|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 15:22:52 GMT -5
I can understand how Ditko's dynamic poses justaposed with his distorted faces would make an annoying combo for the average reader. When I was reading Marvel in the early 80s, I had no awareness of who was drawing. I just noticed that ROM and Micronauts suddenly looked bad. Dynamic poses with cartoony faces you say... like say Joe Shuster the first super-hero artist... or quintessential Batman artist Dick Sprang... or Will Eisner's Spirit.... I guess that must all be bad art because it's cartoony in nature. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 15:39:55 GMT -5
Some posters have all the subtlety of a brick thrown at your head making their point. That approach discourages newer posters and annoys some of us older posters.
There I said it!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 9, 2019 15:46:59 GMT -5
like say Joe Shuster the first super-hero artist... or quintessential Batman artist Dick Sprang... or Will Eisner's Spirit.... I guess that must all be bad art because it's cartoony in nature. -M None of those seem in the same category to me. I can grok Tintin and Bone and other works with cross-genre art styles. But sometimes Ditko's faces just look bad rather than "intriguingly juxtaposed art choice." Look at the blade of Acroyear's sword in my example above. It's simply coming off the hilt at the wrong angle compared to the position of his hand.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 15:57:25 GMT -5
I liked Ditko back in his prime on Spider-Man and Dr Strange and Blue Beetle. His later stuff not so much. It lost it's "energy" and what was left was the "poses". I hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 9, 2019 16:40:20 GMT -5
Most artists if they hang around long enough will put out work that is considered disappointing as compared to their earlier work. I understand that Kirby was made fun of by staffers at Marvel when he returned in the late 70's.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 9, 2019 17:23:49 GMT -5
I liked Ditko back in his prime on Spider-Man and Dr Strange and Blue Beetle. His later stuff not so much. It lost it's "energy" and what was left was the "poses". I hope that makes sense. It makes perfect sense. When I first got into comics in the 80's, I simply didn't appreciate the greats like Kirby and Ditko, yet now I adore them. With Ditko, I think the key is when he has something like Doctor Strange to work with where he gets to fully realize his talent for shadow and mood. I love his Spider-Man work, but I think Doctor Strange allowed him to use his fully array of talents. He never was a draftsman on the level of a Joe Kubert or John Buscema, but he made up for it with his quirky creativity.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 9, 2019 19:02:49 GMT -5
Most artists if they hang around long enough will put out work that is considered disappointing as compared to their earlier work. I understand that Kirby was made fun of by staffers at Marvel when he returned in the late 70's. And yet now when we look at books like the Eternals or 2001 it is pretty great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 9, 2019 19:59:07 GMT -5
It's weird that there's a new Conan funnybook and a new Red Sonja funnybook this week and they are from different companies. Anyone out there read the Red Sonja book? is it actually set in the Hyborean Age? Do they walk along the same timeline, or just randomly use the names and places? I'm curious... (though not quite enough to actually buy the books)
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Feb 9, 2019 22:10:18 GMT -5
Why is cartoony a pejorative term? There are lots of phenomonal artists who have a cartoony style who have produced fantastic comics (both mainstream and indy). I think if someone is using "cartoony" as a pejorative about comic book art the problem lies not with the work but with their own bias. There I said it! -M Well, yes, opinions are by definition subjective. If that's a "problem" then I guess I'm misunderstanding the nature and the culture of this thread. Cartoony is fine for Peanuts, not the FF, IMO. And you ignore my characterization of his work as also being crude; it's not even as if it's good by cartoony standards. You apparently like Ditko, I don't. Cool. My world will keep spinning firmly on its axis.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 0:17:25 GMT -5
It's weird that there's a new Conan funnybook and a new Red Sonja funnybook this week and they are from different companies. Anyone out there read the Red Sonja book? is it actually set in the Hyborean Age? Do they walk along the same timeline, or just randomly use the names and places? I'm curious... (though not quite enough to actually buy the books) Depends on which Sonja series (Dynamite is on it's 6th Red Sonja series, plus there was a Queen Sonja series and various minis and one shots, some in the Hyborian age we recognize, others not so much, and with the new series launching by Mark Russell, who knows. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 0:24:14 GMT -5
Why is cartoony a pejorative term? There are lots of phenomonal artists who have a cartoony style who have produced fantastic comics (both mainstream and indy). I think if someone is using "cartoony" as a pejorative about comic book art the problem lies not with the work but with their own bias. There I said it! -M Well, yes, opinions are by definition subjective. If that's a "problem" then I guess I'm misunderstanding the nature and the culture of this thread. Cartoony is fine for Peanuts, not the FF, IMO. And you ignore my characterization of his work as also being crude; it's not even as if it's good by cartoony standards. You apparently like Ditko, I don't. Cool. My world will keep spinning firmly on its axis. I like some Ditko stuff (his Micronauts stuff pictured not so much), and others are free to liek or dislike his work as they choose, but I never conflate "I like" to mean it's high quality material nor "I dislike" with it's not quality, as a lot of people are wont to do. I firmly believe the conflating of personal tastes with objective standards of quality is a textbook case of hubris, and reading commentary or criticism by those who do tells you very little about the quality of the material they are discussing and too much about their personal tastes in such materials. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 5:44:18 GMT -5
Some posters have all the subtlety of a brick thrown at your head making their point. That approach discourages newer posters and annoys some of us older posters. There I said it! Exactly. Well said. I think most people know when someone is being subjective. If I praise JB's Superman, and I know it has its detractors, I am not asking anyone else to agree 100%. I'm offering an OPINION. I suppose everyone on a forum could ALWAYS type, "In my opinion...", but that would be redundant and boring. Also, seems to be a hell of a lot of attempted 'mind reading' from some at times. Being curt, antagonistic and rude at times does, as Michael states, discourage newer posters.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 10, 2019 9:34:22 GMT -5
I can understand how Ditko's dynamic poses justaposed with his distorted faces would make an annoying combo for the average reader. When I was reading Marvel in the early 80s, I had no awareness of who was drawing. I just noticed that ROM and Micronauts suddenly looked bad. I think most of those were inked by other artists who inked him in the Marvel "house style" (whether they were asked to or not, I have no idea) and it just didn't work. Certainly Ditko's work, especially later, isn't for everybody. By the 70s, he's doing his own thing, where--I think even more than in the 60s--he's trying to focus on pure emotion.
For later Marvel, it was strictly work-for-hire.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 10, 2019 11:11:16 GMT -5
One of the first comics I bought was a Ditko ROM, and I loved it. I thought ROM was great, and I have a soft spot for Ditko's work on the series. Now that I have some perspective, though, I do agree that his 80's Marvel work is maybe his worst. I think almost anyone inking Ditko other than himself is a bad fit, and he kind of seemed to be phoning it in at times.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Feb 10, 2019 11:46:05 GMT -5
One of the first comics I bought was a Ditko ROM, and I loved it. I thought ROM was great, and I have a soft spot for Ditko's work on the series. Now that I have some perspective, though, I do agree that his 80's Marvel work is maybe his worst. I think almost anyone inking Ditko other than himself is a bad fit, and he kind of seemed to be phoning it in at times. I recall Blake Bell commenting in his biography of Ditko ("Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko") that Ditko withheld his talent in his later years due to his Randian beliefs. It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I believe it had to do with an attitude of "don't give more than you need to". Bell does mention this getting to be a problem with inkers being assigned to his work and turning the offer down since Ditko's pencils apparently lacked so much detail that they felt that they should have been paid to complete his pencils in addition to inking them. Of course, unless Ditko explicitly stated that this was his intention (and perhaps he did) it might just be a case of hearsay or opinion being presented as fact. However, Bell's work is well researched and the pencils he presents make a very convincing argument. A quick search found this, though I recall Bell's examples being even more effective at making their case.
|
|