Alpha Flight had some decidedly sub-par art for a long time. I read a quote by John Calimee, who seems like a very nice guy, where he basically apologized for his art back then. He became much better in time but then dropped out of the business.

Then of course there was the late Bill Jaaska on New Titans.

The panels posted are all good examples of artwork churned out for the sake of a monthly schedule. The Broderick panel has perspective issues also, but I think that not everything Broderick did back in the day was for everyone. I enjoyed his run on Captain Marvel and his Micronauts stuff.

There was a period in the 90's where it seemed that anyone that could hold a pencil was working. Lots of bad stuff was published. The Topps comic line hired Don Heck and other 60's artists to try to sell their comic line. It was not really that good, but at least they got a few paychecks from the 90's boom.

I agree that this is a highly abstract drawing.

I just don't agree that that automatically makes it a bad drawing. I really like the background effects (the building being warped, perspective-wise towards the center of the "frame") that are obviously designed to evoke a specific tone and mood. And using techniques that other artists wouldn't even consider makes it BETTER in my book, not worse.

I mean, obviously I love One Piece because I love any damn thing with pirates in it and Bill Sienkiewicz is my favorite superhero artist, full stop. But honestly this doesn't seem particularly indebted to either of 'em. I've got the TPB with that in front of me (Go Iowa City Public Library) and this story seems fairly European in flavor, where the line between "fine art" and "comics" is a little blurrier.

(Actually, a little googling says his first job was the animated Aeon Flux show, which makes perfect sense.)

Here's the thing - "Comic artist" is a competetive gig, and bad comic artists simply Do Not Get Work.

(Except in the early '40s and the late '80s early '90s, when the market was big enough that publishing crap could be profitable.) The editors must see SOMETHING in his stuff, even if it's based in a set of influences that are unfamiliar or distasteful to people my age who were raised on Sal Buscema.

I love abstract drawing, although I am not so sure that Spidey panel is all that abstract (in the way say Toth, Bushmiller. a lot of Kirby, some Sienkiewicz is). I'm sure that the artist (have we determined who it is?) is completely capable of drawing straight art as Arthur Scratch suggests, and this is just some highly left-field stylization. I don't much like it to be honest, but I won't condemn it as bad art either. It doesn't fill me revulsion or anything, it just fails to excite if that was the artists motive.

Well, that is a pretty strict definition to be sure. Using shapes and forms, indeed geometrical abstractions, in which to compose either figure work or constructions certainly can lend itself to an abstract type of art. This is why the 70's period of Kirby with his blocky and stylized form of expression with the squiggles and hyper use of geometric patterns in all his machinery and tech is often considered to be the King's more abstract period. Toth's simplified use of shades and tones is certainly tending toward abstraction as well.



[Cubism and abstract art= www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/art_movements/cubism.htm]