
myth and made him a farce. The problem then is if the general
population relates Superman to comics and comics to Superman how do
you impress up the general population that comics are more than the
staple of kids without dragging them screaming into a comic store or
playing a comic documentary between Friends and ER.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>> >> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>> >
>> >I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
>> >to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
>> >would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
>> >Ross's artwork
>>
>> I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
>> post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
>> does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
>> paper.
>
>I read his post, and while abrasive and inflammatory as usual, he merely asserts a
>belief that Ross is greatly overrated for what he actually does.
That first quote at the top of the message implied to me that he
thought Ross was just a hack who would be nothing without the advent
of photography.
the damon club
Ken wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:54:46 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
> Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> >"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
> >>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
> >>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
> >>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
> >>
> >>1 - He takes the photos, right?
> >
> > So?
> >
> >>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> >>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
> >>it such that it looks like it has form.
> >
> > It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
> >(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
> >for you.
> >
> > Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
> >his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
> >suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
> >
> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
> >
> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>
> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
> swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
> that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
> even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
why?
many of us have seen dave mckean do alex ross better than alex ross.
that means that ross could do better.
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>Obviously if you know how to be a great artist wouldn't you be one?
>>If you can't follow the same advice you give and become a great artist
>>what value is your advice?
>
> All I can say is, look up the word "patron."
It depends in what context you mean. I don't think the word "patron"
means the same today as it does in the classical sense, therefore, it
shouldn't be treated the same. I think "patron" is the wrong word to
use, "customer" is more akin to the correct word and as a customer how
much advice can you give?
>
>
> But in some small attempt at sincerity, Ken, I'll give you this:
>
> I've been told in numerous critiques that I should lighten my ink
>rendering and do more thin, whispy lines. As such, it's been the focus of
>my attention for over two years now. Yet still I have this thick, clunky
>style of inking (if Joe Kubert and Gil Kane had a kid, it would probably
>ink like me).
>
> John Romita Jr. once said he didn't care about improving his art.
>I say, bully for him. But for the rest of us, it's a daily struggle.
Now if I looked at your work and told you varying things that I felt
you were doing wrong and told you how you could improve you would
appreciate that advice?
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>John McMahon <jmcm...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>Ken wrote:
>>> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
>>> he can improve.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
>
> Just ask any Pope.
Lets clarify something here, are you comparing yourself to the Pope?
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>could be better.
>
> What interests me is that you seem to have the uncanny ability to
>quantify art into fractional comparison.
You can rant about Ross's talent I can relate artistic talent in
fractional terms.
>
>>If you want to argue about originality
>
> I don't.
Or not.
>
>>than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>>his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>>that until now wasn't there.
>
> I've no idea what you're on about. I suspect you don't, either.
Now you're just being facetious. I shouldn't have said "level" and
said "form" or a "new type". Not everyone is perfect.
>
>>I'd like to see you do *anything* that even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>
> I wouldn't.
Or can't.
>
>>When you can do what he can do
>>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>
> No. When I am expected to PAY FOR (and subsequently spend time
>reading) what he does, THEN I can rant advice about how he can improve.
I don't know who's holding that gun to your head....
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>I was thinking of his statements:
>>
>>"It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>>(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it
>>all for you. Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be
>>desired in his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as
>>would oil. I'd suggest he just go to Photoshop, however."
>>
>>I mean come on! The first part implies he has no talent, that Kodak
>>has more to do with the end product them him,
>
> You need to learn how to comprehend what you read.
Stop trying to sweet talk me. The problem may have been that what you
meant to say wasn't conveyed properly based on how you presented it,
don't necessarily assume it's someone elses fault.
>
>>then he goes into art instructions.
>
> That is what we're talking about, innit. If you don't understand
>it, then move on – it wasn't for you.
Can they see your ego from space?
>
>>But if a non-comic fan came across a Ross cover is it
>>inconceivable that it would stir that persons interest more than a
>>large percentage of the artists out there? I'd argue that you could
>>sell Ross sketches to non-comic fans based on his style.
>
> Believe me, I try to do this every day. I have found that most
>people who are interested in ultra-photorealistic art styles are looking
>for T&A – Olivia, Sorayama, Vallejo, etc. Whereas those who might be
>interested in sampling the comics artform for the first time are looking
>for something more distinctive.
>
>>I'd disagree as how many Tintin or Snoopy movies exist that appeal to
>>an all age audience?
>
> Whoa. You've missed quite a bit, haven't you?
All age audiences. Compare audiences to a Superman/Batman movie
versus a Peanuts "movie". Come on now at least try.
>
>>That first quote at the top of the message implied to me that he
>>thought Ross was just a hack who would be nothing without the advent
>>of photography.
>
> Again, please work on your reading comprehension skills.
"The camera has done it all for you."... oh yeah you're just full of
compliments.
>
> As I've explicitly stated before, I like Alex Ross' work. I am
>merely saddened that so much of his material is taken directly from photos,
>and that he feels so compelled to let Wizard share those photos with the
>world.
>
> There is, indeed, something to be said of the ability to copy
>photos so well. But if that's the beginning and ending of what an artist
>has to offer...
I highly doubt that all of his artistic skill is based on photos.
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:54:46 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
>> Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>> >>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
>> >>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
>> >>
>> >>1 - He takes the photos, right?
>> >
>> > So?
>> >
>> >>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
>> >
>> > I don't know.
>> >
>> >>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
>> >>it such that it looks like it has form.
>> >
>> > It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>> >(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
>> >for you.
>> >
>> > Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
>> >his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
>> >suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
>> >
>> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>> >
>> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>>
>> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>> swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
>> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>> that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>> even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
>> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>
>why?
>many of us have seen dave mckean do alex ross better than alex ross.
>
>that means that ross could do better.
I'm game where can I see it?
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>>>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>>>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>>>could be better.
>>>
>>> What interests me is that you seem to have the uncanny ability to
>>>quantify art into fractional comparison.
>>
>>You can rant about Ross's talent I can relate artistic talent in
>>fractional terms.
>
> So... the square-root of Leonardo divided by the cosine of Alphonse
>Mucha, multiplied by the inverse integer of Heironymous Bosch, yields how
>many Edward Hoppers?
This may take me awhile I don't have that function on this calculator.
>
>>>>If you want to argue about originality
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>
>>Or not.
>
> Well, maybe.
What a tease.
>
>>>>than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>>>>his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>>>>that until now wasn't there.
>>>
>>> I've no idea what you're on about. I suspect you don't, either.
>>
>>Now you're just being facetious. I shouldn't have said "level" and
>>said "form" or a "new type". Not everyone is perfect.
>
> Yeah, just that Alex Ross guy.
Hey, I never said that.
>
>>>>I'd like to see you do *anything* that even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't.
>>
>>Or can't.
>
> Or don't want to. Nyah.
It's a good thing I bigger person than that!
>
>>>>When you can do what he can do
>>>>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>>>
>>> No. When I am expected to PAY FOR (and subsequently spend time
>>>reading) what he does, THEN I can rant advice about how he can improve.
>>
>>I don't know who's holding that gun to your head....
>
> The FBI thinks you do.
Well this is as good as anytime to give up. It's obvious to me I lost
this debate and I don't have any interest in dragging it out for 100+
messages over a sense of misplaced pride though I imagine you'd just
abandon me after the for 60 or so anyway. ;)
POINT TAKEN
(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
Ken
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>> All I can say is, look up the word "patron."
>>
>>It depends in what context you mean. I don't think the word "patron"
>>means the same today as it does in the classical sense, therefore, it
>>shouldn't be treated the same. I think "patron" is the wrong word to
>>use, "customer" is more akin to the correct word and as a customer how
>>much advice can you give?
>
> As a customer, I advise artists do work that I like, or else I
>won't buy it.
I gave up on that based on the fact that Liefield still gets work.
>
>>Now if I looked at your work and told you varying things that I felt
>>you were doing wrong and told you how you could improve you would
>>appreciate that advice?
>
> Yes. Yes, I would.
Reminds me of an issue of Cerebus "'scuse me, son -- would you mind
putting more leaves on it....?" I'm obviously too jaded, I hate
advice.
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:32:43 GMT, John McMahon <jmcm...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
>>> he can improve.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
>
>Obviously if you know how to be a great artist wouldn't you be one?
He never said he knows how to be one. Very few people do.
But most of us can recognize the great artists, just as we can recognize
those that aren't.
>If you can't follow the same advice you give and become a great artist
>what value is your advice?
I can tell when a computer program is poorly written. It crashes a lot.
But, I couldn't write a piece of computer code to save my life
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:54:46 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
>Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
>>"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
>>>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
>>>
>>>1 - He takes the photos, right?
>>
>> So?
>>
>>>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>>>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
>>>it such that it looks like it has form.
>>
>> It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>>(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
>>for you.
>>
>> Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
>>his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
>>suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
>>
>>>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>>>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>>
>> He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>
>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
>originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
Wambo is much better at vocalizing his opinions than you are, therefore
you have no right to question his.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:14:13 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>>> >>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>>> >
>>> > He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>>>
>>> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>>> swing or Jordan about his jump shot.
>>
>>Thing is, Ross isn't a Palmer or a Jordan in the art world - he'd make the cut
>>but he wouldn't be a starter. Stepping outside of comics into the real world
>>of commercial art you see the Jordans and Palmers. Ross is akin to one of the
>>best pitchers in semi-pro baseball, perhaps good enough to make a real
go of it
>>in the bigger world and may eventually become a star.
>
>The examples were not to compare Ross relative to his standing in his
>craft but to talk about how someone can make sweeping comments on how
>someone else, who's at the top in his field (Ross in comic art *not*
>the art world), can improve. It's incredibly egotisical to think what
>you have to say is somehow groundbreaking and ingenius especially when
>you're not a comparable talent.
>
>>
>>> If you want to argue about
>>> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>>> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>>> that until now wasn't there.
>>
>>How does Ross's rendering photorealistic superheroes bring any respect to the
>>medium? In the genre WATCHMEN did more, and in general Maus and Sandman did
>>more. Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
>>garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued
output
>>in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
>
>Whatever! ;) Watchmen is a superhero comic for one thing and Superman
>(a superhero) pretty much defines the comic medium.
The general public, yes.
>You will *never*
>be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
Which is just sad and embarrassing.
>Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
>the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts.
>Who
>wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
>only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
>surreal.
Most people prefer a medium to be able to do more than one genre.
>I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
>post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
>does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
>paper.
I realize this has already been said, but Re-read it again. He clearly
states he likes Ross's work.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>
>>I'd like to see you do *anything* that even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>
> I wouldn't.
Oh, I would, but *I* like the idea of torturing you.
>>When you can do what he can do
>>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
If you're going to go *there*, then all the people who think Ross is great
and can't do what he can do, have no room to talk.
> No. When I am expected to PAY FOR (and subsequently spend time
>reading) what he does, THEN I can rant advice about how he can improve.
Preach on, brother man.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>But if a non-comic fan came across a Ross cover is it
>inconceivable that it would stir that persons interest more than a
>large percentage of the artists out there?
Dave McKean's art, especially his Sandman covers, have done this with
general American populace than Ross ever will.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, please work on your reading comprehension skills.
>>
>>"The camera has done it all for you."... oh yeah you're just full of
>>compliments.
>
> But unfortunately, it's true. I've even played this particular
>game myself. When I didn't feel like putting the effort into developing a
>composition on paper for a given assignment, I'd just take a camera and
>find something ready-made that I could copy. It's really an easy way to
>get around doing actual work.
Not necessarily. In TCJ#147, in an interview with P. Craig Russell, they
show how Russell uses photo reference for his drawings and in the
interview Russell comments on how it's important (at least for him, and
I'm paraphrasing from memory), not to make the drawing look like the
photograph, but rather it's just an aid.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>>>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>>>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>>>could be better.
>>>
>>> What interests me is that you seem to have the uncanny ability to
>>>quantify art into fractional comparison.
>>
>>You can rant about Ross's talent I can relate artistic talent in
>>fractional terms.
>
> So... the square-root of Leonardo divided by the cosine of Alphonse
>Mucha, multiplied by the inverse integer of Heironymous Bosch, yields how
>many Edward Hoppers?
3.1428571429
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>very small way by bringing photorealism into it).
McKean, J. Muth, and Sienkiewicz have all done photo realism, among other
things.
> Nyah!
Indeed.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
tphile
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
> >W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
> >> All I can say is, look up the word "patron."
> >
> >It depends in what context you mean. I don't think the word "patron"
> >means the same today as it does in the classical sense, therefore, it
> >shouldn't be treated the same. I think "patron" is the wrong word to
> >use, "customer" is more akin to the correct word and as a customer how
> >much advice can you give?
>
> As a customer, I advise artists do work that I like, or else I
> won't buy it.
you must not own any comics then, huh? I always figured you were an
in shop rack reader. ;-)
It's good know that the good artists don't take your advise. I shudder to
think
of what a Wambo comics line might be like.
tphile
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
> >garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued output
> >in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
>
> I said this very thing – almost verbatim – to a customer yesterday.
>
> Scary.
Very, very scary.
Makes Blair Witch look like a very special episode of Blossom kind of scary . . .
Richard
~shudder~
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 06:13:18 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
> Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> >John McMahon <jmcm...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >>Ken wrote:
> >>> When you can do what he can do THEN you can rant advice about how
> >>> he can improve.
> >>
> >>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>You don't have to be a great artist to know what it takes to be same.
> >
> > Just ask any Pope.
>
> Lets clarify something here, are you comparing yourself to the Pope?
Hey, being compared to any Popes is in no way a compliment - most were even
less interested in playing nice than WAM!
Richard
tphile
Ken wrote:
>
>
> Well this is as good as anytime to give up. It's obvious to me I lost
> this debate and I don't have any interest in dragging it out for 100+
> messages over a sense of misplaced pride though I imagine you'd just
> abandon me after the for 60 or so anyway. ;)
>
> POINT TAKEN
>
> (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
> very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
you didn't lose the debate ken. You just wasted alot of time and energy
arguing with the resident troll. weren't you here during the Iron Giant thread?
Real and talented artist make Wambo insecure and so he has to trash them
to make himself feel better. Like calling them tracers.
Photo references are a legitimate tool for artists, just like mirrors, stick
figures,
light boards and live models. Didn't McKean do some photo collage covers for
Sandman?
When it comes to influences, Artists tend to do a lot of inbreeding and you end
up
with a lot of image artists. So it is always a good thing when an artist brings
in outside
influences.
tphile
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
>
>
> Pace got it. And he hates me.
>
WAM, don't be so coy, tell him how I really feel . . .
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
>
> I was thinking of his statements:
>
> "It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
> (composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it
> all for you. Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be
> desired in his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as
> would oil. I'd suggest he just go to Photoshop, however."
>
> I mean come on! The first part implies he has no talent, that Kodak
> has more to do with the end product them him, then he goes into art
> instructions.
The first part doesn't imply a lack of talent - it describes an often used shortcut that
Ross employs, as do many artists - but it seems that Ross uses it more extensively than
most and is lauded for it as a result. And for implementing a photo realistic style,
water-colour, oil or photoshop do garner better results than gouache - which is a very
chalky medium to work with.
>
> Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
> for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
> don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
The point could be made that because the general populace equates comic books with
Superman (or Batman) that they dismiss it -- so Ross's working on Superman and his help
in making super heroes still the most commercially safe environment for comics publishers
is doing little to earn any new respect for the medium, and, in fact is guaranteeing that
it will still be perceived as bad children's entertainment.
> >
> >> You will *never*
> >> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
> >
> >In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because Superman's
> >obviously intended for children - Nothing can be done with the character to make
> >adults in the general populace give a crap about him - beyond killing him. MARVELS
> >and KINGDOM COME were targeted to a comics fan base, and they succeeded
> >wonderfully, they were hardly mature or appealing to the general audience or worthy
> >of garnering respect for the medium for their indulgence in comics universe trivia.
>
> hehehehe But if a non-comic fan came across a Ross cover is it
> inconceivable that it would stir that persons interest more than a
> large percentage of the artists out there? I'd argue that you could
> sell Ross sketches to non-comic fans based on his style.
If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
The type of photo realism Ross trades in is primarily used in erotica, western and
wildlife art. I'd think that if Ross used his style on a cowboy yarn he'd have more
success reaching a larger audience outside of the comics fringe.
> >
> >>
> >> Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
> >> the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts.
> >
> >When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
> >reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit. Superheroes, as
> >originally conceived, are low entertainment - often aimed at children and a tired
> >genre. You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
> >of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to have a
> >mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
>
> I'd disagree as how many Tintin or Snoopy movies exist that appeal to
> an all age audience?
While Tintin hasn't made the headway in America that it has everywhere else, I'd like to
point out that the character is more successful in print that Superman is. And both
Snoopy and Tintin are more liked and known internationally than Superman.
> Now this is getting into semantics as what would
> you get as an answer if you said comic "book" vs comic "strip" ?
When I say comics, I mean comics - it's to the industries detriment that they've isolated
themselves from the strips.
> I
> think a large percentage of the population knows very little of the
> comic medium and doesn't understand its varying forms. Superhero's
> may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
> appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
> thats all comics have to offer.
Nope - super heroes do not appeal to the general population, that's why sales are so
bad. And the reason that they think super heroes are the only thing the medium offers is
because it's the only thing the biggest two publishers have been promoting for the last
thirty years.
>
>
> >
> >> Who wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
> >> only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
> >> surreal.
> >
> >You mean, earn respect the same way other, literary and film work achieves respect:
> >by appealing to a mass audience while achieving a level of quality to keep the
> >audience interested.
>
> Thats sort of an oxymoron isn't it. I can't tell if you're being
> sarcastic. ;)
Maybe you should reread it then - focus on the idea of respect i.e. The Godfather earned
respect for being a good novel that entertained both casual readers across a wide
spectrum of the general audience and critics, same with the film. Super heroes only
appeal to the bulk of comics fans.
>
> >
> >Alex has done two works wrapped around Superman and the medium hasn't gained an iota
> >of additional respect based upon his work, impressive as it is for a superhero
> >genre. In case you hadn't noticed, the industry has been in a bit of a slump during
> >his two projects. I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that somehow a
> >photo realistic Superman is good for comics as a medium. It hasn't increased sales
> >or attracted a new, larger audience for the industry or even the works Ross was
> >involved in.
>
> I know for a fact that there's some people who got back into comics
> due to Marvels and Kingdom Come because they showed the medium is
> still producing quality products (not to under rate Busiek's or Waid's
> writing either). Now I never said Ross was bringing comics to the
> masses but that his art is giving it a new respect. Vess, Boltan and
> others did the same in giving comics a less cartoony feel and a more
> mature look and feel.
So would Scorsese doing saturday morning toy cartoon gain respect for animation as a
whole, or merely get a handful of people to watch a cartoon? Do CGI cartoons appeal to a
larger audience than traditional cartoons?
> >
> >> IMO most comic readers want a fantasy world with a touch of
> >> realism and that is what Ross delivers -- you get superman et al but
> >> drawn in photorealism detail.
> >
> >You got that with Neal Adams back in the 70s. But the issue isn't what comic
> >readers want if you're taking the stance that Ross's work earns respect for the
> >medium, it's what would earn respect. The greater audience doesn't care about
> >Superman unless there's some stunt involved (married, dead, gay), it doesn't care
>
> Gay.. hehe don't give them any ideas.
>
> >about Superman in photo realism because they could throw in a cassette of any of the
> >films or TV shows for a quick fix of that. You cannot gain any new measure of
> >respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the albatrosses
> >around the industry's neck over its treatment of the character's creators.
>
> Well I can't argue about that. You know if they could make a Superman
> movie that was any good that might change.
They did, and it didn't.
> I also think that DC and
> Superman death, rebirth, and new costume crap has killed the Superman
> myth and made him a farce. The problem then is if the general
> population relates Superman to comics and comics to Superman how do
> you impress up the general population that comics are more than the
> staple of kids without dragging them screaming into a comic store or
> playing a comic documentary between Friends and ER.
Nope - just produce good comics telling stories that appeal to a larger audience -
several theories abound about format and marketing, but that's essentially another
debate.
> >> >
> >> >> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
> >> >> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
> >> >
> >> >I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
> >> >to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
> >> >would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
> >> >Ross's artwork
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
> >> post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
> >> does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
> >> paper.
> >
> >I read his post, and while abrasive and inflammatory as usual, he merely asserts a
> >belief that Ross is greatly overrated for what he actually does.
>
> That first quote at the top of the message implied to me that he
> thought Ross was just a hack who would be nothing without the advent
> of photography.
I didn't read that into his post.
Richard
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
>
> (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
> very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
But he wasn't the one that brought photo realism into the medium, only the genre
- and only slightly more so than Muth, Williams, or McKean before him.
Richard Pace
Bringing out the Brandon wrote:
> In article <7urros$kub$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Again, please work on your reading comprehension skills.
> >>
> >>"The camera has done it all for you."... oh yeah you're just full of
> >>compliments.
> >
> > But unfortunately, it's true. I've even played this particular
> >game myself. When I didn't feel like putting the effort into developing a
> >composition on paper for a given assignment, I'd just take a camera and
> >find something ready-made that I could copy. It's really an easy way to
> >get around doing actual work.
>
> Not necessarily. In TCJ#147, in an interview with P. Craig Russell, they
> show how Russell uses photo reference for his drawings and in the
> interview Russell comments on how it's important (at least for him, and
> I'm paraphrasing from memory), not to make the drawing look like the
> photograph, but rather it's just an aid.
He's one smart cookie, that PCR! I think I'm gonna go dig out that issue and
reread it!
Richard
Richard Pace
Bringing out the Brandon wrote:
> In article <38116e1f...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
> (Ken) wrote:
>
> >(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
> >very small way by bringing photorealism into it).
>
> McKean, J. Muth, and Sienkiewicz have all done photo realism, among other
> things.
Good points! Great minds, and all that . . .
>
>
> > Nyah!
>
> Indeed.
>
> --
> -Brandon Blatcher
--
Richard Pace
tphile wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well this is as good as anytime to give up. It's obvious to me I lost
> > this debate and I don't have any interest in dragging it out for 100+
> > messages over a sense of misplaced pride though I imagine you'd just
> > abandon me after the for 60 or so anyway. ;)
> >
> > POINT TAKEN
> >
> > (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
> > very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
>
> you didn't lose the debate ken. You just wasted alot of time and energy
> arguing with the resident troll.
Since I don't live under a bridge, I'll assume you're referring to someone else . .
.
> weren't you here during the Iron Giant thread?
> Real and talented artist make Wambo insecure and so he has to trash them
> to make himself feel better. Like calling them tracers.
Hmm, I though WAM was insulting more from a personality trait than a sense of
insecurity . . .
>
> Photo references are a legitimate tool for artists, just like mirrors, stick
> figures, light boards and live models.
No one said it wasn't.
> Didn't McKean do some photo collage covers for Sandman?
Yes, he did. So?
>
> When it comes to influences, Artists tend to do a lot of inbreeding and you end
> up with a lot of image artists.
That's why so many of us rock on the banjo!!
> So it is always a good thing when an artist brings in outside influences.
No one said it was a bad thing.
Richard
Lea Hernandez
>When I didn't feel like putting the effort into developing a
>> >composition on paper for a given assignment, I'd just take a camera and
>> >find something ready-made that I could copy. It's really an easy way to
>> >get around doing actual work.
This the reason why, at East Texas State University, the art students reffered
to the overhead oaque projector (brand name: Art-O-Graph) as the
"Art-O-Crutch". (And "Art-O-Crotch" when swiping pics from Playboy...)
it was the easy way to get figures into painting without that pesky life
drawing crap. The teachers graded accordingly.
Blatch-man wrote:
>> Not necessarily. In TCJ#147, in an interview with P. Craig Russell,...
Russell comments on how it's important (at least for him, and
>> I'm paraphrasing from memory), not to make the drawing look like the
>> photograph, but rather it's just an aid.
Exactly. I study photographs, have my family pose for me, and use a mirror to
get things right.
Lea Hernandez
CLOCKWORK ANGELS, intro by Warren Ellis, Image Comics
www.DivaLea.com
2K: SILKY WARRIOR TANSIE
Ken
out the Brandon) wrote:
>In article <38116e1f...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
>(Ken) wrote:
>
>>(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>>very small way by bringing photorealism into it).
>
>McKean, J. Muth, and Sienkiewicz have all done photo realism, among other
>things.
Did Sienkiewicz do photorealism? The only work of his that I remember
was although close to realistic always abstract. I don't remember the
other two but it could be that I've seen it but now can't place it.
Any specifics so I can go check it out?
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>>
>> (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>> very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
>
>But he wasn't the one that brought photo realism into the medium, only the genre
>- and only slightly more so than Muth, Williams, or McKean before him.
Yeah but he's done so much of it and still does it constantly that he
is far more known than the rest.
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>>
>> I was thinking of his statements:
>>
>> "It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>> (composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it
>> all for you. Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be
>> desired in his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as
>> would oil. I'd suggest he just go to Photoshop, however."
>>
>> I mean come on! The first part implies he has no talent, that Kodak
>> has more to do with the end product them him, then he goes into art
>> instructions.
>
>The first part doesn't imply a lack of talent - it describes an often used shortcut that
>Ross employs, as do many artists - but it seems that Ross uses it more extensively than
>most and is lauded for it as a result. And for implementing a photo realistic style,
>water-colour, oil or photoshop do garner better results than gouache - which is a very
>chalky medium to work with.
Wouldn't Ross know that though? Couldn't you safely assume that if
he's done enough artistic work that he can produce that styles he
would have enough sense to use a style that produces the best results?
>
>>
>> Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
>> for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
>> don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
>
>The point could be made that because the general populace equates comic books with
>Superman (or Batman) that they dismiss it -- so Ross's working on Superman and his help
>in making super heroes still the most commercially safe environment for comics publishers
>is doing little to earn any new respect for the medium, and, in fact is guaranteeing that
>it will still be perceived as bad children's entertainment.
I still disagree with that train of thought since unless they kill
Superman or stop producing his book the problem never resolves itself
anyways.
>
>> >
>> >> You will *never*
>> >> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
>> >
>> >In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because Superman's
>> >obviously intended for children - Nothing can be done with the character to make
>> >adults in the general populace give a crap about him - beyond killing him. MARVELS
>> >and KINGDOM COME were targeted to a comics fan base, and they succeeded
>> >wonderfully, they were hardly mature or appealing to the general audience or worthy
>> >of garnering respect for the medium for their indulgence in comics universe trivia.
>>
>> hehehehe But if a non-comic fan came across a Ross cover is it
>> inconceivable that it would stir that persons interest more than a
>> large percentage of the artists out there? I'd argue that you could
>> sell Ross sketches to non-comic fans based on his style.
>
>If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
>
>Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
>more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
>the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
>an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
What about the Liefield clones? On a twist to that thought do
actually think that as long as the word comic exists that the medium
will ever garner any respect in the general marketplace? Rather than
people refering to Maus or Sandman as "not your average comic".
>
>The type of photo realism Ross trades in is primarily used in erotica, western and
>wildlife art. I'd think that if Ross used his style on a cowboy yarn he'd have more
>success reaching a larger audience outside of the comics fringe.
But why? He's got limited competition in the comic field where in
larger circles photorealism is far more common.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, to argue that somehow Ross, bringing a depth of realism to
>> >> the medium and it's spokesperson (Superman), can hurt it is nuts.
>> >
>> >When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
>> >reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit. Superheroes, as
>> >originally conceived, are low entertainment - often aimed at children and a tired
>> >genre. You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
>> >of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to have a
>> >mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
>>
>> I'd disagree as how many Tintin or Snoopy movies exist that appeal to
>> an all age audience?
>
>While Tintin hasn't made the headway in America that it has everywhere else, I'd like to
>point out that the character is more successful in print that Superman is. And both
>Snoopy and Tintin are more liked and known internationally than Superman.
OK I agree there, I'm talking from a North American standpoint since I
can't speak in International terms as I'm not part of their culture.
>
>> Now this is getting into semantics as what would
>> you get as an answer if you said comic "book" vs comic "strip" ?
>
>When I say comics, I mean comics - it's to the industries detriment that they've isolated
>themselves from the strips.
That's part of my point though. If you ask the general public would
they relate comic books in the same medium as comic strips?
>
>> I
>> think a large percentage of the population knows very little of the
>> comic medium and doesn't understand its varying forms. Superhero's
>> may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
>> appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
>> thats all comics have to offer.
>
>Nope - super heroes do not appeal to the general population, that's why sales are so
>bad. And the reason that they think super heroes are the only thing the medium offers is
>because it's the only thing the biggest two publishers have been promoting for the last
>thirty years.
Why then is a major part of Marvel and DC's lines superhero's?
Obviously because they sell. If not, the independents would be taking
up the slack and doing well but they're not. I don't think that you
can remove the superhero's from comics with out killing the comic book
medium and therefore you can argue that comics will never appeal to or
be respected by the general population.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Who wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
>> >> only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
>> >> surreal.
>> >
>> >You mean, earn respect the same way other, literary and film work achieves respect:
>> >by appealing to a mass audience while achieving a level of quality to keep the
>> >audience interested.
>>
>> Thats sort of an oxymoron isn't it. I can't tell if you're being
>> sarcastic. ;)
>
>Maybe you should reread it then - focus on the idea of respect i.e. The Godfather earned
>respect for being a good novel that entertained both casual readers across a wide
>spectrum of the general audience and critics, same with the film. Super heroes only
>appeal to the bulk of comics fans.
Why I said that above is that what movie based on comics has been
good? Mask? Batman? Blade? Barbed Wire? They *usually* don't rely
on anything resembling a good storyline and do the usual big special
effects thing. So when you related comic movies to great literary
works I thought you were being sarcastic.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Alex has done two works wrapped around Superman and the medium hasn't gained an iota
>> >of additional respect based upon his work, impressive as it is for a superhero
>> >genre. In case you hadn't noticed, the industry has been in a bit of a slump during
>> >his two projects. I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that somehow a
>> >photo realistic Superman is good for comics as a medium. It hasn't increased sales
>> >or attracted a new, larger audience for the industry or even the works Ross was
>> >involved in.
>>
>> I know for a fact that there's some people who got back into comics
>> due to Marvels and Kingdom Come because they showed the medium is
>> still producing quality products (not to under rate Busiek's or Waid's
>> writing either). Now I never said Ross was bringing comics to the
>> masses but that his art is giving it a new respect. Vess, Boltan and
>> others did the same in giving comics a less cartoony feel and a more
>> mature look and feel.
>
>So would Scorsese doing saturday morning toy cartoon gain respect for animation as a
>whole, or merely get a handful of people to watch a cartoon? Do CGI cartoons appeal to a
>larger audience than traditional cartoons?
Sure! ;) Look how much attention Spawn has gotten and it's horrible
writing. I seem to remember it winning awards. If Scorsese did a
cartoon and it attracted a large audience wouldn't that make people
look at cartoons differently? Cartoons are like comics, they are
looked on in a stereotypical light by the general population.
>
>> >
>> >> IMO most comic readers want a fantasy world with a touch of
>> >> realism and that is what Ross delivers -- you get superman et al but
>> >> drawn in photorealism detail.
>> >
>> >You got that with Neal Adams back in the 70s. But the issue isn't what comic
>> >readers want if you're taking the stance that Ross's work earns respect for the
>> >medium, it's what would earn respect. The greater audience doesn't care about
>> >Superman unless there's some stunt involved (married, dead, gay), it doesn't care
>>
>> Gay.. hehe don't give them any ideas.
>>
>> >about Superman in photo realism because they could throw in a cassette of any of the
>> >films or TV shows for a quick fix of that. You cannot gain any new measure of
>> >respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the albatrosses
>> >around the industry's neck over its treatment of the character's creators.
>>
>> Well I can't argue about that. You know if they could make a Superman
>> movie that was any good that might change.
>
>They did, and it didn't.
Well the first one wasn't horrible but 4? after that were bad. That
first Superman movie was a great all ages movie and I'm curious if it
attracted people to comic books but comics were healthy back then so
who knows.
>
>> I also think that DC and
>> Superman death, rebirth, and new costume crap has killed the Superman
>> myth and made him a farce. The problem then is if the general
>> population relates Superman to comics and comics to Superman how do
>> you impress up the general population that comics are more than the
>> staple of kids without dragging them screaming into a comic store or
>> playing a comic documentary between Friends and ER.
>
>Nope - just produce good comics telling stories that appeal to a larger audience -
>several theories abound about format and marketing, but that's essentially another
>debate.
Or give it a different name like trade paperback or graphic novel. ;)
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>> >> >> even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have done photorealistic painting in a commercial capacity, however I choose
>> >> >to allow my personal aesthetic determine the final appearance of my work -
>> >> >would this preclude my ability to have an opinion and express it about Alex
>> >> >Ross's artwork
>> >>
>> >> I don't have a problem with people having an opinion but read his
>> >> post, obviously the guy thinks Ross is a no talent hack and what he
>> >> does anyone can do if they get a photograph and a piece of onion
>> >> paper.
>> >
>> >I read his post, and while abrasive and inflammatory as usual, he merely asserts a
>> >belief that Ross is greatly overrated for what he actually does.
>>
>> That first quote at the top of the message implied to me that he
>> thought Ross was just a hack who would be nothing without the advent
>> of photography.
>
>I didn't read that into his post.
He pretty much impressed that upon me which I can see upon hindsight.
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:27:25 -0400, nom...@worldnet.att.net (Bringing
> out the Brandon) wrote:
>
> >In article <38116e1f...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
> >(Ken) wrote:
> >
> >>(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
> >>very small way by bringing photorealism into it).
> >
> >McKean, J. Muth, and Sienkiewicz have all done photo realism, among other
> >things.
>
> Did Sienkiewicz do photorealism?
Not anymore, but his earlier work was pretty realistic - in the Drew
Struzan/Bob Peak movie poster mode.
> The only work of his that I remember
> was although close to realistic always abstract.
It's a personal pet peeve when people mistakenly confuse anything less than
absolute adherence to realism with abstract art - abstract art is art that
has nothing to do with representational elements - think Mondrian (the
Partridge Family bus guy) or Jackson Pollock (splatter canvasses), that's
abstract art.
In a sense the way many artists play with design and colour elements on the
two dimensional plane is an abstraction of sorts, however much of the way
contemporary artists play with the reality within their work owes more to
Impressionism than to the Abstract artists or even the Cubists.
Though I'd wonder how SLUTBURGER, with its occasional Cubist bursts, could be
analysed in that context?
> I don't remember the
> other two but it could be that I've seen it but now can't place it.
> Any specifics so I can go check it out?
Muth did a wonderful looking adaptation of M several years back, McKean's
VIOLENT CASES and BLACK ORCHID play with photo realism effortlessly while
still incorporating a sense of personal vision and wit.
Ken
out the Brandon) wrote:
>In article <3810ff9a...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
>(Ken) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:54:46 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
>>Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>>
>>>"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
>>>>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
>>>>
>>>>1 - He takes the photos, right?
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>>>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
>>>>it such that it looks like it has form.
>>>
>>> It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>>>(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
>>>for you.
>>>
>>> Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
>>>his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
>>>suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
>>>
>>>>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>>>>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>>>
>>> He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>>
>>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>>swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
>>originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>>his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>>that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>>even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
>>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>
>Wambo is much better at vocalizing his opinions than you are, therefore
>you have no right to question his.
Ditto.
KRothst402
>>>When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit.<<<
Well, strangely enough, it was an Alex Ross Superman thatmanaged to get reviews
outside the comic world.
SUPERMAN:PEACE ON EARTH was reviewed by The New York Daily News and found to be
such a bargain, it made their top 10 list for coffeetable books for 1998.
Cited in the explanation for it's inclusion was the large format (which is
decidedly more impressive than a pamphlet size comic), the story which tried to
bring Superman into the real world, and the art of Alex Ross, who was called
Norman Rockwell-esque in his art and beautiful to look at. Also, from the
p.o.v. of the coffeetable world, the $10 pricetag was seen as a real baragain
and for once, a book could be lfet on a table that actually had a story to it
for passing reading.
Another book reviewed by a local NY newspaper was KINGDOM COME. This was
called a good book to read in spite of the in jokes that littered the series.
It was deemed able to stand on its own merits, and the artwork of Alex Ross was
I believe cited again.
>Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
>> >garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued
>output
>> >in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
We must be part of different cultures. Superheroes now garner no respect?
Tell that to the millions of people who watched em on TV as kids, or read their
comics. Sure Superheroes have respect, just not the kind you are looking for.
Sesame Street has respect in the culture too. One doesn't have to target
adults to garner respect.
Whats damaging to the mediums respectability is the outlandish prices, flmisy
formats, continued immaturity in even the most "mature" of titles, etc. Only
in Vertigo comics is sex and violence seen as mature writing. In film, they
call it "Friday the 13th part VIII"
>
>> You will *never*
>> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
>
>In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because
>Superman's
>obviously intended for children -
There is nothing wrong with Superman being intended for children. This
children's commodity has managed to cross media lines in every decade since the
1940s. I'd say that was a clue he is better ensconced in the culture than
almost any other literary figure.
> You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
>of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to
>have a
>mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
And there goes a career in Public Relations and Advertising! Both have mass
appeal, but I have to go with Superman on this one. He represents the words
"comic books" with his mere appearance.
> You cannot gain any new measure of
>respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the
>albatrosses
>around the industry's neck
This I agree with. But Superman has all the respect he needs. He cannot bring
anything new to the table though, and can only be Superman--which is good
enough for the what he ses out to do.
Comics can't get respect if they can't be read. At this time, they are not on
sale in any great numbers in easily accessible stores. Who cares who draws em
if no one can read em? Of course, that isn't the only problem. Comics tend to
be poorly written juvenile pieces with an eye towards violence and genres that
the mass public isn't all that interested in.
And before anyone says "But in Japan....", this isn't Japan we are talking
about. Despite the proliferation of japanese cartoons at Blockbuster and
whatnot, the country still doesn't really care about these new "adult" comics
and cartoons. Has comics ever tried to mirror the NY Times bestseller list in
content? No, they have not. John Grisham writes one best seller after another
that appeals to millions of people. Has anyone in comics tried a lawyer comic
to maybe appeal to a fraction of that audience? Where is the straightforward
romance comic to try and appeal to the women who read Danielle Steel?
I know all this sounds silly, but the point is that comics are still, after all
is said and done, stuck in the fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime rut is always gets
in when it goes beyond superheroes.
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:53 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The first part doesn't imply a lack of talent - it describes an often used shortcut that
> >Ross employs, as do many artists - but it seems that Ross uses it more extensively than
> >most and is lauded for it as a result. And for implementing a photo realistic style,
> >water-colour, oil or photoshop do garner better results than gouache - which is a very
> >chalky medium to work with.
>
> Wouldn't Ross know that though? Couldn't you safely assume that if
> he's done enough artistic work that he can produce that styles he
> would have enough sense to use a style that produces the best results?
>
Yes, he likely does - but in essence, gouache is a 'faster' medium to work in - in that it's
easier to fix errors and combine with other media, such actual water-colour and pencil crayon.
I've seen pure water-colour from the guy, and they are better than his gouache work - as are
his pencil drawings.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
> >> for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
> >> don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
> >
> >The point could be made that because the general populace equates comic books with
> >Superman (or Batman) that they dismiss it -- so Ross's working on Superman and his help
> >in making super heroes still the most commercially safe environment for comics publishers
> >is doing little to earn any new respect for the medium, and, in fact is guaranteeing that
> >it will still be perceived as bad children's entertainment.
>
> I still disagree with that train of thought since unless they kill
> Superman or stop producing his book the problem never resolves itself
> anyways.
That's silly - all that has to happen is for a series of comics works in other genres to be
continually successful outside the comics fan fringe - it's not about eliminating Superman,
it's about producing work that appeals to people other than the tiny amount of superhero fans
we currently have.
If Ross does have the potential to garner the medium more respect and a larger audience he's
wasting his efforts on a genre that doesn't appeal to the larger audience. Let's se him do a
Terminator comic again, or a Western or a crime comic or something that there's a larger
audience for.
>
>
> >If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
> >
> >Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
> >more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
> >the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
> >an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
>
> What about the Liefield clones?
Liefeld (and Lee or Maduriera or Campbell) clones exist to steal the success from within the
established fan base, not to expand the audience.
> On a twist to that thought do
> actually think that as long as the word comic exists that the medium
> will ever garner any respect in the general marketplace? Rather than
> people refering to Maus or Sandman as "not your average comic".
Well, if Maus and Sandman were the average comics existed at, then that problem would take
care of itself, wouldn't it. Most comics are crap - across the genres - yet most comics are
also super hero comics, making the inordinate amount of crap in this industry super hero
based. Interestingly enough, there's more frequently quality outside the genre, of the crime
comics made, more of them are good to excellent crime comics, etc. This is also part and
parcel of the corporate ownership of the superhero genre, often inhibiting the creativity of
the talents involved in their creation. Good super hero comics are created in spite of the
system, not because of it.
>
>
> >
> >The type of photo realism Ross trades in is primarily used in erotica, western and
> >wildlife art. I'd think that if Ross used his style on a cowboy yarn he'd have more
> >success reaching a larger audience outside of the comics fringe.
>
> But why? He's got limited competition in the comic field where in
> larger circles photorealism is far more common.
So, our point about Ross's appeal to the outside, non comics reader is something you choose to
undermine on your own?
You said that a non-comics reader would be impressed by Ross's work to the point of purchasing
it - yet they aren't interested in super heroes so it's unlikely they'd shell out the bucks.
There are already established art markets for photo realism, and super heroes aren't in that
grouping.
However, my point was that there aren't any photo realistic cowboy comics out there, he'd be
in an even more unique situation - possibly one that would gain him a larger audience.
>
>
>
> >While Tintin hasn't made the headway in America that it has everywhere else, I'd like to
> >point out that the character is more successful in print that Superman is. And both
> >Snoopy and Tintin are more liked and known internationally than Superman.
>
> OK I agree there, I'm talking from a North American standpoint since I
> can't speak in International terms as I'm not part of their culture.
You'd rather settle for merely being American than a citizen of the world?
>
>
> >
> >> Now this is getting into semantics as what would
> >> you get as an answer if you said comic "book" vs comic "strip" ?
> >
> >When I say comics, I mean comics - it's to the industry's detriment that they've isolated
> >themselves from the strips.
>
> That's part of my point though. If you ask the general public would
> they relate comic books in the same medium as comic strips?
Asked that way, yes. Asked if they thought comic books and comics strips were the same things
the answer would be 'no'.
>
>
> >
> >> I
> >> think a large percentage of the population knows very little of the
> >> comic medium and doesn't understand its varying forms. Superhero's
> >> may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
> >> appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
> >> thats all comics have to offer.
> >
> >Nope - super heroes do not appeal to the general population, that's why sales are so
> >bad. And the reason that they think super heroes are the only thing the medium offers is
> >because it's the only thing the biggest two publishers have been promoting for the last
> >thirty years.
>
> Why then is a major part of Marvel and DC's lines superhero's?
That's a whole history lesson in and of itself - let's keep it at the simplicity of
maintaining control and longevity as opposed to actually trying to gain a larger audience.
>
> Obviously because they sell.
To the ever shrinking direct market comics audience.
> If not, the independents would be taking
> up the slack and doing well but they're not.
Actually, they are - apparently the industry is making a steady gross income from month to
month for the last year or so, but it's the super hero books that are losing sales and market
share. Comparatively, the non-tights books are doing well in a market dominated by superhero
fans
> I don't think that you
> can remove the superhero's from comics with out killing the comic book
> medium and therefore you can argue that comics will never appeal to or
> be respected by the general population.
Not right now you couldn't, and not inclined to think that the medium couldn't support super
heroes if they achieved a larger market outside the established fringe market. Is it possible
that the general population will appreciate comics in the same way as the Japanese do? Yes -
though it would take a large investment of time and money to do so - something neither of the
four majors are inclined to do.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Who wants the comic medium to have respect when the only way is if the
> >> >> only comics that can be produced are ones that are alternative or
> >> >> surreal.
> >> >
> >> >You mean, earn respect the same way other, literary and film work achieves respect:
> >> >by appealing to a mass audience while achieving a level of quality to keep the
> >> >audience interested.
> >>
> >> Thats sort of an oxymoron isn't it. I can't tell if you're being
> >> sarcastic. ;)
> >
> >Maybe you should reread it then - focus on the idea of respect i.e. The Godfather earned
> >respect for being a good novel that entertained both casual readers across a wide
> >spectrum of the general audience and critics, same with the film. Super heroes only
> >appeal to the bulk of comics fans.
>
> Why I said that above is that what movie based on comics has been
> good? Mask? Batman? Blade? Barbed Wire? They *usually* don't rely
> on anything resembling a good storyline and do the usual big special
> effects thing. So when you related comic movies to great literary
> works I thought you were being sarcastic.
I wasn't relating comics films to other films, but comics to other creative endeavours. I
think the idea that comics can only gain a path to respect and a larger audience through film
versions is erroneous. Well done comics that appeal in subject and treatment of such to a
larger audience and a continual stream of them into the places where people who'd like to buy
them could is the only way to get that larger audience. POKEMON did it and, to a lesser
extent, so did SANDMAN and THE DARK KNIGHT.
The direct market has been nothing but bad for comics potential of gaining a larger market,
yet perversely allowed a maturation of the creative process in certain instances.
>
>
> >So would Scorsese doing saturday morning toy cartoon gain respect for animation as a
> >whole, or merely get a handful of people to watch a cartoon? Do CGI cartoons appeal to a
> >larger audience than traditional cartoons?
>
> Sure! ;) Look how much attention Spawn has gotten and it's horrible
> writing. I seem to remember it winning awards. If Scorsese did a
> cartoon and it attracted a large audience wouldn't that make people
> look at cartoons differently? Cartoons are like comics, they are
> looked on in a stereotypical light by the general population.
There's a difference between an aberration garnering attention and a transformation of the
common knowledge. If Scorsese, Lynch, Cameron, Cronenberg, Zemekis, Tarantino, Spielberg, and
Soderburgh all turned their attention to animated projects and produced work that made an
animated project as weighty and literate as their other works it would likely change the
perception of the limits and expectations of animated work. Sporadic outbursts of quality do
not effect a permanent change.
>
>
> >They did, and it didn't.
>
> Well the first one wasn't horrible but 4? after that were bad. That
> first Superman movie was a great all ages movie and I'm curious if it
> attracted people to comic books but comics were healthy back then so
> who knows.
But Superman is an all ages character. And no - like I wrote before, it didn't really get a
new permanent audience for the character or the medium.
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
> Richard Pace asks...
>
> >>>When was the last time a Superman comic won a literary award? Was seriously
> reviewed outside the pocket universe comics fans inhabit.<<<
>
> Well, strangely enough, it was an Alex Ross Superman thatmanaged to get reviews
> outside the comic world.
>
> SUPERMAN:PEACE ON EARTH was reviewed by The New York Daily News and found to be
> such a bargain, it made their top 10 list for coffeetable books for 1998.
>
> Cited in the explanation for it's inclusion was the large format (which is
> decidedly more impressive than a pamphlet size comic), the story which tried to
> bring Superman into the real world, and the art of Alex Ross, who was called
> Norman Rockwell-esque in his art and beautiful to look at. Also, from the
> p.o.v. of the coffeetable world, the $10 pricetag was seen as a real baragain
> and for once, a book could be lfet on a table that actually had a story to it
> for passing reading.
>
> Another book reviewed by a local NY newspaper was KINGDOM COME. This was
> called a good book to read in spite of the in jokes that littered the series.
> It was deemed able to stand on its own merits, and the artwork of Alex Ross was
> I believe cited again.
Well answered, but I wonder if they were reviewed out of novelty or treated as
creative works?
>
>
> >Considering that superheroes are arguably holding the medium back from
> >> >garnering any real respect in this culture, Ross's support and continued
> >output
> >> >in the genre is actually damaging the medium's respect.
>
> We must be part of different cultures. Superheroes now garner no respect?
> Tell that to the millions of people who watched em on TV as kids, or read their
> comics. Sure Superheroes have respect, just not the kind you are looking for.
> Sesame Street has respect in the culture too. One doesn't have to target
> adults to garner respect.
The context, in case you missed it, was that Ross's rendering of the blue boy
scout, was gaining a new respect for the medium, not the genre. And even the TV
shows and films starring superhero do nothing to increase respect for the medium.
>
>
> Whats damaging to the mediums respectability is the outlandish prices, flmisy
> formats, continued immaturity in even the most "mature" of titles, etc. Only
> in Vertigo comics is sex and violence seen as mature writing. In film, they
> call it "Friday the 13th part VIII"
I think the closest Vertigo came to Ft13th/8, was the lame run of Swamp Thing that
Pat Broderick drew.
Considering that Veils, Sandman, The Mystery Play, and several other books under
the imprint have been reviewed consistently well, I doubt your comparison holds
truth. Vertigo is pretentious, but most things that aspire to Art are.
And I think you've missed pretty much the vast majority of entertainment in any
media if you think that sex and violence is immediately low brow.
>
>
> >
> >> You will *never*
> >> be able to use the word comic without someone thinking of Superman.
> >
> >In North America - and as such comics are dismissed as juvenilia because
> >Superman's
> >obviously intended for children -
>
> There is nothing wrong with Superman being intended for children.
Never said there was.
> This children's commodity has managed to cross media lines in every decade since
> the 1940s. I'd say that was a clue he is better ensconced in the culture than
> almost any other literary figure.
So? How does having a wildly popular children's entertainment represent the medium
help the medium gain a larger audience? Does Miramax flash Mickey Mouse in front
of their pseudo indie films?
>
>
> > You're suggesting something akin to Mr Roger's being the spokesman for all
> >of television or Mickey Mouse representing film. If comics were mandated to
> >have a
> >mass appeal representative I'd choose Tintin or Snoopy.
>
> And there goes a career in Public Relations and Advertising! Both have mass
> appeal, but I have to go with Superman on this one. He represents the words
> "comic books" with his mere appearance.
Which is the problem, pal - at least the problem that exists in America. Leaving
the countries shores. you quickly discover that Superman holds considerably less
weight when it comes to comics. But my point WAS, that IF we HAD to have an iconic
representative for comics I'd PREFER Tintin or Snoopy, characters that have an
established appeal to the mass audience in the medium the first debuted.
>
> > You cannot gain any new measure of
> >respect for the medium through Superman - hell, it's actually one of the
> >albatrosses
> >around the industry's neck
>
> This I agree with. But Superman has all the respect he needs. He cannot bring
> anything new to the table though, and can only be Superman--which is good
> enough for the what he ses out to do.
Which is exactly my point on why the character is such a bad symbol for comics -
it's a simplistic children's character.
>
> Comics can't get respect if they can't be read. At this time, they are not on
> sale in any great numbers in easily accessible stores. Who cares who draws em
> if no one can read em? Of course, that isn't the only problem. Comics tend to
> be poorly written juvenile pieces with an eye towards violence and genres that
> the mass public isn't all that interested in.
Something I've been spouting off about for years . . .
>
>
> And before anyone says "But in Japan....", this isn't Japan we are talking
> about. Despite the proliferation of japanese cartoons at Blockbuster and
> whatnot, the country still doesn't really care about these new "adult" comics
> and cartoons. Has comics ever tried to mirror the NY Times bestseller list in
> content? No, they have not. John Grisham writes one best seller after another
> that appeals to millions of people. Has anyone in comics tried a lawyer comic
> to maybe appeal to a fraction of that audience? Where is the straightforward
> romance comic to try and appeal to the women who read Danielle Steel?
Another thing I've been saying for years - hell, in this thread I've suggested
Ross try his hand at other genres in the hopes of reaching that very sort of
audience.
> I know all this sounds silly, but the point is that comics are still, after all
> is said and done, stuck in the fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime rut is always gets
> in when it goes beyond superheroes.
Well, considering that, as genres, fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime are pretty
established and available to the mass market, it's a better start than trying to
make superhero appeal to the mass audience. However, I'd like to see more works
that try to do more than replicate the fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime that have come
before. A crime story with the adrenaline and venom of Ellroy, a science fiction
piece with the intelligence and skill of Lessing, horror with the literate
accessibility of Stephen King, fantasy with the craft of Bradley or the power of
Gemmell. Even in these genres there's too much reliance on the comics of
yesteryear; EC swipes and Conan or Elric pastiches. For the comics medium to grow
the creators have to be willing the explore its limits.
Apart from some confusion from what you think I was writing about, I'd say we
likely agree on this.
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:27:25 -0400, nom...@worldnet.att.net (Bringing
>out the Brandon) wrote:
>
>>In article <38116e1f...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
>>(Ken) wrote:
>>
>>>(Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>>>very small way by bringing photorealism into it).
>>
>>McKean, J. Muth, and Sienkiewicz have all done photo realism, among other
>>things.
>
>Did Sienkiewicz do photorealism? The only work of his that I remember
>was although close to realistic always abstract. I don't remember the
>other two but it could be that I've seen it but now can't place it.
>Any specifics so I can go check it out?
Sienkiewicz does photorealism in bits and pieces throughout Stray Toasters
and Big Numbers.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
<rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
>Bringing out the Brandon wrote:
>
>> In article <7urros$kub$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>> YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, please work on your reading comprehension skills.
>> >>
>> >>"The camera has done it all for you."... oh yeah you're just full of
>> >>compliments.
>> >
>> > But unfortunately, it's true. I've even played this particular
>> >game myself. When I didn't feel like putting the effort into developing a
>> >composition on paper for a given assignment, I'd just take a camera and
>> >find something ready-made that I could copy. It's really an easy way to
>> >get around doing actual work.
>>
>> Not necessarily. In TCJ#147, in an interview with P. Craig Russell, they
>> show how Russell uses photo reference for his drawings and in the
>> interview Russell comments on how it's important (at least for him, and
>> I'm paraphrasing from memory), not to make the drawing look like the
>> photograph, but rather it's just an aid.
>
>He's one smart cookie, that PCR! I think I'm gonna go dig out that issue and
>reread it!
Yeah, I just did that. Well worth your time.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:43:05 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>>> very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
>>
>>But he wasn't the one that brought photo realism into the medium, only
the genre
>>- and only slightly more so than Muth, Williams, or McKean before him.
>
>Yeah but he's done so much of it and still does it constantly that he
>is far more known than the rest.
Which is a damn shame, because Ross's work, while quite good, is the among
the weakest of the comic painters, due stiffness in form and tone.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
KRothst402
( I mentioned two reviews of comics in a mainstream paper--one of the largest
in the country)
>I wonder if they were reviewed out of novelty or treated as
>creative works?
>
Well, as I said earlier, SUPERMAN:PoE made a top 10 list. Perhaps it was at
first reviewed as a novelty, but would a newspaper book critic tarnish his rep
by including an entry as a joke on his "best of" lists?
KC was reviewed in that same paper. There wasn't a joke about it. That paper,
The NY Daily News, must have a comics fan on the payroll. They also reviewed
the Silver Surfer cartoon series in their sunday entertainment supplement and
pretty much crucified it, and most of comics as being dull, typical, badly
drawn and childish beyond even what children like. The show was called one of
(if not THE) worst cartoon on television.
>And I think you've missed pretty much the vast majority of entertainment in
>any
>media if you think that sex and violence is immediately low brow.
No, it isn't neccessarily low brow. But when a comic decides to show eyes
being gouged out, or nipples being sliced off, it starts to enter the realm of
juvenile.
> He cannot bring
>> anything new to the table though, and can only be Superman--which is good
>> enough for the what he ses out to do.
>
>Which is exactly my point on why the character is such a bad symbol for
>comics -
>it's a simplistic children's character.
>
Well, I think actually that Superman has more meat on the bone then most
comics. True, he doesn't revel in quasi-sophisticated psychological pieces, but
the basic set-up of Superman is one that inlcudes love, jeolousy, a love
triangle, assimilation, good vs evil...all things that survive through the ages
in fiction and which all the major stories of most eras in lietrature include.
(well maybe not assimilation). Without getting deep, SUPERMAN covers more
substantial territory without even trying. Probably whole papers could be
written on the Clark/Lois/Superman triangle. But that's not really the point
here though. I just think dismissing Superman as being simplistic is a tad
off.
> the point is that comics are still, after all
>> is said and done, stuck in the fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime rut is always
>gets
>> in when it goes beyond superheroes.
>
>Well, considering that, as genres, fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime are pretty
>established and available to the mass market, it's a better start than trying
>to
>make superhero appeal to the mass audience.
Yeah they're established, established at the back of the literary bus. Fantasy
books are ghetto-ized (and many deservedly so) at the back of most book stores
along with sci-fi (and somewhere near murder mysteries). For every legit
sci-fi book, there is 300 Star Trek novels and 300 Star Wars novels.
> Even in these genres there's too much reliance on the comics of
>yesteryear; EC swipes and Conan or Elric pastiches. For the comics medium
>to grow
>the creators have to be willing the explore its limit
I agree its enough with the muscle guys with swords. I find EC comics to be
well written actually..and far more coherent that its modern cousins.
>
>Apart from some confusion from what you think I was writing about, I'd say we
>likely agree on this.
I agree on much in your reply. I do, however, think Ross is a fine artist, his
works have been reviewed in my local newspaper at the very least, and I imagine
his artwork (considered superior due to its realism I imagine) is what made the
newspaper take notice. Superman is fine as a mascot for comics; I think any
attempt to supplant him from his position in the culture would meet with scorn
and derision. Comics have nothing to be ashamed about with Superman.
Bringing out the Brandon
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>nom...@worldnet.att.net (Bringing out the Brandon) wrote:
>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>kend...@canoemail.com (Ken) wrote:
>>>>I'd like to see you do *anything* that even compares to Alex Ross's work.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't.
>>
>>Oh, I would, but *I* like the idea of torturing you.
>
> So, why the lack of actual service?!
Holiday season. Busy.
>Look, I've got money!
and you're dressed like a bunny.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:43:05 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (Though I still think Ross has improved the comic medium if only in a
>>> very small way by bringing photorealism into it). Nyah!
>>
>>But he wasn't the one that brought photo realism into the medium, only
the genre
>>- and only slightly more so than Muth, Williams, or McKean before him.
>
>Yeah but he's done so much of it and still does it constantly that he
>is far more known than the rest.
I've seen Dave McKean's covers in "Best of" collections focusing on
graphic design and/or illustration. Mckeans does work outside comics.
Does any of the above apply to Ross?
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Bringing out the Brandon
(Ken) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 06:38:02 -0400, nom...@worldnet.att.net (Bringing
>out the Brandon) wrote:
>
>>In article <3810ff9a...@news.direct.ca>, kend...@canoemail.com
>>(Ken) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:54:46 GMT, YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W.
>>>Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>W. Allen Montgomery wrote:
>>>>>> Did I say it wasn't? I'm just tired of [Ross] being lauded for
>>>>>> constantly doing photo rips, is all.
>>>>>
>>>>>1 - He takes the photos, right?
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>>>2 - He doesn't trace or use one of those projection thingies, does he?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>>It takes talent to even draw the thing in proportion, much less paint
>>>>>it such that it looks like it has form.
>>>>
>>>> It's still a photo rip. There's not much left to figure out
>>>>(composition, lighting, perspective, etc.) once the camera's done it all
>>>>for you.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, his medium of choice (gouache) leaves much to be desired in
>>>>his rendering. Watercolor would yield a better result, as would oil. I'd
>>>>suggest he just go to Photoshop, however.
>>>>
>>>>>Mind you I'm not even talking about comic artists here, as I'm not
>>>>>sure exactly how much he qualifies. I'm just talking art ability.
>>>>
>>>> He's good. Could be better, 'though.
>>>
>>>What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
>>>talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
>>>could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
>>>swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
>>>originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
>>>his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
>>>that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
>>>even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
>>>THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
>>
>>Wambo is much better at vocalizing his opinions than you are, therefore
>>you have no right to question his.
>
>Ditto.
Of course you have no right to quesiton mine either, that's a given.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
the damon club
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:22:22 -0400, the damon club <dcru...@mdo.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> What really interests me is that though you have a tenth, if any, art
> >> talent in comparison to him you can make grand statements on how he
> >> could be better. Geez... why not go talk to Palmer about his golf
> >> swing or Jordan about his jump shot. If you want to argue about
> >> originality than sure Alex Ross isn't the most "original" but through
> >> his obvious talent he brings a level of respect to the comic medium
> >> that until now wasn't there. I'd like to see you do *anything* that
> >> even compares to Alex Ross's work. When you can do what he can do
> >> THEN you can rant advice about how he can improve.
> >
> >why?
> >many of us have seen dave mckean do alex ross better than alex ross.
> >
> >that means that ross could do better.
>
> I'm game where can I see it?
the black orchid miniseries.
also a book called signal to noise.
both are/were available from vertigo.
--
"...stop. With your feet on the air and your head on the ground
try this trick and spin it, yeah!
your head will collapse
but there's nothing in it and you'll ask yourself" the pixies
the damon club
Bringing out the Brandon wrote:
>
> >If you can't follow the same advice you give and become a great artist
> >what value is your advice?
>
> I can tell when a computer program is poorly written. It crashes a lot.
> But, I couldn't write a piece of computer code to save my life
>
hmmmm........
Bringing out the Brandon
>He really did corrupt you when you moved there, didn't he?
*You* know how I am. After 1 drink I start to feel it. After two anybody
can feel it.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> >> Pace got it. And he hates me.
> >
> >WAM, don't be so coy, tell him how I really feel . . .
>
> Sorta squishy. Like an over-ripe orange peel.
Oh, it's been too long - I've had shots for that!
>
>
> In fact, Pace is the only male I know of who has cellulite.
In a large jar on a shelf in my studio. I'm trying to figure the best
way to turn it into a filter for photoshop.
Richard
>
>
> --
> W. Allen Montgomery
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >Muth did a wonderful looking adaptation of M several years back,
>
> His disclaimer was something like "based on photographs, but no
> photgraphs are published herein." That was probably the most transparent
> usage of photo reference I've ever seen. In comics, anyway.
Also had the worst example of computer lettering gone bad, if I recall
correctly.
>
>
> The flexidisc that came with it was cool, 'though.
Already was a cassette or CD kind of guy back then so I never heard the flexi
. . .
Richard
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >tphile wrote:
> >> you didn't lose the debate ken. You just wasted alot of time and energy
> >> arguing with the resident troll.
> >
> >Since I don't live under a bridge, I'll assume you're referring to someone else
>
> He's talking about me. I called Terry Beatty a tracer and Bruce
> Timm a wanker. Made l'il tphile cry.
I was being intentionally obtuse . . . as usual.
>
>
> >> weren't you here during the Iron Giant thread?
> >> Real and talented artist make Wambo insecure and so he has to trash them
> >> to make himself feel better. Like calling them tracers.
> >
> >Hmm, I though WAM was insulting more from a personality trait than a sense of
> >insecurity . . .
>
> Pretty much, yeah.
Marry a psychologist and all secrets are revealed!!
>
>
> >> So it is always a good thing when an artist brings in outside influences.
> >
> >No one said it was a bad thing.
>
> I did! Everybody should copy Bruce Timm! Who copied Jack Kirby.
> Who Copied Alex Raymond... Waitaminnit...
>
> --
> W. Allen Montgomery
Heh. Shame when all than venom backs up on ya . . .
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
> Richard Pace says...
>
> ( I mentioned two reviews of comics in a mainstream paper--one of the largest
> in the country)
>
> >I wonder if they were reviewed out of novelty or treated as
> >creative works?
> >
>
> Well, as I said earlier, SUPERMAN:PoE made a top 10 list. Perhaps it was at
> first reviewed as a novelty, but would a newspaper book critic tarnish his rep
> by including an entry as a joke on his "best of" lists?
It made a top ten coffee table books list - coffee table books aren't known for
their literary merit . . .
>
>
> KC was reviewed in that same paper. There wasn't a joke about it.
Which sounds like good thing.
> That paper,
> The NY Daily News, must have a comics fan on the payroll. They also reviewed
> the Silver Surfer cartoon series in their sunday entertainment supplement and
> pretty much crucified it, and most of comics as being dull, typical, badly
> drawn and childish beyond even what children like. The show was called one of
> (if not THE) worst cartoon on television.
>
> >And I think you've missed pretty much the vast majority of entertainment in
> >any
> >media if you think that sex and violence is immediately low brow.
>
> No, it isn't neccessarily low brow. But when a comic decides to show eyes
> being gouged out, or nipples being sliced off, it starts to enter the realm of
> juvenile.
Or merely not to your taste. Visceral literary horror has had its proponents for
quite some time - the coffee shop scene in Sandman was pretty horrific with
intent. There is a difference between the gore in a slasher flic and its use in
work intended to be more seriously taken . . .regardless of the works actual
critical success.
> > He cannot bring
> >> anything new to the table though, and can only be Superman--which is good
> >> enough for the what he ses out to do.
> >
> >Which is exactly my point on why the character is such a bad symbol for
> >comics -
> >it's a simplistic children's character.
> >
>
> Well, I think actually that Superman has more meat on the bone then most
> comics. True, he doesn't revel in quasi-sophisticated psychological pieces, but
> the basic set-up of Superman is one that inlcudes love, jeolousy, a love
> triangle, assimilation, good vs evil...all things that survive through the ages
> in fiction and which all the major stories of most eras in lietrature include.
> (well maybe not assimilation). Without getting deep, SUPERMAN covers more
> substantial territory without even trying. Probably whole papers could be
> written on the Clark/Lois/Superman triangle. But that's not really the point
> here though. I just think dismissing Superman as being simplistic is a tad
> off.
Good points - perhaps its more of an issue of the lack of sophistication or wit
with Superman - many of the issues you've raised aren't address in the body of work
Superman represents. There are certainly stories that have dealt with them, but
they've either been jettisoned by the tidal waves of retcons or added so recently
as to not be an integral part of the icon. Superman is a character created for
children that CAN appeal to adults. Tintin and Snoopy were created to appeal to
children and adults.
> > the point is that comics are still, after all
> >> is said and done, stuck in the fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime rut is always
> >gets
> >> in when it goes beyond superheroes.
> >
>
> >Well, considering that, as genres, fantasy/sci-fi/horror/crime are pretty
> >established and available to the mass market, it's a better start than trying
> >to
> >make superhero appeal to the mass audience.
>
> Yeah they're established, established at the back of the literary bus. Fantasy
> books are ghetto-ized (and many deservedly so) at the back of most book stores
> along with sci-fi (and somewhere near murder mysteries). For every legit
> sci-fi book, there is 300 Star Trek novels and 300 Star Wars novels.
And how many bad romance novels or thrillers for every good one?
Since most mall books stores thrive on four sections: best-sellers (at the front
of most stores), romance (usually in the middle), mystery (usually right next to a
sf/f section) and reference there's not a great many places left to put sf/f books
- though I know of at least one retail chain that keeps its hottest products at the
back of the store so the customers have to walk through all the other product to
get what they want.. The Chapters I frequent has very large sf/f section and they
'ghetto-ize' the ST and SW books at the back of that section - which is kept near
the front of the store because it's one of their best selling areas. They may be
an aberration, but they also stock many hard to get editions of many sf/f authors
and seem to do a heavy traffic of special orders in the sf/f field (this learned
from looking at was on the shelves behind their special orders desk while I was
picking up books for myself).
I don't see a genre market as successful as sf/f and horror as being ghetto-ized,
except from the same elite circles that equate comic books with elephant dung.
>
>
> > Even in these genres there's too much reliance on the comics of
> >yesteryear; EC swipes and Conan or Elric pastiches. For the comics medium
> >to grow
> >the creators have to be willing the explore its limit
>
> I agree its enough with the muscle guys with swords. I find EC comics to be
> well written actually..and far more coherent that its modern cousins.
>
> >
> >Apart from some confusion from what you think I was writing about, I'd say we
> >likely agree on this.
>
> I agree on much in your reply. I do, however, think Ross is a fine artist, his
> works have been reviewed in my local newspaper at the very least, and I imagine
> his artwork (considered superior due to its realism I imagine) is what made the
> newspaper take notice. Superman is fine as a mascot for comics; I think any
> attempt to supplant him from his position in the culture would meet with scorn
> and derision. Comics have nothing to be ashamed about with Superman.
I never said he wasn't I fine artist - it's just that I'm not in awe of his work
like many seem to be - partly from being and illustrator myself and knowing how his
work is assembled.
Christopher
Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> Believe me, I try to do this every day. I have found that most
>people who are interested in ultra-photorealistic art styles are looking
>for T&A – Olivia, Sorayama, Vallejo, etc. Whereas those who might be
>interested in sampling the comics artform for the first time are looking
>for something more distinctive.
I understand that if your shop is catering to a T&A sort of audience,
then there'll be a certain percentage of people that will prefer T&A
work that looks photo-realistic. The T&A audience also goes after Bill
Maus' crap there's no accounting for taste there, and that hardly
makes it a fault of the artist.
However, I work at a mall store, and for casual or non-comics readers
I find that Ross' work immediately appeals to them because it's very
close to commercial art work and illustration. There is a large market
out there for his type of work, particularly in the mass-market (the
people who read romance novels and buy Robert Batemen Prints).
After that sort of realism painted realism (The work of David Mack and
Dan Brerton, although more stylized, attracts the same audience)
potential new readers go after the clean linework of the comics they
read as children (Marvel, DC, or otherwise). Of note, almost no one
I've approached seems to enjoy contemporary superhero art mores.
> There is, indeed, something to be said of the ability to copy
>photos so well. But if that's the beginning and ending of what an artist
>has to offer...
I think you're merely being spurious here. Ross doesn't use a great
deal of photo-reference for (to start with) his backgrounds, and those
are all well rendered. His graphic design skills are also rather good,
particularly in Kingdom Come where he came up with a number of well
done "fantastic" structures, that, to my knowledge, did not rely on
photo referencing. His panel composition isn't too bad either.
- Christopher
Off Colour Digital Design - www.offcolour.com
The Adventures of Evil & Malice - www.evilandmalice.com
Trina Robbins' GoGirl! - members.aol.com/trinarobb/gogirl.html
Christopher
out the Brandon) wrote:
>Wambo is much better at vocalizing his opinions than you are, therefore
>you have no right to question his.
He really did corrupt you when you moved there, didn't he?
- Christopher
KRothst402
>perhaps its more of an issue of the lack of sophistication or wit
>with Superman - many of the issues you've raised aren't address in the body
>of work
>Superman represents.
Luckily, Superman is larger than any single story. Some years back, THE
VILLAGE VOICE got a good 10 pages out of equating Superman to the Jewish
experience in America. They basically touched upon his trying to "pass" and
brushing his hair to get rid of the curl, his seeing a girl with the decidedly
un-jewish name of "Lois" as being ideal (a major issue for judiaism--interfaith
relationships), his arriving in America as a visitor, his dressing as unethnic
as humanly possible, and some other points. The point is this most simplistic
of all superheroes actually has something in it, and thats probably what has
(on some subliminal level) enabled him to rise to the head of the class for
20th century literary successes. The VOICE may have gotten this all wrong, but
Superman being who he is, at least one Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper thought
he was worth examing. The fact that he was examined (and the VOICE wasn't the
first one to put this theory to the public) is something and says something
about the character. Basically, the set-up of Superman is so strong that it
can stand and eclipse the mundane fare he stars in. Of course, all this
ignores the retcons and revisions to the set-up, including the horrible idea
that they should be married.
So superman has my vote for Best Macot. Even without analyzing him, he still
seems to be a character that speaks to the masses. When the gov't decided to
send anti-land mine literature to whatever country needed it, it was Superman
who starred in the book and taught the lessons.
But no, he isn't meant to be read by adults looking for engaging entertainment.
I don't see where comicdom's poster boy has to appeal to adults though. I
don't see tintin appealing to adults as being inherently more desirable than
Superman appealing to kids.
Anyway, I just noticed the thread asks for the 5 best comic artists of all
time. Mine are:
Neal Adams
Jim Steranko
John Romita
Jack Kirby
Marshall Rogers
I don't know if Alex Raymond or Milton Caniff is allowed on this list, but I
think they were great too.
Ken
wrote:
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:53 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The first part doesn't imply a lack of talent - it describes an often used shortcut that
>> >Ross employs, as do many artists - but it seems that Ross uses it more extensively than
>> >most and is lauded for it as a result. And for implementing a photo realistic style,
>> >water-colour, oil or photoshop do garner better results than gouache - which is a very
>> >chalky medium to work with.
>>
>> Wouldn't Ross know that though? Couldn't you safely assume that if
>> he's done enough artistic work that he can produce that styles he
>> would have enough sense to use a style that produces the best results?
>>
>
>Yes, he likely does - but in essence, gouache is a 'faster' medium to work in - in that it's
>easier to fix errors and combine with other media, such actual water-colour and pencil crayon.
So he does it for a reason, to get his product out faster. Fine, we
can safely assume Ross knows what he's doing.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
>> >> for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
>> >> don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
>> >
>> >The point could be made that because the general populace equates comic books with
>> >Superman (or Batman) that they dismiss it -- so Ross's working on Superman and his help
>> >in making super heroes still the most commercially safe environment for comics publishers
>> >is doing little to earn any new respect for the medium, and, in fact is guaranteeing that
>> >it will still be perceived as bad children's entertainment.
>>
>> I still disagree with that train of thought since unless they kill
>> Superman or stop producing his book the problem never resolves itself
>> anyways.
>
>That's silly - all that has to happen is for a series of comics works in other genres to be
>continually successful outside the comics fan fringe - it's not about eliminating Superman,
>it's about producing work that appeals to people other than the tiny amount of superhero fans
>we currently have.
How silly is it considering it has never happened.
>
>If Ross does have the potential to garner the medium more respect and a larger audience he's
>wasting his efforts on a genre that doesn't appeal to the larger audience. Let's se him do a
>Terminator comic again, or a Western or a crime comic or something that there's a larger
>audience for.
Since when? Why are there no Western comics or very few Crime comics?
What comics are you referring to?
>
>>
>>
>> >If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
>> >
>> >Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
>> >more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
>> >the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
>> >an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
>>
>> What about the Liefield clones?
>
>Liefeld (and Lee or Maduriera or Campbell) clones exist to steal the success from within the
>established fan base, not to expand the audience.
So if Ross has little talent and doing photorealistic art is so easy
why aren't there Ross clones ?
>
>> On a twist to that thought do
>> actually think that as long as the word comic exists that the medium
>> will ever garner any respect in the general marketplace? Rather than
>> people refering to Maus or Sandman as "not your average comic".
>
>Well, if Maus and Sandman were the average comics existed at, then that problem would take
>care of itself, wouldn't it. Most comics are crap - across the genres - yet most comics are
>also super hero comics, making the inordinate amount of crap in this industry super hero
>based. Interestingly enough, there's more frequently quality outside the genre, of the crime
>comics made, more of them are good to excellent crime comics, etc. This is also part and
>parcel of the corporate ownership of the superhero genre, often inhibiting the creativity of
>the talents involved in their creation. Good super hero comics are created in spite of the
>system, not because of it.
Most comic readers buy that superhero crap because they are teenagers.
Marvel and DC are just giving people what they want. The market
decides what or what doesn't sell, not the corporations. If there
wasn't a market for numerous X-Men or Spider-Man comics Marvel
wouldn't produce them for the same reason Nova was cancelled, a lack
of interest. Who constantly makes Uncanny X-Men the number one comic
ordered, the consumers. Therefore, a change in the comic medium will
only happen if there is a demand for it which there isn't.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The type of photo realism Ross trades in is primarily used in erotica, western and
>> >wildlife art. I'd think that if Ross used his style on a cowboy yarn he'd have more
>> >success reaching a larger audience outside of the comics fringe.
>>
>> But why? He's got limited competition in the comic field where in
>> larger circles photorealism is far more common.
>
>So, our point about Ross's appeal to the outside, non comics reader is something you choose to
>undermine on your own?
No, you've interpretating what I've said incorrectly. What I'm saying
is that by doing photorealism in the comic medium not only does he
stand out and gets more work because it but by doing it on the scale
that he uses it he garners the comic medium interest in it that didn't
exist before. I'd like to stress that though he's not the first
person to do photorealism he's the first person to do it on such a
large scale.
>
>You said that a non-comics reader would be impressed by Ross's work to the point of purchasing
>it - yet they aren't interested in super heroes so it's unlikely they'd shell out the bucks.
>There are already established art markets for photo realism, and super heroes aren't in that
>grouping.
That's your opinion. I'm saying that they possibly wouldn't be
interested in superheroes until the photorealism comes along and gives
superheroes a less cartoony look to them.
>
>However, my point was that there aren't any photo realistic cowboy comics out there, he'd be
>in an even more unique situation - possibly one that would gain him a larger audience.
That's based on the assumption that cowboy comics would sell. I'm
getting this impression you like cowboy comics ;). If cowboy comics
would sell why aren't there any? Jonah Hex comes out sporatically,
Desporados got cancelled and Dusty Star didn't make it past 2 issues.
Am I missing a good cowboy comics, I'd like to know because I'm a fan
but it appears there aren't enough fans for anyone to produce a cowboy
comic.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >While Tintin hasn't made the headway in America that it has everywhere else, I'd like to
>> >point out that the character is more successful in print that Superman is. And both
>> >Snoopy and Tintin are more liked and known internationally than Superman.
>>
>> OK I agree there, I'm talking from a North American standpoint since I
>> can't speak in International terms as I'm not part of their culture.
>
>You'd rather settle for merely being American than a citizen of the world?
Are you for real? First of I'm Canadian and secondly I'm not snobbing
away from being a citizen of the world, I'm saying that I can only
speak from the point of view of North American culture.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Now this is getting into semantics as what would
>> >> you get as an answer if you said comic "book" vs comic "strip" ?
>> >
>> >When I say comics, I mean comics - it's to the industry's detriment that they've isolated
>> >themselves from the strips.
>>
>> That's part of my point though. If you ask the general public would
>> they relate comic books in the same medium as comic strips?
>
>Asked that way, yes. Asked if they thought comic books and comics strips were the same things
>the answer would be 'no'.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> I
>> >> think a large percentage of the population knows very little of the
>> >> comic medium and doesn't understand its varying forms. Superhero's
>> >> may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
>> >> appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
>> >> thats all comics have to offer.
>> >
>> >Nope - super heroes do not appeal to the general population, that's why sales are so
>> >bad. And the reason that they think super heroes are the only thing the medium offers is
>> >because it's the only thing the biggest two publishers have been promoting for the last
>> >thirty years.
>>
>> Why then is a major part of Marvel and DC's lines superhero's?
>
>That's a whole history lesson in and of itself - let's keep it at the simplicity of
>maintaining control and longevity as opposed to actually trying to gain a larger audience.
That sounds like something from the X-Files. Marvel and DC at their
own detriment do not produce what the general population wants because
they want to maintain control. I think the bigger problem is the
audience itself and the term "comic". If the term "comic" wasn't
looked on with such disdain by the general population comics wouldn't
be a hang out for teenagers and old teenagers hehehe. Superhero's are
what the core comic market want so that is what is produced.
>
>>
>> Obviously because they sell.
>
>To the ever shrinking direct market comics audience.
I see the word direct market. I don't know about you but I still see
comics in the local grocery store and department stores.
>
>> If not, the independents would be taking
>> up the slack and doing well but they're not.
>
>Actually, they are - apparently the industry is making a steady gross income from month to
>month for the last year or so, but it's the super hero books that are losing sales and market
>share. Comparatively, the non-tights books are doing well in a market dominated by superhero
>fans
This discussion is going all over the place. I would like to know
where you get your facts from though.
Unfortunately, those alternative places are "comic" racks. IMO the
graphic novel is the comic medium's best way out of the hole it's in.
They are sold in book stores like Amazon, they are not "comics" per
say and if done for more mainstream titles like Sandman they are not
comics as the general population views them.
>
>The direct market has been nothing but bad for comics potential of gaining a larger market,
>yet perversely allowed a maturation of the creative process in certain instances.
>
>>
>>
>> >So would Scorsese doing saturday morning toy cartoon gain respect for animation as a
>> >whole, or merely get a handful of people to watch a cartoon? Do CGI cartoons appeal to a
>> >larger audience than traditional cartoons?
>>
>> Sure! ;) Look how much attention Spawn has gotten and it's horrible
>> writing. I seem to remember it winning awards. If Scorsese did a
>> cartoon and it attracted a large audience wouldn't that make people
>> look at cartoons differently? Cartoons are like comics, they are
>> looked on in a stereotypical light by the general population.
>
>There's a difference between an aberration garnering attention and a transformation of the
>common knowledge. If Scorsese, Lynch, Cameron, Cronenberg, Zemekis, Tarantino, Spielberg, and
>Soderburgh all turned their attention to animated projects and produced work that made an
>animated project as weighty and literate as their other works it would likely change the
>perception of the limits and expectations of animated work. Sporadic outbursts of quality do
>not effect a permanent change.
But they are the beginning of change. If sporadic outbursts of
quality is welcomed by the general population then that demand would
naturally motivate more quality productions. Of course, this is a
dead issue since Disney has destroyed the medium.
>
>>
>>
>> >They did, and it didn't.
>>
>> Well the first one wasn't horrible but 4? after that were bad. That
>> first Superman movie was a great all ages movie and I'm curious if it
>> attracted people to comic books but comics were healthy back then so
>> who knows.
>
>But Superman is an all ages character. And no - like I wrote before, it didn't really get a
>new permanent audience for the character or the medium.
If you produced a quality movie, let's say a Sandman / Death movie
done buy Neil Gaiman, and it was well received by the general public I
would be surprised if the general public didn't looked to get more of
what it liked by buying graphic novels or comics. The problem is that
good movies aren't being made. Another example is the Maxx and Spawn
cartoon. I would be curious how many new people came into comic
stores due to those two cartoons which undoubtably reached new
audiences. You make sweaping statements but I would like to see your
facts to support them.
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
> Richard Pace says...
>
> >perhaps its more of an issue of the lack of sophistication or wit
> >with Superman - many of the issues you've raised aren't address in the body
> >of work
> >Superman represents.
>
> Luckily, Superman is larger than any single story. Some years back, THE
> VILLAGE VOICE got a good 10 pages out of equating Superman to the Jewish
> experience in America. They basically touched upon his trying to "pass" and
> brushing his hair to get rid of the curl, his seeing a girl with the decidedly
> un-jewish name of "Lois" as being ideal (a major issue for judiaism--interfaith
> relationships), his arriving in America as a visitor, his dressing as unethnic
> as humanly possible, and some other points. The point is this most simplistic
> of all superheroes actually has something in it, and thats probably what has
> (on some subliminal level) enabled him to rise to the head of the class for
> 20th century literary successes. The VOICE may have gotten this all wrong, but
> Superman being who he is, at least one Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper thought
> he was worth examing. The fact that he was examined (and the VOICE wasn't the
> first one to put this theory to the public) is something and says something
> about the character. Basically, the set-up of Superman is so strong that it
> can stand and eclipse the mundane fare he stars in. Of course, all this
> ignores the retcons and revisions to the set-up, including the horrible idea
> that they should be married.
That's interesting - I'd love to read it if it's in print anywhere.
>
>
> So superman has my vote for Best Macot. Even without analyzing him, he still
> seems to be a character that speaks to the masses. When the gov't decided to
> send anti-land mine literature to whatever country needed it, it was Superman
> who starred in the book and taught the lessons.
>
> But no, he isn't meant to be read by adults looking for engaging entertainment.
> I don't see where comicdom's poster boy has to appeal to adults though. I
> don't see tintin appealing to adults as being inherently more desirable than
> Superman appealing to kids.
While I accept your points as valid, I'd still prefer a more savvy mascot -
personal preference..
> Anyway, I just noticed the thread asks for the 5 best comic artists of all
> time. Mine are:
>
> Neal Adams
> Jim Steranko
> John Romita
> Jack Kirby
> Marshall Rogers
>
> I don't know if Alex Raymond or Milton Caniff is allowed on this list, but I
> think they were great too.
Hmm . . .
Toth, Kurtzman, Eisner, Krigstien, and Adams.
Richard Pace
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:09:34 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ken wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:53 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The first part doesn't imply a lack of talent - it describes an often used shortcut that
> >> >Ross employs, as do many artists - but it seems that Ross uses it more extensively than
> >> >most and is lauded for it as a result. And for implementing a photo realistic style,
> >> >water-colour, oil or photoshop do garner better results than gouache - which is a very
> >> >chalky medium to work with.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't Ross know that though? Couldn't you safely assume that if
> >> he's done enough artistic work that he can produce that styles he
> >> would have enough sense to use a style that produces the best results?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, he likely does - but in essence, gouache is a 'faster' medium to work in - in that it's
> >easier to fix errors and combine with other media, such actual water-colour and pencil crayon.
>
> So he does it for a reason, to get his product out faster. Fine, we
> can safely assume Ross knows what he's doing.
No one said he didn't - but if photo realism was the desired end, then oils and water-colours are
preferable - as WAM originally pointed out.
>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok I misread the Watchmen comment, that I'll admit, but I'd argue that
> >> >> for a lot of the population Superman defines the medium because people
> >> >> don't know what the medium is because they don't understand it.
> >> >
> >> >The point could be made that because the general populace equates comic books with
> >> >Superman (or Batman) that they dismiss it -- so Ross's working on Superman and his help
> >> >in making super heroes still the most commercially safe environment for comics publishers
> >> >is doing little to earn any new respect for the medium, and, in fact is guaranteeing that
> >> >it will still be perceived as bad children's entertainment.
> >>
> >> I still disagree with that train of thought since unless they kill
> >> Superman or stop producing his book the problem never resolves itself
> >> anyways.
> >
> >That's silly - all that has to happen is for a series of comics works in other genres to be
> >continually successful outside the comics fan fringe - it's not about eliminating Superman,
> >it's about producing work that appeals to people other than the tiny amount of superhero fans
> >we currently have.
>
> How silly is it considering it has never happened.
How little about comics history DO you know? There a whole diverse history of myriad genres in the
medium - it all came tumbling down during the first comics crash way back when, but no serious
attempt has been made by a major company to recover those genre audiences.
>
>
> >
> >If Ross does have the potential to garner the medium more respect and a larger audience he's
> >wasting his efforts on a genre that doesn't appeal to the larger audience. Let's se him do a
> >Terminator comic again, or a Western or a crime comic or something that there's a larger
> >audience for.
>
> Since when? Why are there no Western comics or very few Crime comics?
> What comics are you referring to?
Here's the distinction - in the direct market ghetto super heroes are the mainstream - outside of
the direct market, they're the fringe. If Ross did a western or crime graphic novel released to
the larger readership for those prose genres, there's a significantly larger potential audience
than there is for another superhero book aimed at the direct market audience. i.e. more people in
North America are interested in crime and cowboy stories than are interested in super heroes.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
> >> >
> >> >Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
> >> >more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
> >> >the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
> >> >an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
> >>
> >> What about the Liefield clones?
> >
> >Liefeld (and Lee or Maduriera or Campbell) clones exist to steal the success from within the
> >established fan base, not to expand the audience.
>
> So if Ross has little talent and doing photorealistic art is so easy
> why aren't there Ross clones ?
No one said either that Ross had little talent or that photo realistic art was easy - it's just
that what he does isn't so untouchable or unattainable.
>
>
> >
> >> On a twist to that thought do
> >> actually think that as long as the word comic exists that the medium
> >> will ever garner any respect in the general marketplace? Rather than
> >> people refering to Maus or Sandman as "not your average comic".
> >
> >Well, if Maus and Sandman were the average comics existed at, then that problem would take
> >care of itself, wouldn't it. Most comics are crap - across the genres - yet most comics are
> >also super hero comics, making the inordinate amount of crap in this industry super hero
> >based. Interestingly enough, there's more frequently quality outside the genre, of the crime
> >comics made, more of them are good to excellent crime comics, etc. This is also part and
> >parcel of the corporate ownership of the superhero genre, often inhibiting the creativity of
> >the talents involved in their creation. Good super hero comics are created in spite of the
> >system, not because of it.
>
> Most comic readers buy that superhero crap because they are teenagers.
> Marvel and DC are just giving people what they want. The market
> decides what or what doesn't sell, not the corporations. If there
> wasn't a market for numerous X-Men or Spider-Man comics Marvel
> wouldn't produce them for the same reason Nova was cancelled, a lack
> of interest. Who constantly makes Uncanny X-Men the number one comic
> ordered, the consumers. Therefore, a change in the comic medium will
> only happen if there is a demand for it which there isn't.
For all intents and purposes Marvel and DC turned their backs on the larger audience in favour of
the safer financial return from the smaller direct market that had super hero fans as its primary
customer base. It's a catch-22, most people who like super heroes are satisfied by the direct
market - those that would want non super hero comics likely wouldn't know they existed since they'd
be UNlikely to go into a comics store for any reason. The works that could potentially reach
larger audiences are hampered by the major publishers reliance on the direct market.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The type of photo realism Ross trades in is primarily used in erotica, western and
> >> >wildlife art. I'd think that if Ross used his style on a cowboy yarn he'd have more
> >> >success reaching a larger audience outside of the comics fringe.
> >>
> >> But why? He's got limited competition in the comic field where in
> >> larger circles photorealism is far more common.
> >
> >So, our point about Ross's appeal to the outside, non comics reader is something you choose to
> >undermine on your own?
>
> No, you've interpretating what I've said incorrectly. What I'm saying
> is that by doing photorealism in the comic medium not only does he
> stand out and gets more work because it but by doing it on the scale
> that he uses it he garners the comic medium interest in it that didn't
> exist before. I'd like to stress that though he's not the first
> person to do photorealism he's the first person to do it on such a
> large scale.
Back in the mid 1980s comics gained a great deal of critical acclaim and attention for the works of
Miller, Gibbons, Chaykin, Spiegelman and the impressionistic work of Sienkiewicz - far more than
Ross's four superhero works have by making Supes look real. The interest was there before, but for
the stories and not the pretty pictures.
>
>
> >
> >You said that a non-comics reader would be impressed by Ross's work to the point of purchasing
> >it - yet they aren't interested in super heroes so it's unlikely they'd shell out the bucks.
> >There are already established art markets for photo realism, and super heroes aren't in that
> >grouping.
>
> That's your opinion.
No, I looked - there aren't any super hero prints at any of the mall print galleries I've been in.
> I'm saying that they possibly wouldn't be interested in superheroes until the photorealism comes
> along and gives superheroes a less cartoony look to them.
I've said it elsewhere; superhero are for children and the cartoony look is just fine for them -
the kids don't need Alex Ross's Superman, they need well told Superman stories for their dollars.
the success of Marvels and Kingdom Come is in its appeal to older fanboys.
>
>
> >
> >However, my point was that there aren't any photo realistic cowboy comics out there, he'd be
> >in an even more unique situation - possibly one that would gain him a larger audience.
>
> That's based on the assumption that cowboy comics would sell. I'm
> getting this impression you like cowboy comics ;). If cowboy comics
> would sell why aren't there any? Jonah Hex comes out sporatically,
> Desporados got cancelled and Dusty Star didn't make it past 2 issues.
> Am I missing a good cowboy comics, I'd like to know because I'm a fan
> but it appears there aren't enough fans for anyone to produce a cowboy
> comic.
>
There aren't enough fans for a cowboy comic within the confines of the direct market - why would
there be when the largest majority of comics produced have been superhero. Why would fans of
cowboy comics hang around the comic shop when they know there won't be any ropin' or rustlin' going
on i any of the books shipping this week?
I'm speculating that a cowboy comic marketed in all the western themed magazines out there and sold
where those interested in that sort of stuff could buy them, that it would have a larger potential
audience and possibly a larger buying audience - but it would also require an effort that the
companies have demonstrably shown a disinclination to make.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >While Tintin hasn't made the headway in America that it has everywhere else, I'd like to
> >> >point out that the character is more successful in print that Superman is. And both
> >> >Snoopy and Tintin are more liked and known internationally than Superman.
> >>
> >> OK I agree there, I'm talking from a North American standpoint since I
> >> can't speak in International terms as I'm not part of their culture.
> >
> >You'd rather settle for merely being American than a citizen of the world?
>
> Are you for real? First of I'm Canadian and secondly I'm not snobbing
> away from being a citizen of the world, I'm saying that I can only
> speak from the point of view of North American culture.
>
Sorry, made an assumption based on you 'North American' standpoint. I'm Canadian as well, but I
actively seek out experiences from other cultures - it started with French BD albums, then to
foreign films, etc.. Hell, I married a Dutch woman, so perhaps I'm just a little more aware of
these things and assume my fellow Canadians also made the effort.
back in the early eighties, the companies decided that the core superhero audience was all that was
required for profitability (Ka-Zar and Moon Knight) and started their exodus from the mass market
to the direct market - it's not an X-Files plot, merely another example of corporate myopia.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Obviously because they sell.
> >
> >To the ever shrinking direct market comics audience.
>
> I see the word direct market. I don't know about you but I still see
> comics in the local grocery store and department stores.
Not nearly as many as when I was a child. And from what I've read, fewer of those sent to the
returnable market are sold than ten or twenty years ago.
>
>
> >
> >> If not, the independents would be taking
> >> up the slack and doing well but they're not.
> >
> >Actually, they are - apparently the industry is making a steady gross income from month to
> >month for the last year or so, but it's the super hero books that are losing sales and market
> >share. Comparatively, the non-tights books are doing well in a market dominated by superhero
> >fans
>
> This discussion is going all over the place. I would like to know
> where you get your facts from though.
Well, the top hundred sales figures get posted here infrequently (used to be the top 300), and
before then I followed and listened to the trends. ask Ty Templeton - I was telling him the Market
was starting to down the tubes back in 1993 and predicted big trouble for Marvel the day they
bought Heroes World. If you must know, I spend a portion of my time writing and drawing the
things, too.
Oh, you think I was referring to the format . . .No, I've going on about the need to abandon the 32
page pamphlet for some time now.
>
>
> >
> >The direct market has been nothing but bad for comics potential of gaining a larger market,
> >yet perversely allowed a maturation of the creative process in certain instances.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >So would Scorsese doing saturday morning toy cartoon gain respect for animation as a
> >> >whole, or merely get a handful of people to watch a cartoon? Do CGI cartoons appeal to a
> >> >larger audience than traditional cartoons?
> >>
> >> Sure! ;) Look how much attention Spawn has gotten and it's horrible
> >> writing. I seem to remember it winning awards. If Scorsese did a
> >> cartoon and it attracted a large audience wouldn't that make people
> >> look at cartoons differently? Cartoons are like comics, they are
> >> looked on in a stereotypical light by the general population.
> >
> >There's a difference between an aberration garnering attention and a transformation of the
> >common knowledge. If Scorsese, Lynch, Cameron, Cronenberg, Zemekis, Tarantino, Spielberg, and
> >Soderburgh all turned their attention to animated projects and produced work that made an
> >animated project as weighty and literate as their other works it would likely change the
> >perception of the limits and expectations of animated work. Sporadic outbursts of quality do
> >not effect a permanent change.
>
> But they are the beginning of change. If sporadic outbursts of
> quality is welcomed by the general population then that demand would
> naturally motivate more quality productions. Of course, this is a
> dead issue since Disney has destroyed the medium.
There's high hope and expectations for the coming Japanese feature boom, including some interesting
US co-productions i the works - and Disney IS planning a more mature film - one without songs!
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >They did, and it didn't.
> >>
> >> Well the first one wasn't horrible but 4? after that were bad. That
> >> first Superman movie was a great all ages movie and I'm curious if it
> >> attracted people to comic books but comics were healthy back then so
> >> who knows.
> >
> >But Superman is an all ages character. And no - like I wrote before, it didn't really get a
> >new permanent audience for the character or the medium.
>
> If you produced a quality movie, let's say a Sandman / Death movie
> done buy Neil Gaiman, and it was well received by the general public I
> would be surprised if the general public didn't looked to get more of
> what it liked by buying graphic novels or comics. The problem is that
> good movies aren't being made. Another example is the Maxx and Spawn
> cartoon. I would be curious how many new people came into comic
> stores due to those two cartoons which undoubtably reached new
> audiences. You make sweaping statements but I would like to see your
> facts to support them.
There were measurable sales blips in comics when Burton's Batman hit and a lesser one when the Crow
was released - if these, and other comics films created a larger audience for the material then the
audience wouldn't have been shrinking throughout the 1980s and 1990s - slowly at first, then in a
flood as the collector boom imploded.
Most of my information is learned by paying close attention to what was happening since I first
decided that this was what I wanted to do - back in 1983. I'm not sure if the sales figures from
that last several years are archived anywhere, but they would be an eye opener for you.
You've made an equal share of sweeping statements, yet they are, for the most part, dismissed by
the burden of what has and is happening in the industry.
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> >> The flexidisc that came with [M] was cool, 'though.
> >
> >Already was a cassette or CD kind of guy back then so I never heard the flexi
>
> It was basically Muth and friends doing "In the Hall of the
> Mountain King" on heavy metal guitar. I had access to one of those
> granny-style stereo/entertainment-center/piece-of-furniture things for the
> latter half of the 80's. The M flexidisc, and the one from Critters with
> Ty and Alan Moore on it, were pretty much the only things I played on it.
>
My wife wants to get a turntable so she can play some of the albums from her youth
- if we do get one the first things I'm playing on it are those two flexis.
Richard
>
> --
> W. Allen Montgomery
--
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> cr...@212.net (Christopher) wrote:
> >Brandon wrote:
> >>Wambo is much better at vocalizing his opinions than you are, therefore
> >>you have no right to question his.
> >
> >He really did corrupt you when you moved there, didn't he?
>
> I'm not sure if "corrupt" is the right word.
If he used the right word you could get arrested . . .
Richard Pace
"W. Allen Montgomery" wrote:
> Hmm? Oh, yeah...
>
> 5 - Neal Adams (honorable mention to Stan Drake)
Nice one . . .
>
>
> 4 - Al Williamson
Okay. I prefer Raymond.
>
>
> 3 - Frank Frazetta
It ws him or Adams for my five.
>
>
> 2 - Winsor McKay
Hmmm . . . yeah. maybe I'll have to drop Toth . . .
>
>
> 1 - Gustave Doré
heh, that one will be over most people's heads . . .
Richard
>
>
> --
> W. Allen Montgomery
--
KRothst402
>kroth...@aol.com (KRothst402) wrote:
>>Comics have nothing to be ashamed about with Superman.
>
> Except for that small nuisance of the property's creators.
I was talking about the character itself, not the way comics treat their
talent.
Kevin Lighton
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:53 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote:
> Why then is a major part of Marvel and DC's lines superhero's?
> Obviously because they sell. If not, the independents would be taking
> up the slack and doing well but they're not.
Superheroes sell _to_the_people_who_buy_comics_. Most people aren't aware
that comics have anything except superheroes, so they don't ever find titles
that might appeal to them. If comics were perceived as simply a medium, and
not as a vehicle for people in funny underwear, then more people might look
into what's available, and superheroes probably wouldn't account for most of
the comics sold.
A superhero title, no matter how well drawn, isn't going to change that
perception, and isn't going to gain the medium any respect.
> I don't think that you
> can remove the superhero's from comics with out killing the comic book
> medium and therefore you can argue that comics will never appeal to or
> be respected by the general population.
This works on the assumption that as long as superheroes exist, it is
impossible to convince the general public that there are any comics that aren't
superheroes.
Ja, mata
Kevin
KRothst402
>While I accept your points as valid, I'd still prefer a more savvy mascot -
Well, if Mickey can be the mascot for one of the largest corporate giants in
the entertainment world, I think Superman is up to the task for a small medium
like comic books. Hell, the WB network had a frog as a mascot.
I think your entire p.o.v. is that comics, in order to appeal to adults, need
to put its most adult face out there. Alex Ross, with his realistic and
professional look, seems to be just what the doctor ordered. Maybe comics fans
find manga all the rage, but art that looks "comic booky" is not going to win
any new converts.
Then again, its really not the role of any one artist to say "I'm gonna change
perceptions...so what should I draw?" I think he first has to draw, and if
perceptions are gonna change, they will. Chicken and Egg thing here. If his
Superman leads to changed perceptions, fine, if not...well I guess one day an
indy comic will have to come along that is as professionally drawn as Ross'
tend to be.
To be honest, when I look through the indy comics section, I am often appalled
at what I see: Porno comics, cheesecake comics, almost stick figured b/w
comics, basically unprofessional junk I would be ashamed to own. Instead of
blaming it on Superman, why not take the point to the people who actually try
and appeal to adults, and ask them how a bondage comic actually helps anybody?
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
> Richard Pace says...
>
> >While I accept your points as valid, I'd still prefer a more savvy mascot -
>
> Well, if Mickey can be the mascot for one of the largest corporate giants in
> the entertainment world, I think Superman is up to the task for a small medium
> like comic books. Hell, the WB network had a frog as a mascot.
Miramax doesn't have the mouse representing their films. Mascots tend to fit in
with what image the corporation wants to present. Since it's pretty limiting for a
medium to have a mascot - i.e. TV, film, print, or music don't have mascots - the
companies that produce these things have corporate images and occasionally mascots,
I'd argue that it's a bad thing for anyone to accept the comics medium as having a
mascot.
And when we stop trying to isolate the formats from each other, it'll be likely
that Superman will fade a bit as the immediate reference point for comics -
especially since most of his recent fame is as a TV or film character.
I don't think it's a good idea for the medium to have a mascot - but if it's a
mandatory thing, I still think I'd prefer one that didn't immediately scream
children's entertainment - or have 'the American way' as a part of his image.
>
>
> I think your entire p.o.v. is that comics, in order to appeal to adults, need
> to put its most adult face out there. Alex Ross, with his realistic and
> professional look, seems to be just what the doctor ordered. Maybe comics fans
> find manga all the rage, but art that looks "comic booky" is not going to win
> any new converts.
No, my POV is that comics have to start putting a better, more diverse product out
there. Literate comics that want literate comics, violent comics for those who
want violent comics, etc. - you know, like the other media.
>
>
> Then again, its really not the role of any one artist to say "I'm gonna change
> perceptions...so what should I draw?" I think he first has to draw, and if
> perceptions are gonna change, they will. Chicken and Egg thing here. If his
> Superman leads to changed perceptions, fine, if not...well I guess one day an
> indy comic will have to come along that is as professionally drawn as Ross'
> tend to be.
>
> To be honest, when I look through the indy comics section, I am often appalled
> at what I see: Porno comics, cheesecake comics, almost stick figured b/w
> comics, basically unprofessional junk I would be ashamed to own. Instead of
> blaming it on Superman, why not take the point to the people who actually try
> and appeal to adults, and ask them how a bondage comic actually helps anybody?
Considering that I've seen hundreds of professional indie comics over the years,
I'm uncertain as to what you define as an indie comic? The early output of Dark
Horse, Stray Bullets, Bone, Cerebus, From Hell . . . , Violent Cases, and many more
were (and are) all indie projects.
Richard
KRothst402
>> To be honest, when I look through the indy comics section, I am often
>appalled
>> at what I see: Porno comics, cheesecake comics, almost stick figured b/w
>> comics, basically unprofessional junk I would be ashamed to own. Instead
>of
>> blaming it on Superman, why not take the point to the people who actually
>try
>> and appeal to adults, and ask them how a bondage comic actually helps
>anybody?
>
>Considering that I've seen hundreds of professional indie comics over the
>years,
>I'm uncertain as to what you define as an indie comic? The early output of
>Dark
>Horse, Stray Bullets, Bone, Cerebus, From Hell . . . , Violent Cases, and
>many more
>were (and are) all indie projects.
Ok, I was really thinking more along the lines of such comics as GAY COMICS
which basically is some kind of gay porno thing and other "adult" comics than
tend to have girls tied up in compromising positions. Dark Horse, is a
corporate giant compared to these things and hardly seems indy when compared
with an ACME NOVELTY. DH spends much of its time with corporate tie-ins and
shlock monster comics based on old Arnold Shwarzenegger films, no?
The others are all certainly not cheesecake, but I wonder if a Cerebus or Bone
is the type of fare that will appeal to non comics reading adults? I think a
more realistic approach might have better success.
Basically, if I were going to produce a comic meant for adults, it would be a
magazine that came out weekly and ran a few stories simultaneously to somehow
go for a response the way old comic strips used to. I would feature realistic
fare (maybe a soap opera, a murder mystery, and a spy strip- for example) and I
would ground them with highly realistic art and there wouldn't be a super power
in sight. But there also wouldn't be any cute funny animals either and
certainly no porn.
I don't know if that would work, but it seems like something someone might try.
Certainly its a more viable answer than making an adult comic and then
packaging it just like every other comic- to make sure no one can tell the
difference btw 300 and X-Men.
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
> Richard Pace says...
>
> >> To be honest, when I look through the indy comics section, I am often
> >appalled
> >> at what I see: Porno comics, cheesecake comics, almost stick figured b/w
> >> comics, basically unprofessional junk I would be ashamed to own. Instead
> >of
> >> blaming it on Superman, why not take the point to the people who actually
> >try
> >> and appeal to adults, and ask them how a bondage comic actually helps
> >anybody?
> >
> >Considering that I've seen hundreds of professional indie comics over the
> >years,
> >I'm uncertain as to what you define as an indie comic? The early output of
> >Dark
> >Horse, Stray Bullets, Bone, Cerebus, From Hell . . . , Violent Cases, and
> >many more
> >were (and are) all indie projects.
>
> Ok, I was really thinking more along the lines of such comics as GAY COMICS
> which basically is some kind of gay porno thing and other "adult" comics than
> tend to have girls tied up in compromising positions.
I've always felt that there was a much a niche for comic porn as there was for
other porn media - the big issue with it in comics is that it's distributed to
comics stores and not porn stores.
> Dark Horse, is a
> corporate giant compared to these things and hardly seems indy when compared
> with an ACME NOVELTY. DH spends much of its time with corporate tie-ins and
> shlock monster comics based on old Arnold Shwarzenegger films, no?
Prior to their heavy investment into licensed comics they were looked upon as the
creative/commercial backbone of the independent market - they still have one of the
best creator owned deals around and still publish some of the best alternative
material around as well. I'd point my finger at the DH marketing folks for
allowing people to think the company has just become a clearing house for
merchandise comics.
>
>
> The others are all certainly not cheesecake, but I wonder if a Cerebus or Bone
> is the type of fare that will appeal to non comics reading adults? I think a
> more realistic approach might have better success.
The Cerebus phone books and the Bone Collections are usually very effective in
getting the non-comics reader to actually read a comic - though their gravity isn't
strong enough to drag those people into the comics store.
>
>
> Basically, if I were going to produce a comic meant for adults, it would be a
> magazine that came out weekly and ran a few stories simultaneously to somehow
> go for a response the way old comic strips used to. I would feature realistic
> fare (maybe a soap opera, a murder mystery, and a spy strip- for example) and I
> would ground them with highly realistic art and there wouldn't be a super power
> in sight. But there also wouldn't be any cute funny animals either and
> certainly no porn.
Porn comics appeal appeal to people into porn - I'm not sure how this became an
issue when what's good for the medium is for people to stop thinking that comics
are merely for children or a haven for one genre.
>
>
> I don't know if that would work, but it seems like something someone might try.
> Certainly its a more viable answer than making an adult comic and then
> packaging it just like every other comic- to make sure no one can tell the
> difference btw 300 and X-Men.
While in similar formats, I do doubt that anyone would confuse 30 with an issue of
X-Men - though Dark Horse aggressively repackages and does great business with the
collected works.
I'm of the opinion that 200-300 page collections or original works of a similar
size are the best route to getting someone to read the medium.
the damon club
Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:09:34 GMT, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >If they were sketches of naked women, maybe . . .
> >> >
> >> >Super heroes do not appeal to the populace at large - if they did sales would be much
> >> >more healthy. And had the sales of marvels or Kingdom Come actually been a big deal in
> >> >the book stores they were shipped to, we would have heard about it and you'd quickly see
> >> >an overwhelming number of Ross clones producing super heroes for the general marketplace.
> >>
> >> What about the Liefield clones?
> >
> >Liefeld (and Lee or Maduriera or Campbell) clones exist to steal the success from within the
> >established fan base, not to expand the audience.
>
> So if Ross has little talent and doing photorealistic art is so easy
> why aren't there Ross clones ?
>
there are.
some of them do comparable work to ross.
look at ruins, by marvel.
>
> >Most comic readers buy that superhero crap because they are teenagers.
> Marvel and DC are just giving people what they want. The market
> decides what or what doesn't sell, not the corporations. If there
> wasn't a market for numerous X-Men or Spider-Man comics Marvel
> wouldn't produce them for the same reason Nova was cancelled, a lack
> of interest. Who constantly makes Uncanny X-Men the number one comic
> ordered, the consumers. Therefore, a change in the comic medium will
> only happen if there is a demand for it which there isn't.
>
but the enitre market isn't determining this.
only the one demographic.
and other dems have more money to spend.
Kevin Lighton
> Richard Pace says...
>>While I accept your points as valid, I'd still prefer a more savvy mascot -
> Well, if Mickey can be the mascot for one of the largest corporate giants in
> the entertainment world, I think Superman is up to the task for a small medium
> like comic books. Hell, the WB network had a frog as a mascot.
Entirely different things. The WB frog is _not_ the mascot for TV as a whole,
just for one station. Mickey is somewhat closer to a mascot for the medium of
animation as a whole, and Disney as a whole tends to skew perception of that
medium, also.
> I think your entire p.o.v. is that comics, in order to appeal to adults, need
> to put its most adult face out there. Alex Ross, with his realistic and
> professional look, seems to be just what the doctor ordered.
His p.o.v., at least as I read it, is that no matter how good an artist Ross
might be, by doing superheroes only, he is not changing the general public's
view of comics and not giving the medium new respect.
> Maybe comics fans
> find manga all the rage, but art that looks "comic booky" is not going to win
> any new converts.
Try looking at any artwork by someone like Ryoichi Ikegami (Mai the Psychic
Girl, Sanctuary, Strain, Samurai Crusader, Crying Freeman) or Sanpei Shirato
(Legend of Kamui) and you'd change your (apparent) view about all manga art
looking "comic booky."
> Then again, its really not the role of any one artist to say "I'm gonna change
> perceptions...so what should I draw?"
Again, from how I read what's been said in this thread, nobody has said this,
it's been an argument over whether Ross' art, by its very existence, has given
new respect to the medium among the general public or whether it hasn't because
it doesn't alter the belief that comics are just superheroes.
> If his
> Superman leads to changed perceptions, fine, if not...well I guess one day an
> indy comic will have to come along that is as professionally drawn as Ross'
> tend to be.
I don't think that photorealistic art would be a requirement for a comic to
help change general perceptions of the medium... _Maus_ and _Sandman_ both
will have had some effects along that line (although they're seen as
abberations rather than examples of what the medium has besides superheroes),
and neither had photorealistic art (and some of the art in _Sandman_ was pretty
poor, IMHO).
> To be honest, when I look through the indy comics section, I am often appalled
> at what I see: Porno comics, cheesecake comics, almost stick figured b/w
> comics, basically unprofessional junk I would be ashamed to own.
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap.
Possibly, the store you frequent is a bit short on the remaining 10%?
(Admittedly, most of the porno and cheesecake comics are going to fall into
the 90% division...)
> Instead of
> blaming it on Superman, why not take the point to the people who actually try
> and appeal to adults, and ask them how a bondage comic actually helps anybody?
Most of the comics that are aiming at an audience other than the superhero
demographic are not in the porno/cheesecake category, and the porno/cheesecake
stuff isn't what the general public think of when they think of comic books.
Most people think comics=superheroes, and since they have no interest in
superheroes, they don't go into comic stores, so they aren't likely to find
comics that might appeal to them. This tends to cause the problem to get even
worse, since stores are less likely to stock something that doesn't have a
built-in audience among the people who go into the stores anyway (superheroes,
manga, cheesecake, porno, and (in some areas) semi-abstract
semi-autobiographical seem to be the areas which have enough of an audience
to get by), so if some member of the general public does try looking at some
comics, chances are they won't find anything worthwhile.
(I could go on about how comics companies haven't really done anything to try
to change this perception (in general, there are exceptions, but they're
usually too small to be able to do anything), but I won't bother.)
Ja, mata
Kevin
Christopher L. Tumber
Ken wrote:
>Superhero's
>may be low entertainment but unfortunately thats the only stuff that
>appears to appeal to the general population so therefore they think
>thats all comics have to offer.
then only remotely. Witness the ongoing success of Archie.
Or the successes of a variety of genres in the 50's through 70's
(Crime, horror, romance, adventure, humor...)
How many super-hero comic strips does your local newspaper
run? There's a reason why the version of the medium actually
embraced by the masses has little or no super-hero content.
Meanwhile, outside North America (Europe and Japan), where comic
industries are not burdened by the overwhelming weight and stigma of
super-heroes, everything BUT super-heroes flourishes.
(BTW: given the number of people currently reading comic
books, I'd really question your use of the term "general
population".)
Christopher L. Tumber
Richard wrote:
>And the reason that they think super heroes are the only thing the medium
>offers is because it's the only thing the biggest two publishers have been
>promoting for the last thirty years.
is a far more recent phenomena and is largely a result of the
80's boom and the B&W bust.
In the 60's and 70's Marvel and DC had very healthy
non-superhero offerings... I have in front of me a copy of
Giant Size Fantastic Four 5 from May 1975. The subscription
page includes: Arrgh!, Chamber of Chills, Conan the Barbarian,
Creatures on the Loose, Crypt of Shadows, Dead of Night, Fear,
Frankenstein, Ka-Zar, Kid Colt Outlaw, Man-Thing, Master of
Kung Fu, Mighty Marvel Western, My Love, Night Rider, Our Love
Story, Rawhide Kid, Sgt. Fury, Supernatural Thriller, The
Outlaw Kid, Tomb of Darknesss, Tomb of Dracula, Two-Gun Kid,
Uncanny Tales, Vault of Evil, War is Hell, Weird Wonder Tales,
Werewolf by Night, Western Gunfighters, Where Monsters Dwell,
Giant Size Dracula, Giant Size Master of Kung Fu, Giant Size
Werewolf, Giant Size Man-Thing, Giant Size Conan, Giant
SizeKid Colt, Giant Size Chillers, Crazy, Dracula Lives,
Unknown Worlds of Science Fictions, Monsters of the Movies,
Monsters Unleashed, Planet of the Apes, Savage Tales, Tales of
the Zombie, Deadly Hands of Kung Fu, Savage Sword of Conan,
and Vampire Tales.
All total (including magazines), that's 48 of 86 (56%) titles!
Granted, at the time Marvel was flooding the newstands, but
the numbers at DC would be similar.
I believe what happened is the the 70's implosion really
scared Marvel and DC as they had to cut right back to the core
titles which still sold to the die-hard geeks and mostly these
were super-hero freaks. Then, the 80's boom came because of
the demographic shift which brought a huge number of teen aged males
who were ripe for super-heroes and the increased profits from
an improved distribution scheme (direct market) saw Marvel and
DC rewarded for sticking with super-heroes.
As the b&w/indie boom surged foreward on the backs of the Teenaged
Mutant Ninja Turtles (not really superheroes) Marvel and DC
also started to expand and diversify their lines a bit
(Vertigo, Epic) but more cautiously so. Then when the b&w
market collapsed, DC and Marvel saw deja vu all over again
and their addiction to the super-hero became total. This was
only reinforced again with the bad-girl/shiny cover
explosion/implosion of the 90's.
It's really not surprising that Marvel and DC see super-heroes
as their bread and butter, but it really is a relatively new
phenomena* and due as much to Marvel and DC's competitors
(particularly Dell/Gold Key which was mostly NOT super-heroes)
not surviving into the direct market or not making a large
impact in the direct market (Archie) coupled with the direct
market moving the genre away from the public eye and turning it
into niche market centered on two publishers rather than mass
market with enough variety to appeal to a general audience.
*Sorta, as they were more than happy to sacrifice other
possible genres in the wake of the threats of Wetham and EC.
Super-heroes have always been a cornerstone, but both have
traditionally been more than happy to publish whatever sells.
Darryl Sheakley
>>Did Sienkiewicz do photorealism? The only work of his that I remember
was although close to realistic always abstract. I don't remember the
other two but it could be that I've seen it but now can't place it. Any
specifics so I can go check it out?<<
My most favorite shit by Sienkiewicz is his run on New Mutants, lots of
photo reference plus tons of chops! Check out his photo reference tech
on the Rza as Bobby Digital cd cover and back cover.
Speaking of reference, some knucklehead about a week ago was expounding
on AR's 'vanishing point and perspective' virtuosity in this thread. The
guy copies photos just like everyone else! He doesn't need to worry
about any of that (ah, the beauty of photo reference)!
Now, come forward and get your willy smacked.
--
Check out some comic book art that no one has took a hit off of since
the late seventies at
http://community.webtv.net/padawanlearner/DARRYLSHEAKLEYSKING
On some Steve Gadd type of shit.