JiC: PICTURES VS. WORDS

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/DC/pic_lrgcatw25cvr.jpg" width="175" height="214" border="0" align="right"><i>by Michael San Giacomo</i>

Art is such a subjective thing, it's almost impossible to argue about it.

But it's fun.

My local comic supplier and I go round and round about it all the time, neither one ever giving in.

I'm right, course, but he's entitled to his opinion.

Even if he's wrong.

We agree on one thing: <b>Catwoman</b> is one of DC's better written comics. The character is interesting, not two-dimensional like most of her counterparts, and Ed Brubakers scripts are a sheer delight. Her recent switch to the side of "good," (granted it's her own definition of "good") was a brilliant move.

But I've hated the art almost since the beginning.

With Paul Gulacy coming on board in issue #25, we have the perfect combination of writer (Ed Brubaker) and artist. With all due respect to previous artists like Cameron Stewart et al, the previous work was too cartoony for my tastes.

Sorry, but I just can't take an action comic seriously when the characters look like they stepped out of Archie or Little Lulu, and I'm secure enough in my manhood to admit I like Little Lulu.

But I would not like Lulu drawn by Gulacy.

I believe that different styles of drawing have their place.

For example, we have "regular" artists on comics and then we have artists on comics meant for kids like "Powerpuff Girls" and the Justice League and Batman books based on the cartoon shows.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/DC/pic_lrgcatw26cvr.jpg" width="185" height="280" border="0" align="left">It is less detailed, features exaggerated physical characteristics and is simply, simpler.

This is not a bad thing, just a different thing.

We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.

So, if we agree that these comics based on cartoons are simpler than we have established an art level. Up here, the "regular" artists are for more discerning readers and down here, the animated stuff is for...others.

That being said, I hope the Brubaker-Gulacy team stays around on <b>Catwoman</b> through the release of the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.

Along the same lines, since I can't talk about art I dislike and not mention Marvel, I might have enjoyed the recent <b>Human Torch</b> series if someone other than Skottie Young drew it. I'm sure Skottie would be fine on some projects, but it's jolting to have him draw a character like the Torch so differently that he'd hardly recognizable. What's with the triangular jaws anyway?

To close, I know I didn't change any minds. I'm sure that a large number of people agree with me and another large number think I should be stabbed with the Torch's pointy chin.

What's that noise? Oh, the sound the angry keyboards clacking. Take it away boys.

[Phoenix_Tetsu]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattBrady
[B]<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/DC/pic_lrgcatw25cvr.jpg" width="175" height="214" border="0" align="right"><i>by Michael San Giacomo</i>



We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.







Man, that sucks, really really sucks, I am also confident enough in my manhood to say I enjoy Batman Advetures waaaaay more thatn most of the Dark Knight's current monthly title. And Millar's run Superman Adventures also was amazing........ strange coming from you, San Giacomo....

[WebHobbit]

With Paul Gulacy coming on board in issue #25, we have the perfect combination of writer (Ed Brubaker) and artist. With all due respect to previous artists like Cameron Stewart et al, the previous work was too cartoony for my tastes

Totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't stand cartoony art. Can't stand X-Statix for for the same reason. I don't even care much for the guy doing Fantastic Four right now. Ditto Ramos on Spectacular Spider-Man. This kinda art just doesn't "fit" with any Marvel/DC mainstream super-hero type stuff IMHO.

[d. emerson eddy]

So, Mike, you're basically saying that Alex Toth -- and those inspired by him -- are less accomplished than the "detail" that artists like Gulacy or Jim Lee put into their work. Forgive for this coming off like an insult, but honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in regards to comic art.

In all honesty it is harder to draw something simply. There's less there to cover up any mistakes, you have to get it right in the first go, and you don't have the luxury of covering it up with unnecessary detail, shadows, and extraneous lines. Putting Cameron Stewart, Darwyn Cooke, Brad Rader, -- and essentially Bruce Timm as well, and Alex Toth as being the inspiration that all of these artists draw from -- "beneath" "regular" comics artists is frankly ignorant. It may not be something that you like, but it is by no means "less" than "regular" comics artists.

[Jeffreak]

We all have our tastes. Me, I jumped onto the Catwoman bandwagon rather late, and bought the first two volumes in TPB. Loved the Darwyn Cooke, Cameron Stewart et al art - it was "cartoony", but can also be gritty and dark and even mildly violent. Haven't read #25 yet, and I'll might like Gulacy's art too, but I'll miss the old art style.

But let's just not disrespect people who draw/prefer "cartoony" artwork, okay?

[Nick Wyche]

Well, I have to say that the decision to puut Gulacy on Catwoman is just another of the horrible decisions that DC has made in a long line of horrible decisions.
Brubaker and Cooke set an incredible aesthetic for this series from issue #1. It bobbled a little bit with the Brad Rader-drawn issues but bounced back tremendously with the addition of Cameron Stewart. When Javier Pulido did his 3-issue run it blew my mind. And then, Cam Stewart returned with a smoother, more streamlined style that perfectly rounded out his run.
The retro/pulp aesthetic of Brubaker's writing has always been well complimented by the Toth/Canniff/Robbins-influenced art style that the respective artists have brought to the title. With an ever-growing roster of talented artists out there capable of handling this style well, the decision to bring on the god-awful plasticness and creepy fetishistic work of Gulacy boggles me. With artists like Brian Hurtt, Marcos Martin, Nick Derington, and others available the decision is even more baffling.
I agree with Mike S. on one point though; writing and art are inextricably linked on a comic title. With the addition of Gulacy to CATWOMAN, the art side has been irreperably ruined for me. I've stopped buying the title and won't pick it up again until someone has the brains to replace this artistic dreck with something worthy of the truly talented individuals who worked on this title before (Cooke, Stewart, Pulido).

[Bill_Nolan]

Wow, I had the opposite reaction. Catwoman #25 was the last issue of the book I will read. The new artist just sucked the energy from the title. Made it a chore to read.

- Bill

[Ryan Scott Ottney]

I don't think Mike disprespected anyone ... or at least, I'm sure that wasn't his intention. As ususal, the internet community hears what they want to hear and misses the point entirely.

Mike didn't say these cartoon artists were bad, or even less of an artist than your typical comic book guy. What he said is, their styles don't work on certain books.

I too loved Superman Adventures (and Millar was the writer, not the artist - who was Aluir Amancio), but that's because the art was intended to fit that book. It was supposed to be cartoony, and it was!

Adversely, could you see someone like Stephen King writing Powerpuff Girls? How about Frank Miller writing/drawing an issue of Scooby Doo? No ... because they have very different styles. They're both good at what they do, but they don't fit together.

That's all he's saying, and I agree with him (to an extent). Sometimes the art just doesn't fit the story!

Ryan

PS: To this day, Bruce Timm is still one of my favorite artists ... and I'm not a big fan of Gulacy's work either.

[d. emerson eddy]

Originally posted by Ryan Scott Ottney
Mike didn't say these cartoon artists were bad, or even less of an artist than your typical comic book guy.

He did say the latter, Ryan.

"We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.

So, if we agree that these comics based on cartoons are simpler than we have established an art level. Up here, the "regular" artists are for more discerning readers and down here, the animated stuff is for...others."

[El Argentino]

I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.

Man, you buried yourself in deep shit with this line.

Oh, well. This guy likes the Daredevil movie anyway.:eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[dmickler]

OK, this art just sucks. It might be more realistic, whatever that means when you have a women dressed in whatever the hell fabric that is pretending to be a cat, but this is not always the most interesting thing when reading comics. Comics aren't always about reading true to life accounts, it is about suspending relaity that people can have powers or conjure demons or whatever the fuck they do. This bit of the fantastical is what keeps people interested in comics and many estranged. Ok, there are comics that are good for being true to life, like stuff by Joe Sacco and others, but that genre doesn't include Batmen and Catwomen. Cameron Stewarts art has had to of been the best on this book and was certainly the most interesting to look at. He could use as many or more panels than any given bendis book to recreate a westernized eatern feel just on one page, instead of using the eight pages with no dialogue. He is a great talent and I am certainly endorsing his work over Gulacy's. Gulacy isn't even that realistic any way, he draws the eyes of characters all wide and wierd looking, which is just annoying. So, i woudl disagree with this as an improvement and honestly I see this book's sales slipping iwth this art team.

[Dragonhead]

This has to be the worst thing I've ever read on Newsarama. Comics are cartoons. You must have no imagination, if you couldn't get into Pulido's run on Catwoman. He may be the best storyteller in comics. Trust me on this, reread those books and get lost in the comic reality he creates. His run was one of the best synthesis's of words and pictures as of late. And it's totally degrading to relate Cooke, Stewart, Pulido, etc. to the Power Puff Girls. I actually feel for ya. Your missing some great comics. 100 Bullets, Human Target, X-Statics, etc. You must be young and dumb.

[jawaplumber]

No offense to anyone, but if you think that art like the type that was gracing CATWOMAN up until Gulacy came on board is "too cartoony", you are simply being stubborn and close-minded. The whole point of that style of art in stories that are gritty and edgy is that it's meant to be a unique contrast. It actually highlights the darker tone of the story. It's also meant to bring your attention to things, physical things in the foreground and/or background, that might have otherwise been lost in the details of a more realistic artist, things that bring a different perspective on the plot, characterization, etc.. Again, this is not to say one style is better than another. I love Paul Gulacy, too, but that doesn't mean Darwyn Cooke and the like are any less suited to be drawing the same stories Gulacy does. Quite frankly, I've never understood how anyone who reads a comic book can say that ANY art style is "too cartoony". There's absolutely no logic in a statement like that. Do you like Jack Kirby? Do you like Steve Ditko? Do you like Jim Steranko? Then you should have no problem enjoying the styles of Bruce Timm, Darwyn Cooke, Paul Rivoche, etc.. They may look a little different from each other, but the basic intentions of what they are doing with their art is the exact same.

[RDFozz]

Originally posted by MattBrady for Michael San Giacomo
We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.

I suspect that a word got dropped here; perhaps the word "complex"? or detailed?

Matt, could you double-check?

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by MattBrady
That being said, I hope the Brubaker-Gulacy team stays around on <b>Catwoman</b> through the release of the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.

This statement, more than anything in this article, annoys me the most. "Truer picture of what comics are all about"? More like what YOU think comics SHOULD be all about. Too bad for you, though, that comics are all that and MORE. You're selling the medium short by thinking it should only follow one style. Again, very close-minded. Not trying to bash you here, Mike, I'm just REALLY disappointed.

[TemporalFlux]

Personally, I'm quite surprised by Mike's attitude. Mike usually acts like a cartoon character, so I always assumed he would love them.

"Keepin it real, yo!"

[shakey]

What about a guy like Mike Oeming on Powers? Does the cartoony art detract from that book's gritty stories?

Not for me.

There is the opposite reaction to Mike's view . When Mac Rayboy's Capt. Marvel Jr interacted with the rest of the Marvel's, he seemed too realistic next to his cartoony teammates.

On balance I can't say I love a books art based only on my expectations of how the characters should be drawn.

For me it's the opposite, beautiful art can't save a poorly written book, no matter what.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Nick Wyche
Well, I have to say that the decision to puut Gulacy on Catwoman is just another of the horrible decisions that DC has made in a long line of horrible decisions...With the addition of Gulacy to CATWOMAN, the art side has been irreperably ruined for me. I've stopped buying the title and won't pick it up again until someone has the brains to replace this artistic dreck with something worthy of the truly talented individuals who worked on this title before (Cooke, Stewart, Pulido).

I feel the EXACT same way. EXACT! I actually cut Catwoman from my pull list with #24 because I think that Cooke and Stewart were the two absolutely perfect artists for the title. I don't know if Cameron Stewart quit or was replaced, but I just do not like Gulacy's art (at least as inked by Jimmy Palmiotti) and don't think it fits at all. I'm very particular about Catwoman's artist though. I think the best art was by Darwyn Cooke in the back-up serial that appeared in Detective Comics. I wasn't as happy when Cooke wasn't inking his own pencils, but it was still terrific. Brad Rader's art was good, but not great. I think the art really hit its stride with Stewart and I think his is the best art that has graced the pages. I liked it so much that I was annoyed when Javier Pulido took over for an arc, and I am a HUGE fan of Pulido's.

But I can't even stand to look at Gulacy's art on the covers of Catwoman, never mind opening the book to read it.

No thanks.

And I think it is ridiculous when peopel won't even give an artist a chance because his art is "cartoony".

The funniest thing to me is that one of the most respected comic book artists of all time is Jack Kirby. Everyone praises the hell out of his work, but some of these are the same people who bash Darwyn Cooke, Bruce Timm et al for being to cartoony.

Could these people take action seriously when Kirby did it?

Do these people bitch about Mike Mignola's art on Hellboy?

[Caramuru]

I completely agree with what jawaplumber said.

We can even say that an artist who has a more realistic style is still cartoony in a way. It's not caravaggio or Rembrandt. It's not photography.

I'm assuming then that Powers doesn't work for the same reasons? Well, never mind that. Are we saying here that we couldn't get past the little walking talking animals in Spiegelman's Maus to feel the impact of that story?

[G Dog]

Originally posted by MattBrady
That being said, I hope the Brubaker-Gulacy team stays around on <b>Catwoman</b> through the release of the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.

I actually agree with this. They should keep Gulacy on art for the movie because anyone who would check out the comic (based on the godawful, horrible costume pictures we've seen so far) would probably like the ugly, ugly art that is currently on Catwoman.

[G Dog]

Ok, I realize I'm starting to dwell, but are there people who honestly think that this:

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/DC/pic_lrgcatw26cvr.jpg" width="185" height="280" border="0" align="left">

is anywhere NEAR the level of ANY of the art on the first 24 issues of Catwoman?

Really?

[Matt Maxwell]

Well, that was certainly...patronizing.

If you don't like the art, Mike, then just say that you don't like the art. But implying that there's art 'for kids' and that there's art for 'more discerning readers' kinda reads like an insult from where I'm standing.

And for the record, I find Cameron Stewart's layouts and approach to depicting action to be far more sophisticated than most of what I'm seeing out here in the mainstream. The rendering isn't hyper-detailed like most of the Image guys, for instance, but it doesn't have to be.

As to writing that isn't suited to the art and vice versa, the tension created by pairing Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke/Cameron Stewart/Javier Pulido has made Catwoman something special. As much as I like Paul Gulacy's art (and I'm a fan of his from as far back as _Six from Sirius_) I haven't warmed to his work on _Catwoman_, but I'm willing to give it time.

[SAINT TY]

Wow!!!! I can't beleive what I just read! Worst article ever!!!!!
Catwoman was my favorite DCU book on the stands until Gulacy came onboard. Gulacy has ruined the majic of this book (I will defend this position below). I would hand over a book drawn by Cooke, Pulido, Stewart, Allred, Los Bros, Kirby, Toth etc. to a new comix fan anyday before Gulacy. In fact, I would be mortified to have someone sample Gulacy as a first impression of the medium.
Can you imagine the "why isn't Holly dead" story from the Secret files, masterfully rendered by Shanower, penciled by Gulacy? Not a chance. What about the Pulido arc where Karon breaks the fourth wall & talks to us? No way would that work with Gulacy.
I am not trying to rip Gulacy a new ass, it's just that he's in the unfortunate position of having been the one to make this book mainstream & humdrum.
I don't mean to come across as elitist but Mike's views on this subject are not reflective of the progressive reader nor of critical press. One need look no further than the cover endorsements on multiple issues but if you need more examples of the higher critical praise lauded on the former art direction I would be happy to supply you with more.

[dmickler]

that movie is going to be absolutely horrible. Just a thought based on the pictures so far. What the hell was everyone on when they were making decisions about making that movie. Oh, yeah...probably too much ether. Utter crap. It is increasingly disastisfying and annoying to see cool ideas for movies on comics turned in to movie trash in order to reach a bigger audience. I think that the catwomen in the second batman movie was a great adaptation. Why not follow that? Also, this continuation of movie crap makes it harder for people to take comics seriously. Lets do a recap. Some of the batman movies were not complete crap and some were actually good. Old punisher and Captain america should be burned. Both xmen were works of art. Spiderman was entertaining, a little hokey, but still good, and yet still it could have been so much more. Should have kept him as a teenager, when are they going to learn. I couldn't even finsih watchingthe hulk it was so bad. Hulk dogs? What? League of extraordinary gentlemen looked like a travesty and insult. And now there are so many movies coming out i fear that hollywood wants to insult every creator that has beenin the comic field by making more crap. However, I am hoping Hellboy will be cool. Not much attachment to the character, but I thinkit is a great concept and looks cool.

[gOgIver]

I'm still waiting for my copy of Catwoman #25 but from what I've seen here, I like the previous art more. I'll reserve judgment 'til I see the whole issue though.

[dmickler]

Speaking up onthis cartoon debate, ed mcguinness was the only time in recent years superman looked so cool. UNtil the new age of the man of steel next year. ANd that guy aint nothing but cartoony in his style.

[Nakedmanatee]

Well, you do know Mike that you are just asking for trouble to do a column on how some artwork (the enjoyment of which is pretty subjective) can be somehow labelled as inappropriate or mismatched depending on the tone, style, and subject matter of whatever comic you're talking about. (In this case, Catwoman.)

I admit, growing up on a steady diet of Image artists (and their all-powerful Borg clone soldiers) can tend to set in one's head what a comic should look like, especially a comic that has Marvel or DC on the cover. It *can* play with our preconcieved notions of what super-hero characters should look like. After all, we've been living in a post-Miller Batman world for so long now it's easy to forget that Batman used to smile and hang around kids in shortpants. But back in the olden days, that goofy-ass Golden Age style (I'm kidding Golden Agers, put down your canes) was all the rage. It probably would have given fans in the 1940's anyeurisms to get a grip on a "realistic" Batman portrayl.

What I loved about Brubaker's Catwoman is that the "cartoony" artwork *DESTROYED* all my expectations of what a Catwoman comic should look like. Till then, when I thought of Catwoman I thought of Jim Balent, and well, nipples. Which is fine, nipple lovers. I love 'em as much as the next guy. But let's face it, at some point in the '90's it stopped being Catwoman, and it started becoming Nipple-Woman. Cameron Stuart, Javier Pulido, Darwyn Cooke, and others usurped and reprogramed what I thought Catwoman could be. For the better. And for a jaded comic fan like myself, the best gift a comic creator can give me is to tell a compelling story in a way I've never seen it done before. And that's what the Catwoman team has been doing.

The good news Mike, is that there are plenty of "realistic," "detailed" artists out there doing the majority of the super-hero titles. (And now, with Gulacy on Catwoman, I'm sure you can breathe easier.) Now if only they'd replace that Allred on X-Statix, with say, Jim Balent? Eh? ;) Them'd be some good readin'! (And much nipple love.)

In the end it's an argument that nobody can win, because it's about taste. But it's fun to talk about and argue, much like: should Jim Carrey do serious movies and can chicken *really* be used as a pizza topping?

--Dave

[Rod Odom]

Gulacy's art captures the dystopia of Catwoman's world perfectly. His arrival will attract more new readers just as the old readership look for excuses to leave the book.

[rjjb7]

Originally posted by Bill_Nolan
Wow, I had the opposite reaction. Catwoman #25 was the last issue of the book I will read.

- Bill

I agree with the above. I suppose to each his own, but I loved the Cooke/ Rader art that made the series unique.

This had been one of my favorite books, but I also dropped the book at #25.

I also thought that I noticed that along with the more mainstream art, the content itself seemed a little more mainstream (and mundane) with less of the noirish and Brubaker edge.

Again, D.C. plays it safe and retreats from a daring and (IMO) successful change in directions. Oh well, to each his own.

[SAINT TY]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
Gulacy's art captures the dystopia of Catwoman's world perfectly. His arrival will attract more new readers just as the old readership look for excuses to leave the book.
Uh, no. I was not looking for an excuse to leave the book. I LOVED this book.

[Jason Seaver]

Originally posted by MattBrady
It is less detailed, features exaggerated physical characteristics and is simply, simpler.

This is not a bad thing, just a different thing.

We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.

So, if we agree that these comics based on cartoons are simpler than we have established an art level. Up here, the "regular" artists are for more discerning readers and down here, the animated stuff is for...others.
Who's "we"? I'm certainly not of the opinion that the simpler art is "less" than the "regular" art, and I get the impression that Mike's retailer isn't either.

Also, it's kind of amusing to see someone say that the "regular" art is for more discerning readers... Isn't "regular" usually the domain of the mainstream, while the more sophisticated fan is more able to enjoy a broader variety of styles?

And make no mistake, I find the more cartoony art of the first two years of "Catwoman" much better than the Gulacy art of #25. It just cut straight to the story, and was wonderfully expressive without being exaggerated or deformed. It gave "Catwoman" the feel of an old, art deco noir movie, obviously filmed on a soundstage with just enough to set the scene.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Phoenix_Tetsu
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattBrady
[B]<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/DC/pic_lrgcatw25cvr.jpg" width="175" height="214" border="0" align="right"><i>by Michael San Giacomo</i>



We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.







Man, that sucks, really really sucks, I am also confident enough in my manhood to say I enjoy Batman Advetures waaaaay more thatn most of the Dark Knight's current monthly title. And Millar's run Superman Adventures also was amazing........ strange coming from you, San Giacomo....

Glad to see someone else give props to Batman Adventures.......... I also think it is one of the best Batman books each month (although I will say I am enjoying Azz and Risso a lot right now too)..... what Slott and Templeton are doing with it is just great. I always used to sort of avoid these books for whatever reason, but I decided to give it a chance after they relaunched this title, and I absolutely love it.

-Zadillo

[Barry]

I've disagreed with many of the things you've writte/reviewed, but this pretty much makes it official that you and I have COMPLETELY different tastes in comics. Which is fine, as I am right and you are wrong. ;-)

[L'Zoril]

Originally posted by d. emerson eddy
So, Mike, you're basically saying that Alex Toth -- and those inspired by him -- are less accomplished than the "detail" that artists like Gulacy or Jim Lee put into their work. Forgive for this coming off like an insult, but honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in regards to comic art.

In all honesty it is harder to draw something simply. There's less there to cover up any mistakes, you have to get it right in the first go, and you don't have the luxury of covering it up with unnecessary detail, shadows, and extraneous lines. Putting Cameron Stewart, Darwyn Cooke, Brad Rader, -- and essentially Bruce Timm as well, and Alex Toth as being the inspiration that all of these artists draw from -- "beneath" "regular" comics artists is frankly ignorant. It may not be something that you like, but it is by no means "less" than "regular" comics artists.

man, you stole my post. I was going to say exactly the same thing. It is near impossible to draw a la Alex Toth. It is so simple, yet so difficult to do.

[dmickler]

Ok, so lots of people disagree with this article. Not many seemt o agree. It appears that this guy, Michael San Giacomo, really likes real world like stuff, what with his comic rewritten to account for the Saddam capture. The art on Phantom Jack looks more realistic in style. But, i think that this guy needs to focus on the reality of comics and some dont always need to be realstic. Again, comics arent always realistic.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by d. emerson eddy
So, Mike, you're basically saying that Alex Toth -- and those inspired by him -- are less accomplished than the "detail" that artists like Gulacy or Jim Lee put into their work. Forgive for this coming off like an insult, but honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in regards to comic art.

In all honesty it is harder to draw something simply. There's less there to cover up any mistakes, you have to get it right in the first go, and you don't have the luxury of covering it up with unnecessary detail, shadows, and extraneous lines. Putting Cameron Stewart, Darwyn Cooke, Brad Rader, -- and essentially Bruce Timm as well, and Alex Toth as being the inspiration that all of these artists draw from -- "beneath" "regular" comics artists is frankly ignorant. It may not be something that you like, but it is by no means "less" than "regular" comics artists.

Agree totally, I think that a lot of "detail" artists overcompensate with "bells and whistles" to overcome a lot of basic storytelling deficiencies. I'd take a good Allred, Cooke, Rader, or Skottie Young over a bad George Perez clone like Phil Jiminez, even tho Jiminez is a very realistic illustrator. Their stuff just crackles with energy and a great understanding of basic storytelling.

I think a lot of the "cartoony" hang-ups people have are because they're a little embarassed to be reading comics as adults, and having the art look more realistic and "grown-up" helps justify their maintaining this habit.

I don't have a "realistic "or "cartoony" preference, or an "American" or "Manga" preference, just a "good" over "bad" preference. I like art I find to be good, regardless of what other categories it falls in.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
Agree totally, I think that a lot of "detail" artists overcompensate with "bells and whistles" to overcome a lot of basic storytelling deficiencies. I'd take a good Allred, Cooke, Rader, or Skottie Young over a bad George Perez clone like Phil Jiminez, even tho Jiminez is a very realistic illustrator. Their stuff just crackles with energy and a great understanding of basic storytelling.

I think a lot of the "cartoony" hang-ups people have are because they're a little embarassed to be reading comics as adults, and having the art look more realistic and "grown-up" helps justify their maintaining this habit.

I don't have a "realistic "or "cartoony" preference, or an "American" or "Manga" preference, just a "good" over "bad" preference. I like art I find to be good, regardless of what other categories it falls in.

I would say that Oeming's art also matches up very well with the writing on Powers, and I think perhaps is another example of something that contradicts the premise here (i.e. that cartoony art is "lower" and doesn't belong on what I guess are more consequential and serious books).

-Zadillo

[dmickler]

i agree. can you imagine if gulacy suddenly did powers and how much that would change the feeling of the story. jokes wouldnt be nearly as funny and oh...the art would suck.

[Freedom Fighter]

I loved Geoff John's Stars and S.T.R.I.P.E, but really could not stand the art--the artist's name escapes me right now. No matter how great the story if I cringe when I see the perty pitchers, I have trouble reading the comic.

I have never liked that style of art, including Wierngo's stuff the big doe-eyed crap is cringe-worthy for me. Hey, there folks that love it, good for them,I ain't one of 'em.

That said, I loved loved the art teams with Brubaker on Catwoman. I bought it from the first issue and it was one of my favorite books. I haven't read the Gulacy ish yet, but I do like his art. However, I think the return to a "normal" art team means that a book which really stood out among comics on the racks will now blend in with everything else. The "special" is gone and thats too bad. :(

--Kevin

[BillReed]

I think completely the opposite; the current Catwoman arc turns me off of the book.

But I don't really mind, as long as the story and the art are good, but it's just so jarring.

I vote 'yea' for "cartoony" art.

[Hdefined]

I dare anyone to read Craig Thompson's Blankets , which sports his own brand of, I would say, "cartoony art", and tell me someone like Jim Lee or Brian Hitch could do better. Simplistic and "cartoony" doesn't mean less expressive. More often than not, since there are less lines, less cross-hatching, less shading, there's more room for expression and storytelling.

[Nick Wyche]

I am truly impressed. The one thing I never thought I would see on a comics message board: A consensus of opinion. And it's one that I agree with.

Let's hope that the myth is true (for once) that publishers listen to what readers say on the internet. If so, DC will realize that they are driving away droves of the core readers of CATWOMAN and reverse their current course. If not, then I can always re-read the back issues, buy every new issue of HUMAN TARGET that comes out and drool over NEW FRONTIERS when it premieres next month.

[Duke Jupiter]

Well, it looks like Mike's column proves a point: we agree to disagree. Mike lit a literary match with his topic and the flames have begun. I've enjoyed the whole of the latest CATWOMAN issues, from Cooke to Gulacy. While the overall look has changed, the storytelling remains intact and that's what's most important. You can read the book.

By contrast, cross over the fence and look at the latest arc on DAREDEVIL by David Mack. Talk about "art vs. pictures"...WHERE'S the story? If someone like Darwyn Cooke, Cameron Stewart or Javier Pulido had drawn this, it would have made a helluva lot more sense and been done about 3 issues earlier. If I was Bill Sienkiewicz, I'd laugh and THEN call my lawyer.

Where Mike missed the point with this week's column is that comics art should serve the story, first and foremost. Everybody has a different idea on what comics art works best for them, but the art should never get in the way of telling the story. If you can't understand what's taking place on the pages, there's no reason for it to be there. People may not like Gulacy's style in difference to those who came before him on CATWOMAN, but his decades of storytelling experience comes through in his latest work.

A lot of you would probably prefer it if Gulacy took over DAREDEVIL instead of CATWOMAN. Now THAT'S a editorial decision I could agree with!

- DJ

[pmginn]

There is an idiosyncratic style, and there is a technical style, both of which comprise the finished art.

The idiosyncratic style deals with, in this case, the way you hold a pencil, the way your body works, the way your mind visualizes things, etc.

The technical style is the technique used to accomplish as specific aesthetic.


If you are a good, versatile artist, you should be able to adapt yourself to the type of story you're supposed to draw. Adapt the way you think and adapt your technique.

If Stephen King writes a Powerpuff Girls story, he needs to adapt. If Frank Miller draws a Scooby Doo story, he needs to adapt.

As an example, check out the new Mythology book put out about Alex Ross. You'll find his standard realism, and you'll find Bruce-Timm inspired drawings. Thus, Alex Ross has shown that he is adaptable.


Some artists are capable of this, and some are not.

In the end, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. Some people love Cameron Stewart's work, and some people hate it. Same with Paul Gulacy.

Because art is objective and subjective at the same time (objective because it's open to interpretation without knowing the artist's intentions, subjective because only the artist knows his/her true intentions and everyone will have his/her own point of view as per their individual tastes), it is difficult to truly define what is good and what is bad in terms of art.

Craftsmanship, sure... we can comment on that with more truth.

But opinions are opinions, and while everyone here knows that, there is no reason to to put one opinion over another. We can argue about taste, we can defend our points of view, and all points may or may not be valid. We may even take sides.

And though we may hate the opposition in regards to art, we at least have to respect it and not take anything <i>too</i> personally... I expect that opinions will be taken <i>a little</i> personally - after all, opinions are extensions of ourselves - but it's the opinion that should be "attacked," not the person holding it.

[Alan Coil]

I haven't read Catwoman, so I won't comment on the art in that book.

In general, I think that there is more horrid and downright ugly art in comics these days than there ever was in the past. Comic book sales are way down from what they were 10 years ago. I can't help but think that there is a connection.

As to some of the artists mentioned here, I like Kirby, Ditko, Timm, Allred; I like Gulacy when he has the right inker.

[AnimalMan#1-26]

Bruce Timm has had really interesting things to say on this topic. I liked his comments in Comicology #1 about Alex Ross needing to get rid of his damned camera.

Comic art is about expressive storytelling, and some of the cartoony guys do it better than anyone--

Dick Sprang, Will Eisner, Milt Canniff, Darwyn Cooke (etc), Peter Bagge, Kyle Baker, Sergio Aragones, etc are good for a helluva lot more than drawing Power Puff girls....

[AnimalMan#1-26]

Originally posted by Alan Coil

In general, I think that there is more horrid and downright ugly art in comics these days than there ever was in the past..
You seem to forget the period when everyone in comics decided to try to emulate Rob Liefeld. One of the saddest things I ever saw in comics was the super-talented Shawn McManus ghosting a Liefeld book (credited ghosting of course, but still drawing in Liefeld's style). Or how about John Byrne trying to be trendy by adding random crosshatching to his Next Men inks? Or Erik Larsen making Peter Parker look like and elf and MJ look like some Frankenstein monster of overdone plastic surgery? Or Jim Valentino managing to take everything bad about early nineties comics and distilling it into one comic, Shadowhawk (bad art, weak story, bad scripting and dialogue, obnoxious coloring, stock villiians in silly costumes, aroma of racism in portrayal of black criminals and overall attitude towards crime, glorification of extreme violence, etc.) Or Jim Lee turning from a good penciller into a bad pinup artist halfway through his Uncany run and suddenly getting megapopular as a result? C'mon...Mainstream comics art today is 1000 times better than 10 years ago.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by AnimalMan#1-26
You seem to forget the period when everyone in comics decided to try to emulate Rob Liefeld. One of the saddest things I ever saw in comics was the super-talented Shawn McManus ghosting a Liefeld book (credited ghosting of course, but still drawing in Liefeld's style). Or how about John Byrne trying to be trendy by adding random crosshatching to his Next Men inks? Or Erik Larsen making Peter Parker look like and elf and MJ look like some Frankenstein monster of overdone plastic surgery? Or Jim Valentino managing to take everything bad about early nineties comics and distilling it into one comic, Shadowhawk (bad art, weak story, bad scripting and dialogue, obnoxious coloring, stock villiians in silly costumes, aroma of racism in portrayal of black criminals and overall attitude towards crime, glorification of extreme violence, etc.) Or Jim Lee turning from a good penciller into a bad pinup artist halfway through his Uncany run and suddenly getting megapopular as a result? C'mon...Mainstream comics art today is 1000 times better than 10 years ago.

Amen brother. 2000% agreed.

[Rod Odom]

Or how about John Byrne trying to be trendy by adding random crosshatching to his Next Men inks?

That's untrue. Byrne's style is almost minimalist, he makes every line count - which gets him into trouble with the "more detail is better" crowd. The "random crosshatching" you are referring to is probably some sort of rough texture he was trying to convey.

[Rod Odom]

Ever heard of the addage that the comic book industry never takes care of its own? I suppose this thread exposes the other side of that coin: the fans never take care of its own. The eagerness to tear down the work of Paul Gulacy, one of comics' most distinctive and accomplished artists is shameful. One can only imagine Cooke being tossed aside by us fans one day even if he is producing the best work of his career.

[Tenzel Kim]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
I suppose this thread exposes the other side of that coin: the fans never take care of its own. The eagerness to tear down the work of Paul Gulacy, one of comics' most distinctive and accomplished artists is shameful.

You must be seeing something I'm not. Yes, there have been a few posts that "tear down the work of Paul Gulacy" but for the most part this thread has actually been about not tearing down the "cartoony" artists' work.

Originally posted by Rod Odom
One can only imagine Cooke being tossed aside by us fans one day even if he is producing the best work of his career.

So you're saying that Gulacy's art on Catwoman is some of the best of his career? I guess that's your prerogative but personally I don't see that. His art on Master of Kung Fu was in my opinion at least a lot better than the work he has been producing lately. Not that I'm going to say that it is bad but I just don't think it fits the tone of the current Catwoman series. Just because someone has produced some very spectacular work over the years it doesn't mean that they can't have hit their peak and that the work they are now producing is less than stellar.

Tenz.

[Tenzel Kim]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
Agree totally, I think that a lot of "detail" artists overcompensate with "bells and whistles" to overcome a lot of basic storytelling deficiencies. I'd take a good Allred, Cooke, Rader, or Skottie Young over a bad George Perez clone like Phil Jiminez, even tho Jiminez is a very realistic illustrator. Their stuff just crackles with energy and a great understanding of basic storytelling.

I'm not sure that I agree that a lot of the "detail" artists "overcompensate with "bells and whistles" to overcome a lot of basic storytelling deficiencies". I guess it comes down to what kind of book you want to be reading. The bells and whistles type of storytelling defenitely has it's place in the superhero genre as the larger than life art in many ways embodies the superhero fantacy (if that makes any sense). The "simplistic" style of artists such as Cooke, Allred, Toth and so on look extremely easy to do but is anything but (at least when done right) and that turns a lot of people away from it believing it to be "too childish".

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
I think a lot of the "cartoony" hang-ups people have are because they're a little embarassed to be reading comics as adults, and having the art look more realistic and "grown-up" helps justify their maintaining this habit.

I think that might be very true. What I personally find very interesting is that when you show some of these supposedly "realistic" comics to a non-comic reading adult he'd most likely find them to be anything but realistic whereas the "cartoony" art will be a lot easier for them to relate to and accept as an artform and not just something for kids. The "cartoony" artists' (boy, I hate that term) strong focus on the pacing and emotional expressions make them very easy to relate to and the simplicity makes the stories stand out in a way that is harder to do if you do the more detailed art as that takes your attention away from the story and into the art. The "cartoony" art has to compliment the story very closely or it all falls apart whereas the detailed art has an easier time of hiding a mediocre story.

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
I don't have a "realistic "or "cartoony" preference, or an "American" or "Manga" preference, just a "good" over "bad" preference. I like art I find to be good, regardless of what other categories it falls in.

Me too, which is why I won't say that "cartoony" art is better than "detailed" art. Both styles have it's own forces and weaknesses and in the end it all boils down to the kind of story you want to tell which style would be best suited.

Tenz.

[Jason Seaver]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
The eagerness to tear down the work of Paul Gulacy, one of comics' most distinctive and accomplished artists is shameful.[/B]
I don't so much see people running down Gulacy's work, although I doubt Catwoman is among his best (he did the recent Master of Kung Fu mini, right? Liked that). It's anger at the idea that his style is inherently better than that of Stewart and the other "simple" artists who drew the first 24 issues of the series.

[Rich Johnston]

I feel cartoony art can often totally suit a more serious tone of writing.

Take Love And Rockets. It looks like Archie.

Or Hate. Of the use of juxtaposition in Jimmy Corrigan.

In fact that's a fantastic example. A cartoony, less "serious" style can often mine the depths of pathos far more effectively than otherwise... a photo realistic style, that would destroy that book.

[AnimalMan#1-26]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
That's untrue. Byrne's style is almost minimalist, he makes every line count - which gets him into trouble with the "more detail is better" crowd. The "random crosshatching" you are referring to is probably some sort of rough texture he was trying to convey.

Umm... have you read John Byrne's Next Men #5?

[AnimalMan#1-26]

Y'know this column is a really good plug for Scott McCloud's Understanding COmics, because it illustrates the sort of things people say when the haven't read it.

According to the logic of this article JLA/Avengers is a more serious comic than Maus...

And I guess Ted Rall's graphic novels are pretty much on the level of Casper the Friendly Ghost?

And Osamu Tezuka's Phoenix is on the same level as comics adaptatons of Pokemon?

Does this also make Renaissance artists more serious artists than impressionists?

Sorry, didn't mean to be so caustic, but it riles me to see great artists belittled.

Some of my favorite comics were drawn by cartoony guys like Chas Truog and Mike Parobeck.

[Rod Odom]

Originally posted by AnimalMan#1-26
Umm... have you read John Byrne's Next Men #5?

The one where the protagonists find the huge pit of human remains? I'd say the art was appropriate for the horrific subject matter. Any other books you have in mind?

[Redmond]

To each their own, but I don't find his art realistic.

[Rod Odom]

It's anger at the idea that his style is inherently better than that of Stewart and the other "simple" artists who drew the first 24 issues of the series.

If that is the case then please give Gulacy a chance on the book, folks. The alternative is to bring in one artist after another to duplicate Cooke's style, which would be a mistake, no matter how good that style is.

Instead of kicking DC, Gulacy and the Catwoman creative team in the teeth, let's identify the real provocateur, Mr. Sangiacomo. This guy is not a fan, journalist, or professional, but a flame-baiting troll. Go after him for goodness sake.

[TDerenick]

I think Mike's point may have been slightly obscurred by his personal taste.
Me personally, it's not about whether a style is cartoony or realistic so much as it is about whether it's good or bad. My personal taste tends to veer more towards the realistic, if you look at my art style you can see that, but I don't have a problem with cartoony styles if they're done well. A good example of this on both ends for me is Ed McGuiness. When he was working on Superman I didn't like his stuff that much, something about the way he exaggerated his figures rubbed me the wrong way and would take me out of the story. I thought his characters all looked like balloon animals. He went away for a little while on Thundercats and when he came back on Superman/Batman he reigned it in a bit and his work doesn't bother me anymore, I kinda like it now.
Joe Mad and J Scott Campbell are two others that are very cool cartoony but they don't crossed that line of being distracting from the story. They know exactly what they're doing with their styles and are very enjoyable to look at.
On the other hand I've seen realistic style that I think look horrible and can detract from the story the writer is trying to tell just as easily as a bad cartoony style can.
Cartoony styles are just as difficult to do as realistic style are, don't let anyone tell you they aren't. Every little mistake in a style with simplier linework will scream out like a siren. That's why you'll see a lot of artists with simplier style be just as slow if not slower than the realistic ones. They have to be more careful not to make mistakes because the linework won't hide anything.
The real issue isn't about whether the artist is realistic or cartoony it about whether he or she isn't skilled enough at what they're doing or they do something stylistically that is so jarring that it takes the reader out of the story. Again though alot of it can depend on the individual readers taste in art and their ability to forgive some of these errors. Art is subjective, no one's opinion is right and no one's is wrong and there is no such thing as a happy medium. You either like it or you don't and that's your right.
If we tried to turn all the art in this medium in one direction this would be a very boring industry and the last thing you want in an industry trying to recover from near disaster is to be boring. We need something for alll not all for one taste. We'd never stand a chance doing that. Just my opinion.

Talk at ya later

Tom Derenick

[Rod Odom]

To add: I really like Cooke's style, and enjoyed his Catwoman graphic novel. I look forward to his New Frontier books.

[Erik K]

Dammit, I love Darwyn Cooke. I picked up the first four issues of the new series for his art, and found the story pretty good too. I left when he did.

But I loved his take. Normal sized breasts and a not a Jennifer Lopez style butt in skintight purple. Now it looks like Gulacy is backsliding, with the breasts more bulbous and separated (which wouldn't happen with real leather).

So frankly, I find the new stuff more "cartoony" in it's much less realistic depiction of a female character.

I'd have to say this column really missed the boat. I guess he'd rather see Gulacy doing Powers, too, since Avon is so cartoony.

[shakey]

Human Target works as well with Cliff Chiang and Javier Pulido as it did with Edvin Biukovic.

I'm sure the same is true of Gulacy on Catwoman . Gulacy draws amazing hot babes in catsuits , but haven't we seen this type of Catwoman for 60 years?

What will Mike say when cartoony Darwyn Cooke rocks the world with 2004's New Frontier series? He's a genius .

It's all good, people.

[Cray_ws]

Mike,

As proffesional, you just openned a can of worms by expressing such ignorant comment. Too bad, because when guys like Cameron Stewart, Darwyn Cooke, Brad Rader, Bruce Timm, Weiringo, and more who may like Phantom Jack and would like to work on the character, they won't bother contacting you knowing that you don't think too highly of their cartoony style.

So I guess this answers the question of what kind of artist we'll never see on Phantom Jack.

[WebHobbit]

:D

This IS most unusual. Seems I agree with the guy whoe wrote the article and disagree with all of the replies to the thread!

BTW, I hate Ditko, Cooke, etc. but I always loved Kirby.

[shrugs]


Go figure.

[choclitthunder]

when cameron stewart was on this title and hitting on all cylinders it was my favorite art in comics. i like the simplified art style, and i think a 'cartoonier' style makes an interesting balance with a gritty writing style.

and no offense to the man, but i don't like gulacy's artwork. this was in my top three comics, but i stopped buying it when gulacy came on.

[L'Zoril]

Has anyone noticed that Mike hasn't posted? He usually posts replies constantly in his other articles. What happened here?

[Rod Odom]

Gulacy draws amazing hot babes in catsuits , but haven't we seen this type of Catwoman for 60 years?


Paul Gulacy's Catwoman is in the same costume as Cooke's redesign, anyways. Visually it's the same version. And the same great writer is still on the book, so what's there to gripe about?

Is the only way to appease you guys to get another artist to ape Cooke's and Stewarts's style? Is that any kind of way to get the best work out of an artist? What then if that artists leaves? When did cookie cutter become the vogue?

[Frans Blix]

For what it's worth, Mike, I can see where you're coming. :cool: Boy, did these guys take your bait or what?

I liked the previous art style on Catwoman, but I wasn't as attached to it as some folks. The only artist I really, really enjoyed was Cam Stewart, so bringing in a fifth artist to do the "cartoony" art style wasn't going to suffice for me. I thought Gulacy's first issue was okay, but I think it'll improve.

[pmginn]

Originally posted by TDerenick

The real issue isn't about whether the artist is realistic or cartoony it about whether he or she isn't skilled enough at what they're doing or they do something stylistically that is so jarring that it takes the reader out of the story.


Well put, sir.

Views on artistic merit are always debatable, as art as I see it is, again, both objective <i>and</i> subjective (that's <i>my</i> opinion). Art is difficult to define, especially nowadays where the line between art and simple product are more hazy than ever.

Craftsmanship, however, while still debatable, is easier to pinpoint (though not exactly) in regards to whether the result works or doesn't work. Some examples of craftsmanship are obviously detrimental to the story, others are obviously complimentary to the story, whereas others are somewhere in between. Those examples that lie inbetween only get better (or worse) by learning or dismissing the critique offered to them.

It's obvious that neither artist is 100% supported by readers in terms of both art <i>and</i> craftsmanship. So I ask: considering Brubaker's writing style on Catwoman, what <i>would</i> be the perfect art-style for the book? Who would deliver it?

I challenge anyone to come up with a style or artist that would be 100% supported.

I don't think anyone will be able to come up with an answer, because there will always be <i>something</i> that someone doesn't like.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by Tenzel Kim
I'm not sure that I agree that a lot of the "detail" artists "overcompensate with "bells and whistles" to overcome a lot of basic storytelling deficiencies". I guess it comes down to what kind of book you want to be reading. The bells and whistles type of storytelling defenitely has it's place in the superhero genre as the larger than life art in many ways embodies the superhero fantacy (if that makes any sense). The "simplistic" style of artists such as Cooke, Allred, Toth and so on look extremely easy to do but is anything but (at least when done right) and that turns a lot of people away from it believing it to be "too childish".


I should clarify, I LIKE a lot of the ultra-detailed "bells and whistle" artists, but ONLY if they have their storytelling and anatomy foundations down, among other things. For example, George Perez, Frank Quitely, and Alex Maleev have tons of detail in their art, but I feel like they also know how to tell a story, realistically depict anatomy, convey action, choreograph fight scenes, show emotions on faces, and pace a comic.

A lot of other "bells and whistles" guys, like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Jiminez, draw lots of pretty detailed pin-up pictures that I find static and boring. They lack energy and soul, even though McFarlane will have every last leaf of the tree Spidey is in or Lee will show every least detail of the treads on the bottom of Batman's boots every other panel. THESE are the kind of guys I was referring to when talking about bells and whistles. Jim and Todd keep the page busy and cluttered and overdetail EVERYTHING to hide a lot of their basic deficiencies or their reliance on stock poses. Jiminez is a soulless Perez to me, all the detail but none of the energy, quiet emotion, or white-knuckled action that Perez can do.

I'm not trying to indict "realistic" artists as a whole, any more than I'm trying to praise "cartoony" artists as a whole either. As I'm sure you agree, there are examples of geniuses and hacks in BOTH categories.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by Tenzel Kim
Me too, which is why I won't say that "cartoony" art is better than "detailed" art. Both styles have it's own forces and weaknesses and in the end it all boils down to the kind of story you want to tell which style would be best suited.

Tenz.

Totally agree here.

[AnimalMan#1-26]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles

A lot of other "bells and whistles" guys, like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Jiminez, draw lots of pretty detailed pin-up pictures that I find static and boring. They lack energy and soul, even though McFarlane will have every last leaf of the tree Spidey is in or Lee will show every least detail of the treads on the bottom of Batman's boots every other panel.


Lee and particularly McFarlane really don't draw in as much detail as folks seem to think. They just throw down a lot of lines on the page that make panels look cluttered and give the ILLUSION of detail-- McFarlane has pretty much admitted this in interviews (Wizard #1 for example).

In fact the Image era artists notably cut corners on fully drawing pesky things like drawing fingers if you actually examine their work.

[Tenzel Kim]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
A lot of other "bells and whistles" guys, like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Jiminez, draw lots of pretty detailed pin-up pictures that I find static and boring. They lack energy and soul, even though McFarlane will have every last leaf of the tree Spidey is in or Lee will show every least detail of the treads on the bottom of Batman's boots every other panel. THESE are the kind of guys I was referring to when talking about bells and whistles. Jim and Todd keep the page busy and cluttered and overdetail EVERYTHING to hide a lot of their basic deficiencies or their reliance on stock poses. Jiminez is a soulless Perez to me, all the detail but none of the energy, quiet emotion, or white-knuckled action that Perez can do.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. When I objected to our Perez-clone comment it was because I think that Jiminez while still being very influenced by Perez has moved beyond being a mere clone. I do agree that his style is very devoid of life and seems very static. As for Lee I've seen him do some stuff here and there that are quite good but unfortunately most of the times he seem to go for the grand poses instead of concentrating on the storytelling element. And while his style is very much his own many of his poses reminds me too much of great poses by some of the great artists of the 70s put together to form a book often at the cost of disrupting the pacing of the story.

Unfortunately a lot of the 90s generation of artists have that problem. The pin-up style of their art makes the pacing suffer but as long as it looks good people are soaked into the picture anyway so you won't notice as much as you would have if the artist hadn't had some talent.

A lot of the "cartoony" artists have a background in animation which means they are very much focused on the storytelling element which in my opinion really shows when you have a good "cartoony" artist as it really makes the story shine. However, just as there are good artists of that type there are also bad artists. It can be harder to notice whether or not a cartoony artist is good or bad on first look because of the "simplistic" art, but once you read the story it will become obvious very quickly whether or not he is good based on how the art plays of on the story. Then again I guess the same can be said for the "realistic" artists. They can be great pin-up artists but whether or not they are really good comic book artists depend on their storytelling abilities.

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
I'm not trying to indict "realistic" artists as a whole, any more than I'm trying to praise "cartoony" artists as a whole either. As I'm sure you agree, there are examples of geniuses and hacks in BOTH categories.

No doubt about that.

Tenz.

[Nick Wyche]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
Paul Gulacy's Catwoman is in the same costume as Cooke's redesign, anyways. Visually it's the same version. And the same great writer is still on the book, so what's there to gripe about?

Is the only way to appease you guys to get another artist to ape Cooke's and Stewarts's style? Is that any kind of way to get the best work out of an artist? What then if that artists leaves? When did cookie cutter become the vogue?

Two things:
1.) There is NOTHING the same, visually, between Gulacy's work and the artists who came before. The only thing they have in common is they both use pencils and bristol board. Costuming of characters is not what this discussion has been about. It's about an artistic aesthetic that has been completely abandoned by the placing of Gulacy on the title.

2.) You really don't get the point if you're thinking that all those of us who are complaining want is a Cooke or Stewart clone. Cooke and Stewart were each uniquely different from the other. Javier Pulido was wildly different from either Cooke or Stewart. Clones are not what we're talking about. A shared aesthetic is what we're talking about. There are plenty of other artists available who share the same aesthetic that has been established on this title. Finding one of them to take it on would have been wonderful and it would have been a continuation of the visual strength of the title.

My preference would have been for someone like Nick Derington, Jason Bone, Brian Hurtt, Christine Norrie, or Becky Cloonan to have taken over. None of them are clones of the previous artists, just artists that share a similar vision.

[jawaplumber]

Just thought I should reiterate that the main problem with Mike's comments isn't his support of Paul Gulacy or a more "realistic" style of comic book art. Paul Gulacy is a talented artist and is more than deserving to be working on CATWOMAN. What I personally felt was offensive about Mike's comments regarding the artwork of the previous artists on CATWOMAN (along with HUMAN TORCH artist Skottie Young), as well as his statement about the "truer picture of what comics are all about". I'm sorry, but that was a show of pure and utter ignorance. You can like and/or prefer whichever style you wish, but to not recognize the talent and intentions of artists whose style Mike claims should only be reserved for the animation tie-in series, when Mike is supposed to be a professional and been around comics for a long period of time...that's just a damn shame.

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by Frans Blix
For what it's worth, Mike, I can see where you're coming. :cool: Boy, did these guys take your bait or what?


If this was just a bait for argument, I'll never read another column by San Giacomo ever again. If I wanted Jess Lemon, I'd go to the fucking Pulse.

[Frans Blix]

Hope I didn't imply that the column topic itself was bait. But just look at his last two graphs; he expected some vehement dissent, and he was right.

[MichaelCoughlin]

Wow, there is some serious "seething" anger being let out right now.

I never read Catwoman, so I can't comment on that part of the article. But I DO agree that sometimes art just doesn't match a story. Remember NXM when they had a dozen different artists on all the issues? It was jarring and completely different from issue to issue, and really ruined some of those stories. I think the most important thing is consistancy. USM is great, because freaking Bagley apparently doesn't have a life and can just crank issues out left and right.

Regarding the "simple" comment, I understand that to a degree as well. For the general public, if they pick up a copy of Ultimates and Powers, they'll think that Ultimates is a million times better from an art POV. Even though Powers is freaking brilliant from a storytelling POV, people associate that style with cartoon shows, and cartoon shows are associated with children. I agree that the ultra simplistic style can be incredibly difficult to draw, but very rewarding to read, but it's probably a turn off for a new reader.

For me, it's all about the tone of the book. Daredevil is perfect, because Maleev's style is right on. Same with USM and Bagley, it's a fun book, and that's a fun art style. For darker, crittier charecters, the more "classic" styles are, possibly in general, more "appropriate". Powers works because, well, I think that's al I've ever known it too look like. But I'm not sure if I'd take well to Oeming's stuff on DD, even though Powers and DD have a similar overall tone.

[d. emerson eddy]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
I agree that the ultra simplistic style can be incredibly difficult to draw, but very rewarding to read, but it's probably a turn off for a new reader.

Why? What's the argument for hyper-rendered "realistic" art being more accessible than simple line work?

Is it the fact that manga is currently outselling North American comics by a margin of at least 5 to 1? No, wait, that can't be it, manga's often more simplistic -- and even in black and white, gosh! -- than superhero comics. Is it that cartoons are filled with hyper-realised anatomies, that Disney is taking lessons from Alex Ross in its animation? Er...no, guess not. Is it because magazine illustrations all feature giant muscular he-men and buxom women in fetish gear? Wait, don't artists like Seth, Adrian Tomine, and both Hanuka brothers do illustration work for magazines like the New Yorker? I suppose that isn't it either.

Why is it that a simpler art style will be a turn off to new readers? It seems as though the only people it's turning off are those of the hardcore "gotta buy the next issue of Incredibly-Stupendous Man!" variety.

[mikesang]

Originally posted by d. emerson eddy
Why? What's the argument for hyper-rendered "realistic" art being more accessible than simple line work?

.
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE
Ah, the voice of dissent.
See, this is what's great about comics, you don't have to agree with one guy's opinion. I think it's fantastic that so many people love the simple art and so many love realistic art. There's something for everyone out there.
Merry Christmas to all.
M

[saiyanspider]

Well, I like both styles, and I'm not closed minded enough to only like one style, , thats all I have to say on that subject.


All this aside this new guy sucks. I don't like his particular style, Catwoman looks like the 14 year old kid who was getting all cozy with Micheal Jackson in that interview special a while back.

I like to judge my artists as they come, I don't lump them into categories

[Hdefined]

I want to point out Steve Skroce as an artist whose style seems to have become less realistic and more exaggerated (read, if you'd like, "cartoony") but his storytelling abilities evolved tremendously at the same time.

Jeff Smith, creator of Bone, has proven within Bone's pages that he can render both cartoony and realistic.

Derenick was right, though, in that it really comes down to the artist's ability to tell a story. I recently picked up the World's Finest miniseries from 1990, illustrated by Steve Rude. Nothing was particularly flashy about the artwork, but I just gaped at the first 6 or so pages in awe of how well they depicted the story and couldn't help but think "Damn this guy's good".

I've gotten a little tired with Alex Ross' big projects, but I think he's grown a bit as a storyteller too.

[newarrior]

Wow, I could not disagree more with the original article.

Oh well, to each his own, I supose.

[Dragonhead]

How are you qualified to write these kind of op. pieces. Back your shit up. Do you feel unrealistic artists should only be relagated to animated books for kids? To mention the Power Puff Girls as an example is so rude and ignorant. Do you just see things in black in white. One only needs a comic to support my point. Artist are there to serve the story. And that is it. The best make it something memorable, the worst make it unreadable. Maybe Gulacy will work, I haven't read it yet, but you, a so called comic critic with your blinders on, knows whats best for us. In my opinion, today it's so easy to be realistic with the advent of the digital camera and Photoshop. Anyone can create realistic art today. Pose and trace your photos. I can name a few comics where I can pick out the exact photo or movie still they have referanced. If I wanted that I should go see the movie. For me the whole point of comic"books"( not still framed movies), is to create a reality where your imagination plays an important part. Look at the shining examples of comics. The ones the real critics bestow as the greatest. The Darknight Returns, Batman YearOne, classic Kirby, Calvin and Hobbes, and Maus. All Cartoony. This is supporting my arguement. Something you should try if you want to win understanding.

[Rod Odom]

You really don't get the point if you're thinking that all those of us who are complaining want is a Cooke or Stewart clone. Cooke and Stewart were each uniquely different from the other. Javier Pulido was wildly different from either Cooke or Stewart. Clones are not what we're talking about. A shared aesthetic is what we're talking about.

Point taken, I did miss that. A new visual aesthetic has been introduced into a comic book, and why is that important? This happens with almost every book DC or Marvel produces, the nature of the beast. It's about creative people telling entertaining stories from month to month, SERIALIZED PULP FICTION with all its flaws and irregularites, not a seamless, monolithic work like some kind of comic version of Tolstoy's War and Peace.

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by d. emerson eddy
Why? What's the argument for hyper-rendered "realistic" art being more accessible than simple line work?

Is it the fact that manga is currently outselling North American comics by a margin of at least 5 to 1? No, wait, that can't be it, manga's often more simplistic -- and even in black and white, gosh! -- than superhero comics. Is it that cartoons are filled with hyper-realised anatomies, that Disney is taking lessons from Alex Ross in its animation? Er...no, guess not. Is it because magazine illustrations all feature giant muscular he-men and buxom women in fetish gear? Wait, don't artists like Seth, Adrian Tomine, and both Hanuka brothers do illustration work for magazines like the New Yorker? I suppose that isn't it either.

Why is it that a simpler art style will be a turn off to new readers? It seems as though the only people it's turning off are those of the hardcore "gotta buy the next issue of Incredibly-Stupendous Man!" variety.

Who is Disney selling anything too? It's kids. Are there any animated movies that do well, that aren't predominantly for kids? Look at Europe, where comics are more mainstream. I'm no expert, but I see a more "realistic" style than "simple" style over there.

While it's fine that Seth, Adrian Tomine, and both Hanuka brothers (of whom I confess I've never heard of a single one) do illustration for the New Yorker, the counter is that Alex Ross does illustrations for almost everyone, including the poster for the Academy Awards.

I think using Manga as an example is unfair. Every other day, people decry how Manga is so much more than just the way it's drawn, that it's more about pacing and stories, etc... So what is it? Are people drawn towards Manga because of the way it looks, or because of something else? Perhaps, and I know this is a longshot, it's because Manga is "hot" right now. Whether it's a fad, or something here to stay, has yet to be seen. But hell, 10 years ago, the more "realistic" (comparitively) style of comic books ushered in an unheard of boom period that lead to more money than people knew what to do with. Is that proof that the more "realistic' style works better?

[Rod Odom]

See, this is what's great about comics, you don't have to agree with one guy's opinion. I think it's fantastic that so many people love the simple art and so many love realistic art. There's something for everyone out there.

It's good to get somebody else's work beat up for your own insensitive blatherings. A lot of attention at no cost to yourself. Yellow journalism at it's finest.

[wrongrobot]

That didn't even sound like Mike.
It wasn't proofread.
It was blatantly inflammatory.
It was amateurish and subjective.

So, either it wasn't Mike;
Or it was Mike trying to prove a point;
Or it was Mike...drunk?

Did everyone who read this take it so seriously? I'm supposed to believe this Newsarama columnist doesn't grasp the nuances of caricature, simplification, and grace in the streamlined style of these post-Toth illustrators? AND simultaneously lost his basic writing skills?

Good one!

[d. emerson eddy]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Who is Disney selling anything too? It's kids. Are there any animated movies that do well, that aren't predominantly for kids?

Not just kids, Disney is selling their animated films to everyone.

Counter this, though, to whom is Disney marketing its Disney Treasures DVDs? Not to kids. The "collectible" tin and lithograph, the archival nature of the shorts, the comments from Leonard Maltin -- smaltzy as they may be -- and the interviews with the voice actors. Who is the target market of these old cartoons? Adults.

Look at Europe, where comics are more mainstream. I'm no expert, but I see a more "realistic" style than "simple" style over there.

Lewis Trondheim and Herge. Two of the largest in Europe, Trondheim thankfully still gifting us with his genius, while we can always remember Herge for his revelations in Tintin are a far cry from "realistic". The Quest for Aberzen -- soon to be translated and published in English by iBooks -- is one of the highest selling phenomena across Europe at the moment...and it's a "funny animal" book.

While it's fine that Seth, Adrian Tomine, and both Hanuka brothers (of whom I confess I've never heard of a single one) do illustration for the New Yorker, the counter is that Alex Ross does illustrations for almost everyone, including the poster for the Academy Awards.

Seth does Palookaville for Drawn & Quarterly -- along with recently doing chapter breaks and covers for Stuart McLean's wonderful book Vinal Cafe Diaries, other book covers, and is currently designing the look for the forthcoming Peanuts collections from Fantagraphics -- Adrian Tomine produces Optic Nerve (again for Drawn & Quarterly), and the Hanuka brothers do their own respective tales in Bipolar from Alternative Comics.

...and Alex Ross is of course a natural extension of the over-rendered "realistic" style carried on by the likes of Jim Lee? Come on. Ross has his influence from Neal Adams, but a static, single painting is a far cry from the infiltration of simple line illustrations in everything from your newspaper to your web browser.

But hell, 10 years ago, the more "realistic" (comparitively) style of comic books ushered in an unheard of boom period that lead to more money than people knew what to do with. Is that proof that the more "realistic' style works better?

Using the speculator "boom" as a positive premise in your argument is specious at best. What about the "bust" that quickly followed -- when the market was saturated in all of these so-called "realistic" artists? Shouldn't it have flourished under your model, bringing in all those new readers?

[OcCaM]

Originally posted by G Dog


And I think it is ridiculous when peopel won't even give an artist a chance because his art is "cartoony".

The funniest thing to me is that one of the most respected comic book artists of all time is Jack Kirby. Everyone praises the hell out of his work, but some of these are the same people who bash Darwyn Cooke, Bruce Timm et al for being to cartoony.

Could these people take action seriously when Kirby did it?

Do these people bitch about Mike Mignola's art on Hellboy?

Couple or three or so things.

1) It's my money I'll waste it on what I want, so I think it's ridiculous that you think people should buy what YOU like!

2) Cartoony artwork is fine for stuff like PowerPuff Girls, or Mike Kunkel's, "HeroBear and the Kid" because I don't take them seriously. Sure, I can enjoy looking at the artwork for the early issues of Catwoman but I"ll not appreciate or take the work seriously, won't happen! (Might as well draw stick figures in my opinion!)

3) I agree that people who bash Timm etc. should not be praising people like Ditko and Kirby. Personally, I don't want any of them on superheroes. I grew up around the Perez was drawing era in the 70's so I guess I'm spoiled. Probably what we grow up to appreciate, I'm sure kids today think that God-awfully drawn Teen Titans cartoon looks fine! :)


4) Oh yeh almost forgot I'm not very fond of Mignola's artwork. The first time I bought into his "world" was with the three one-shots of B.R.P.D. Oddly enough though I do love Guy Davis' artwork. Probably because while it is "cartoony" it's also very detailed and the quirky character expressions he draws are priceless! So, I'm very much looking forward to the Guy Davis drawn B.R.P.D. mini-series in March! GO DAVIS!

Finally, in general, Mike is right about the cartoony artwork being less than the detailed realistic artwork. In terms of time and work definately. How could anyone argue that the third cover to JLA/Avengers would take infinitely less time to draw if he did it in a style like Timm's or Paul Dini's? Now, if he's implying the cartoony styles have no artistic merit or they aren't a valid style, then he's dead wrong! It's just subjective which is better and miore valid as far as that goes obviously.

I'll say though, I don't get why people would buy something like X-statix! Allred's art is so bland to me. Timm's I could see it has style, but Allred's? Ah well!

(There, I just have to get my Allred dig in wherever I can!)

(And yeh, I will add most artists who draw in a cartoony style without detail or lazier artists, not to be confused with bad artists!)

[Kerouac]

Personally, I would have preferred that DC keep the animated style of art on Catwoman, it was one of the things that attracted me to the book when first issue hit the stands. Frankly, I always found that the more light-hearted art and darker tone of the stories made for a really nice contrast; that is, the times when the book was brutally violent were made to seem moreso because of how up-tempo the art direction appears to be.

At the same time though, I can understand DC's decision to shift the artistic style to a more realistic one. It seemed that every time I tried to hook a new reader on the book (I'm a retailer), their complaint was that the art was "too cartoony." Mind you, if they could just shut up for two seconds and, God forbid, READ the book, they always loved it. But the simple fact is that it seems that a lot of people found the "childish" visual style to be a major stumbling block in their enjoyment of the book. And since sales on Catwoman could certainly be better, I can see why DC felt that a change was needed.

Anyway, I'm not about to drop the book. Whether or not I think Gulacy is an improvement (I don't, though it's nothing personal) won't have that big of an impact on my enjoying the book. Brubaker is still writing it and he's still one of the most consistently good writers in the industry. And if it turns out that DC is right and an artistic change is all it took to push the book's sales up, all the better.

Matt

[SAINT TY]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nick Wyche

2.) You really don't get the point if you're thinking that all those of us who are complaining want is a Cooke or Stewart clone. Cooke and Stewart were each uniquely different from the other. Javier Pulido was wildly different from either Cooke or Stewart. Clones are not what we're talking about. A shared aesthetic is what we're talking about. There are plenty of other artists available who share the same aesthetic that has been established on this title. Finding one of them to take it on would have been wonderful and it would have been a continuation of the visual strength of the title.




Thanx, Nick! You articulated this point so well & saved me the trouble! I agree completely.

[treble kicker]

I don't want to quibble with the well crafted points in this debate of detail vs simplicity in comic line work, but has anyone noticed the fact Gulacy has indeed a very cartoony look to his work? :rolleyes: Not very detailed of hyper realistic.

The opinon I would like to share is I have read Catwoman since the relaunch a couple of years ago. DC had very different artists apply their talents, though sometimes different, and ended all similar in the simplicity of the presentation. I grew accustomed to this (in as much as the fear of artist changes after 3 months because more of them cannot hold a run longer than such.) but it wasn't a detterant to drop the title. A change from that simple approach to the artwork to a more "detailed" look is unsettling. Does this mean I will drop the book? No. Ultimately a book drops out of my hands when the writer has nothing left to say or stops being inventive in the scripts, not necessarily when the art changes.

[kalorama]

No matter how often this argument is fought, it never seems to become any less misguided and off the mark.

To be certain, there is no qualitative relationship between the quality, value, or intellectual/emotional heft of a piece of art and how "realistc" or "cartoony" it is. The only people who actually believe there is are people who don't understand art.


Generally speaking the goal of most 2-D graphic art (posters, comics, ads, etc.) is to communicate something to the reader/viewer--a story, an idea, an emotion, a concept--something. How "good" or "bad" the art is is generally measured by how well it meets that goal.

As presented, the basic premise of Michael San Giacomo's article is that the "cartoony" art of Cooke/Stewart/Pulido failed, in his mind, to properly convey the moods and themes embedded in Brubaker's writing (ignoring, for now, the fact that Brubaker himself is on record as feeling strongly to the contrary). Fine. However, contrary to what San Giacomo wants us to believe, that failure to communicate has absolutely nothing to do with any inherant inability of "cartoony" art to convey those moods. It, quite simply, has everything to do with the fact that San Giacomo doesn't like cartoony art. And that dislike creates an automatic barrier between him and the work that effectively blocks all avenues of communication. It's not unlike how a well thought out, logically-constructed, thoughtfully- articulated political argument sounds like the screeching of a stuck weasel when it's deliverd by someone whose politics you know you despise.

So all this piece really tells us is that Michael San Giacomo doesn't like "cartoony" art. Which is fine and his right. And as an expression of his tastes it gets its point across (although one can reasonably wonder why he felt the need to write an article to express this dislike). But as a statement on the qualitative value of "realistic" vs. "cartoony" art and the degree to which the latter can suitably convey the darker themes and moods most often associated with the former...?

Sorry, can't get there from here.

[Taylor Porter]

First, let me say that I have not read all the posts, and probably never will. I hate coming in when there's already three pages.


Second, I have to agree with jawa; Mike's comments on the "truer picture of what comics are all about" are ridiculous. I think comics are about all styles, not any particular one.


Third, I also agree with d. emerson eddy's comment when he said: "What's the argument for hyper-rendered 'realistic' art being more accessible than simple line work?" A lot of people seem to think that "realistic" artists like Jim Lee and Alex Ross are more likely to be taken seriously by non-fans than "cartoony" artists like Cameron Stewart, Kyle Baker or Mike Allred. I honestly have no idea why this assumption is made.

In fact, in my experience, the opposite is true. A lot of people I know read comics when they were younger, be they old Kirby Fantastic Fours or DeCarlo Archies or whatever. A lot of these people also closely associate comic books with comic strips and cartoons. So when I show them Alex Ross work and say "Isn't this realistic?" they sort of shrug and say "I guess, but it doesn't really look like a comic." In their minds, comics are supposed to be cartoony.

I honestly think that the average person on the street would find Stewart's art to be more accesible and appealing than Gulacy's.

[FAWSTIN]

I'd like to echo, in my own way, most of what's been written here.
I feel that simplicity, like honesty, is always the best policy for telling a story in pictures. In the sense that nothing is overdrawn and the storytelling is focused on just that, which takes more thought and effort than adding unecessary lines. Where one doesn't smell a phony whose trying to impress with draftsmanship, but instead is treated to work that is clear and direct in its singular purpose of telling a story as simply as one can. That being the case, an artists work is only as honest as he is.
The Master is Alex Toth, which most of the 'simple, cartoony' artists of today hold in the highest regard.
But there was also something about Toth's work and the work of his best predecessor's that smelled not quite of 'realism', but of Authenticity, a kind of stylized realism where all seemed energetic and alive without having to look so.
A style where everything is where it belongs, from anatomy to settings, but where the finished art is mainly focused on moving the story forward with as little clutter as possible.

PLUG:
My name is Bosch Fawstin and I have a graphic novel, Table for One, coming out on Feb. 25th, 2004. Alex Toth enjoyed the book enough to allow me to use his positive quotes for it.
For a five page (non-sequential) look at my book:
http://www.boschfawstin.com/

Thank you.

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by mikesang
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE
Ah, the voice of dissent.
See, this is what's great about comics, you don't have to agree with one guy's opinion. I think it's fantastic that so many people love the simple art and so many love realistic art. There's something for everyone out there.
Merry Christmas to all.
M

Merry Christmas, Mike...thanks for the cop out. You've been called out by a very large amount of people here, perhaps the largest number of Newsarama posters to ever nearly completely agree with each other, and you have no answer to their questions/opinions/comments/etc.. Why not address some of this? You wrote the initial article, you should back it up.

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by kalorama


As presented, the basic premise of Michael San Giacomo's article is that the "cartoony" art of Cooke/Stewart/Pulido failed, in his mind, to properly convey the moods and themes embedded in Brubaker's writing (ignoring, for now, the fact that Brubaker himself is on record as feeling strongly to the contrary). Fine. However, contrary to what San Giacomo wants us to believe, that failure to communicate has absolutely nothing to do with any inherant inability of "cartoony" art to convey those moods. It, quite simply, has everything to do with the fact that San Giacomo doesn't like cartoony art. And that dislike creates an automatic barrier between him and the work that effectively blocks all avenues of communication. It's not unlike how a well thought out, logically-constructed, thoughtfully- articulated political argument sounds like the screeching of a stuck weasel when it's deliverd by someone whose politics you know you despise.

So all this piece really tells us is that Michael San Giacomo doesn't like "cartoony" art. Which is fine and his right. And as an expression of his tastes it gets its point across (although one can reasonably wonder why he felt the need to write an article to express this dislike). But as a statement on the qualitative value of "realistic" vs. "cartoony" art and the degree to which the latter can suitably convey the darker themes and moods most often associated with the former...?

Sorry, can't get there from here.

Well said. I know plenty of people who dislike particular styles of art, but they are respectful and knowledgable enough to recognize the level of quality and talent possessed by those who employ those styles well.

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by MattBrady
That being said, I hope the Brubaker-Gulacy team stays around on Catwoman through the release of the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.

Yes. Please let everyone know that comics are all about ugly mediocrity.

Of course, anyone who likes that Catwoman movie probably has no taste, anyway.

[mathboy76]

Originally posted by Tenzel Kim
The "cartoony" artists' (boy, I hate that term)...

In "Understanding Comics," Scott McCloud uses the term "iconic" to describe what has been called "cartoony" art on this thread. He describes a continuum of comic art abstraction, with "realistic" at one end (represented by Neal Adams and Hal "Prince Valiant" Foster) and "iconic" at the other (represented by Herge's "Tintin" and Jeff Smith's "Bone").

One of his claims that supports the use of more iconic art is that it leaves more to the reader's imagination, which draws the reader more fully into the story. It's easy to see oneself as, say, Tintin, because Tintin is drawn in such an abstract manner. By contrast, it's harder to see oneself as Neal Adam's Batman since Adam's more realistic style makes it clear that Batman is a particular person -- one that is not you.

McCloud explains this much more clearly than I do, so I recommend his book to anyone interested in this thread!

(Also, McCloud doesn't claim that one style is better or worse than another -- he just describes the differences in styles very well.)

[OMAR]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
Merry Christmas, Mike...thanks for the cop out. You've been called out by a very large amount of people here, perhaps the largest number of Newsarama posters to ever nearly completely agree with each other, and you have no answer to their questions/opinions/comments/etc.. Why not address some of this? You wrote the initial article, you should back it up.

It's just another example of how bizarrely out of touch the Newsarama crew has been since the departure of Mike Doran. They need to either get him back or give up.

[Erik K]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
Paul Gulacy's Catwoman is in the same costume as Cooke's redesign, anyways. Visually it's the same version. And the same great writer is still on the book, so what's there to gripe about?

Is the only way to appease you guys to get another artist to ape Cooke's and Stewarts's style? Is that any kind of way to get the best work out of an artist? What then if that artists leaves? When did cookie cutter become the vogue?

Wow, I don't think anyone said this at all. The argument is about a more "cartoony" style versus a more "realistic" style (and as I've pointed out, there's nothing realistic in Gulacy's fetishization of Catwoman's breasts).

It's about Mike writing that one sort of art is more valid than another. Andthat is much more a call to cookie cutter art than anything I've read in these responses.

[Tenzel Kim]

Originally posted by mikesang
See, this is what's great about comics, you don't have to agree with one guy's opinion. I think it's fantastic that so many people love the simple art and so many love realistic art. There's something for everyone out there.

Nice. Your first comment and you manage to come down on "cartoony" art by calling it simple. Good "cartoony" art isn't simple. It is something a lot of the "realistic" artists would have a hard time to do as you have nothing to hide behind. You have to rely on your storytelling abilities a lot more than a "realistic" artist has. Cartoony art just demands something other from the artist than realistic art does. A realistic artist can add lots of details to the images that don't really have a lot of effect on the story other than the "fanboy" effect. I mean when Perez does something like JLA/Avengers a lot of what happens in the background doesn't have an effect on the story but as a fan of the superhero genre you find yourself emersed in the pictures looking for all sorts of small homages and so on and yes that can have an effect on whether or not you like the end product but it isn't really what makes the story good or bad. It is what makes you enjoy the visuals on a different level than if you had read a cartoon-style book.

And yes, art like what Perez is producing in that book does take longer than the art in Catwoman for instance but the level of detail doesn't neccesarily make it better. The cartoony art has an advantage over the realistic style when it comes to the general public as it is a lot easier for a reader to associate himself with the caracters done in the cartoony style than in the realistic style. The realistic art seen in most superhero comics actually alienates people more than the cartoony art but considering most of us as readers have grown accostomed to this style it is a lot easier for us to relate to. But then again most of us have started off on comics that were much more cartoony in style than the ones we read now.

In Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics he talks about cartooning as a form of "amplification through simplification" which I find to be very true. As he says in the book cartoony art is a matter of not so much eliminating detail as focusing on specific details. This simplification makes it easier for us to identify with the characters than when done in the realistic style. This is also the reason why if you look at a lot of European comics and Manga you'll find that while the backgrounds are often very detailed the characters aren't. They are stripped down to the bare essentials but still detailed enough not to look completely out of place in the stories. In this case the details seen in buildings, landscape, cars and so on actually help us enter the story so to speak as they are things we can easily recognize as what they are supposed to be. However, had the main characters been given the same level of detail you would not be able to place yourself inside the story the way you can when the characters are kept more simplistic or more universal if you want.

In my opinion this is why the cartoony art is an important part of the Catwoman comic. It puts you inside the story in a way it doesn't when it is done more realistic. With Gulacy on art chores we are no longer reading about "ourselves" or people that act much like people we know, but we are "just" reading of Catwoman, Slam and Holly.

A long rant. I hope some of it makes sense.

Tenz.

[WebHobbit]

Originally posted by Dragonhead
How are you qualified to write these kind of op. pieces. Back your shit up. Do you feel unrealistic artists should only be relagated to animated books for kids? To mention the Power Puff Girls as an example is so rude and ignorant. Do you just see things in black in white. One only needs a comic to support my point. Artist are there to serve the story. And that is it. The best make it something memorable, the worst make it unreadable. Maybe Gulacy will work, I haven't read it yet, but you, a so called comic critic with your blinders on, knows whats best for us. In my opinion, today it's so easy to be realistic with the advent of the digital camera and Photoshop. Anyone can create realistic art today. Pose and trace your photos. I can name a few comics where I can pick out the exact photo or movie still they have referanced. If I wanted that I should go see the movie. For me the whole point of comic"books"( not still framed movies), is to create a reality where your imagination plays an important part. Look at the shining examples of comics. The ones the real critics bestow as the greatest. The Darknight Returns, Batman YearOne, classic Kirby, Calvin and Hobbes, and Maus. All Cartoony. This is supporting my arguement. Something you should try if you want to win understanding.


One does NOT need (and really can't even use) "evidence" to back up an OP/ED piece. OP/ED is one's OPINION & not simply a matter of reporting facts like in a regular news story.

Heh, I was going to open this post with "the Lone Mike supporter bravely strode in to the forum" but then I read OcCaM's post and found that I was not completely alone!


:D

[Tenzel Kim]

Originally posted by mathboy76
McCloud explains this much more clearly than I do, so I recommend his book to anyone interested in this thread!

(Also, McCloud doesn't claim that one style is better or worse than another -- he just describes the differences in styles very well.)

And I totally agree with him. Funny how just as I posted my latest post in this thread I find your post mentioning some of the exact same things.

Tenz.

[Marc-Oliver Frisch]

Originally posted by MattBrady
I would prefer people who enjoy the film picking up a copy of the Gulacy illustrated work so they can get a truer picture of what comics are all about.


I'm not able to see a point in your column besides "I don't like cartoony artwork."

Which is perfectly fine, as tastes go, of course. To formulate a general idea of how comics should look based on that dislike, however, reveals a lack of perspective.

Kyle Baker's "cartoony" art on TRUTH, to pick an example, can be seen as being a perfect counterpoint to Robert Morales' rather serious story, probably doing a much better job to compliment and reflect on the tone of the book than a "realistic" penciler could have achieved.

The same could be said of Mike Allred's work on X-STATIX or, well, Darwyn Cooke's CATWOMAN.

--
Marc-Oliver Frisch

[ssava]

Hi guys...
Interesting thread Mike....I know you were aiming to stir up some pots...and so you did.

I wanted to give some insight as to how these things can happen....for good or bad.

When I got the Spidey gig 2 years ago....Axel Alonso and I talked about who would write my SPidey book....which was to be a Cartoony....All Ages book.
Since they didn't want Marv Wolfman to write it.....he tried to pick the most popular writer who was available to OFFSET my lack of popularity.
So....I got stuck with Greg Rucka.

Now...when I say STUCK....I mean that in a joking way....
Greg is a great writer....but for an all ages book....he admited himself...he just wasn't into it.

Now....on a SERIOUS book....with a different artist....the book could have been cool.

But since the project was given to me...and a writer was brought on to replace Marv....Axel had to do what he thought was best

But....instantly (well after the first 9 pages which I wrote and did the art for myself while waiting for a writer) people recognized this was a mismatch.

People were put off by the cartoony Spidey and the serious story.....and it wasn't fun for anyone.

What my point is.....

I believe it IS possible to have certain styles for certain artists....which may or may not clash with certain writer's styles.

Right or wrong....it DOES make a difference what style of art that goes with what style of writing....it needs to fit.

I haven't read the new Catwoman...so I don't have an opinion on it....but thought I'd lend my 2 cents to give insight on how it can go wrong.

Thanks
Scott

[Dave Farmer]

Bunch of newbie fanboys whining about who draws more cartoony and why Stewart is better than Gulacy. I love it. This enthusiasm, and energy (even negative energy) is what makes this a fun hobby. Adults can argue like children without being judged for the most part. Good times.
Now, for the record... Jack Kirby kicks all their asses and even the shriveled corpse Kirby hand drawing from post-mortem twitching is more dynamic than most artists today! And the corpse gives more profound quotes in interviews too.

[WebHobbit]

Kirby was truly the King.

[Erik K]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
One does NOT need (and really can't even use) "evidence" to back up an OP/ED piece. OP/ED is one's OPINION & not simply a matter of reporting facts like in a regular news story.
:D

Me, I go with Harlan Ellison, who says that people shouldn't be entitled to just an opinion, but to an INFORMED opinion. I didn't see one in the this Op/Ed.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
Ever heard of the addage that the comic book industry never takes care of its own? I suppose this thread exposes the other side of that coin: the fans never take care of its own. The eagerness to tear down the work of Paul Gulacy, one of comics' most distinctive and accomplished artists is shameful.

Honestly, I don't think this discussion has anything to do with Gulacy. It's just that he is in the unfortunate position of being the new, and completely contrasting in styles, artist on Catwoman and SO many people who loved the book loved it in large part due to the phenomenal art.

I personally like Paul Gulacy's art, at least when it is not inked by Jimmy Palmiotti. The reason I didn't even pick up Catwoman #25 was because of the Gulacy-inked-by-Palmiotti art on the Reload mini-series.

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
One does NOT need (and really can't even use) "evidence" to back up an OP/ED piece. OP/ED is one's OPINION & not simply a matter of reporting facts like in a regular news story.

OK. You know nothing about op-ed writing.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by pmginn
So I ask: considering Brubaker's writing style on Catwoman, what <i>would</i> be the perfect art-style for the book? Who would deliver it?

I challenge anyone to come up with a style or artist that would be 100% supported.

I'll address your challenge first: simply put, there is no artist in the business who would be 100% supported.


As to the question you asked: for me personally, the perfect art-style for the book is Cam Stewart's. No question in my mind.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Nick Wyche
My preference would have been for someone like Nick Derington, Jason Bone, Brian Hurtt, Christine Norrie, or Becky Cloonan to have taken over. None of them are clones of the previous artists, just artists that share a similar vision.

If Brian Hurtt took over the book, I'd be back on it in a second. And if Becky Cloonan took it over, I would punch out everyone at my local comic shop just so I could get the first copy of her first issue.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
For the general public, if they pick up a copy of Ultimates and Powers, they'll think that Ultimates is a million times better from an art POV.

Wow. I think this statement is about as ignorant as San Giacomo's. Why is it that you assome the "general public" only likes "realistic" art? Do people not realize that manga, in the "general public" far outsells any mainstream comic book on the market? Is manga art more "realistic" than what Darwyn Cooke and Cameron Stewart do?

I wish people would stp presuming to know what the general public "would" like "if" they read comics.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by wrongrobot
That didn't even sound like Mike.
It wasn't proofread.
...
It was amateurish and subjective.

That doesn't sound like Mike to you?

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by G Dog
That doesn't sound like Mike to you?

HAW!

[G Dog]

Originally posted by OcCaM
Finally, in general, Mike is right about the cartoony artwork being less than the detailed realistic artwork. In terms of time and work definately. How could anyone argue that the third cover to JLA/Avengers would take infinitely less time to draw if he did it in a style like Timm's or Paul Dini's?

Oh, so whether art is good or not should be based on how long it takes to draw it? John Romita Jr's art has as much line work as most artists, but he can kick out 24 issues a year (remember when he was doing both Amazing Spider-Man AND Incredible Hulk on a monthly basis?), but Darwyn Cooke will have been working on New Frontier for more than a year before the first issue even comes out, so his art obviously takes more time to do than Romita's. Does that make him better? Or how about Sean Phillips? His art is neither simple nr cartoony, buy he can do multiple pages a day. In fact, I read an interview with him where he said he can do a PAINTED page per day. And he is an AMAZING storyteller. But because he is comparitively quick, he is a lesser artist than Adam Kubert, who wasn't able to keep a monthly schedule on Ulimate X-Men?

This is more ridiculous that the ridiculous claims made by San Giacomo. I can't f**king BELIEVE that you could even pretend to equate time spent with quality.

Thanks for undermining your entire argument with this blatantly ignorant comment.

[Egg]

Originally posted by ssava
Hi guys...
Interesting thread Mike....I know you were aiming to stir up some pots...and so you did.

I wanted to give some insight as to how these things can happen....for good or bad.

When I got the Spidey gig 2 years ago....Axel Alonso and I talked about who would write my SPidey book....which was to be a Cartoony....All Ages book.
Since they didn't want Marv Wolfman to write it.....he tried to pick the most popular writer who was available to OFFSET my lack of popularity.
So....I got stuck with Greg Rucka.

Now...when I say STUCK....I mean that in a joking way....
Greg is a great writer....but for an all ages book....he admited himself...he just wasn't into it.

Now....on a SERIOUS book....with a different artist....the book could have been cool.

But since the project was given to me...and a writer was brought on to replace Marv....Axel had to do what he thought was best

But....instantly (well after the first 9 pages which I wrote and did the art for myself while waiting for a writer) people recognized this was a mismatch.

People were put off by the cartoony Spidey and the serious story.....and it wasn't fun for anyone.

What my point is.....

I believe it IS possible to have certain styles for certain artists....which may or may not clash with certain writer's styles.

Right or wrong....it DOES make a difference what style of art that goes with what style of writing....it needs to fit.

I haven't read the new Catwoman...so I don't have an opinion on it....but thought I'd lend my 2 cents to give insight on how it can go wrong.

Thanks
Scott

Mr. Sava,

You have a GREAT point! I picked up the first Spider-Man book you did with Greg Rucka because of the computer art (which looked nice) AND Mr. Rucka’s name. But the pictures and the story just didn't mesh.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Rucka is great on “adult” books. And you, Mr. Sava, are great with The Lab! And because of your talent, I hope that you get another crack at a big name project with a more fitting writer.

Egg ( www.KamenComic.com / www.SilverBulletComicBooks.com )

[OM]

...Ah, if only you'd written this piece when Coipel was applying his dead toothbrush and using a lemon for a head model on his <i>Legion</i> run. I <u>really</u> could have vented some spleens then :-)

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by G Dog
Wow. I think this statement is about as ignorant as San Giacomo's. Why is it that you assome the "general public" only likes "realistic" art? Do people not realize that manga, in the "general public" far outsells any mainstream comic book on the market? Is manga art more "realistic" than what Darwyn Cooke and Cameron Stewart do?

I wish people would stp presuming to know what the general public "would" like "if" they read comics.

Again I'll state this. For years now, people have argued that "Manga" isn't about the style of art, but it's more than that. If the "Manga-style" (and if someone else said this in another thread, you assholes would be all over them because they don't understand Manga and are just pigeonholing it.) was truly king, then wouldn't the more "Manga-esque" books that Marvel is putting out in their Tsunami line be selling better? Manga is hot right now, but if that STYLE was truly the "best" then the books the emulated it would be selling better. Since those books do NOT sell well, I'm betting it's because Manga is a lot more than just the style of art. It's about the kinds of stories that are told, the pacing their told at, the tradition behind the books, etc...

When people see the "simple" artwork they think of cartoons. I'm NOT ARGUING THEY ARE CORRECT! For fucks sake, you people seem to think that if I argue against one point, I'm arguing against all the points. "Simple" style is great, and I love to read it. If more people read it, they'd love it. But when flipping through a book, Jim Lee's style is more likely to catch the eye than Oemings or Allreds.

[Taylor Porter]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
When people see the "simple" artwork they think of cartoons.... But when flipping through a book, Jim Lee's style is more likely to catch the eye than Oemings or Allreds.

I totally disagree. A lot of people like cartoons, and think comics should look like cartoons. Why would they like Jim Lee's style? It doesn't look like anything they would recognize. We call his style realistic, but it isn't photo-realistic or anything. When they see Jim Lee, they think "What's this guy trying to do?" When they see Oeming or Allred, they think "Aha! A comic book." In my experience, non-fans do not want to see realistic comic books.

[WebHobbit]

Originally posted by Franklin Harris
OK. You know nothing about op-ed writing.

And you obviously know EVERYTHING since you elaborated your point so nicely.

:rolleyes:

[WebHobbit]

Originally posted by Taylor Porter
I totally disagree. A lot of people like cartoons, and think comics should look like cartoons. Why would they like Jim Lee's style? It doesn't look like anything they would recognize. We call his style realistic, but it isn't photo-realistic or anything. When they see Jim Lee, they think "What's this guy trying to do?" When they see Oeming or Allred, they think "Aha! A comic book." In my experience, non-fans do not want to see realistic comic books.

I disagree. I've showed Jim Lee's Batman to a few non-readers and they go:

"Wow, that IS nice!"

[ssava]

Originally posted by Egg
Mr. Sava,

You have a GREAT point! I picked up the first Spider-Man book you did with Greg Rucka because of the computer art (which looked nice) AND Mr. Rucka’s name. But the pictures and the story just didn't mesh.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Rucka is great on “adult” books. And you, Mr. Sava, are great with The Lab! And because of your talent, I hope that you get another crack at a big name project with a more fitting writer.

Egg ( www.KamenComic.com / www.SilverBulletComicBooks.com )

Oh...thanks Egg...much appreciated.
THe Dreamland Chronicles is keeping me busy....and will do so for a few years.
But at the time of Spidey...the CGI art was still in it's infancy....so I definitely would like to take another crack at my favorite web slinger....maybe one day.

This time I hope to work with the right writer....maybe a Paul Dini....or someone else with a good sense of animation and physical comedy and such......so we can have fun.

Anyways...back to the topic....sometimes the artist and writer are mismatched....usually....you don't blame them....it's most likely the decision of the Editor.

Thanks again
Scott

[kcekada]

I'm in Mike's corner, but I don't think I would have worded the article like he did. Cooke's work is obviously not Archie style, but it does have an animated feel to it.

Obviously, many people chiming in here loved it. However, look at Catwoman's sales. This is a bat character and apparently it's well written--so why aren't more people checking it out. Only thing I can think of is the art. And I'll guess that's why DC wanted to try a completely different style on Catwoman.

I haven't seen the sales figures, but issue 25 sold out in a day at the shop I frequent. However, there's plenty of back issues on the shelves.

For the most part, I don't think Cooke's style was appropriate for Catwoman--one of the sexiest characters in comics. On the other hand, I don't think Gulacy is producing the best work of his career, but I feel his style is better suited to Catwoman and that's why I'm buying it for the first time since the relaunch.

KC

[Alex Scott]

Again I'll state this. For years now, people have argued that "Manga" isn't about the style of art, but it's more than that. If the "Manga-style" (and if someone else said this in another thread, you assholes would be all over them because they don't understand Manga and are just pigeonholing it.) was truly king, then wouldn't the more "Manga-esque" books that Marvel is putting out in their Tsunami line be selling better?
They probably would, except for a few things:

1) Most manga fans don't go to comic stores, and therefore probably don't even know about Tsunami.

2) Tsunami books are just too damned expensive compared to manga.

3) This is a side issue, and probably doesn't have much to do with anything, but Marvel ticked off a lot of anime fans when someone found out they ripped off an Evangelion design in an issue of Mystique.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Alex Scott
They probably would, except for a few things:

1) Most manga fans don't go to comic stores, and therefore probably don't even know about Tsunami.

2) Tsunami books are just too damned expensive compared to manga.

3) This is a side issue, and probably doesn't have much to do with anything, but Marvel ticked off a lot of anime fans when someone found out they ripped off an Evangelion design in an issue of Mystique.

The only anime fans I know of who got ticked off by that were those who didn't see what it was in context, or why it was done. I remember a lot of people freaking out about it because they thought that Marvel was just ripping off the Eva design and using it for a new on-going Sentinel design. When I showed most of the people I saw who were getting upset about it the quotes from the original artist, and explained that it was really more just a one-off thing anyway, and the artist said he was a big Eva fan and he did it because he liked Eva, most of them understood it a lot more.

It's really something that got blown out of proportion tremendously though, but again, most of the people I knew were pretty cool with it once they understood the context of it (i.e. it's not like Marvel was redesigning the sentinels and ripping off the Eva design and trying to hide that fact). It was just a one-time thing, and definitely in the vein of homage (something which any anime fans, especially fans of Gainax, who very frequently does similar stuff in a lot of their anime).

And as it is, the Eva design has become somewhat iconic.... the fact that it gets "ripped off" is to be expected (just as the famous mecha designs from the 60's and 70's were "ripped off"). It's also not like the Eva mecha design hasn't been "ripped off" before (i.e. in the anime Dual!, for example).

Either way, I doubt any backlash over that has much to do with the general topic.

And btw, I'm personally a big fan of both manga and comic books..... in both cases I just like good stories and good ideas.

-Zadillo

[Dave Accampo]

Originally posted by Dave Farmer
Bunch of newbie fanboys whining about who draws more cartoony and why Stewart is better than Gulacy. I love it. This enthusiasm, and energy (even negative energy) is what makes this a fun hobby. Adults can argue like children without being judged for the most part. Good times.
Now, for the record... Jack Kirby kicks all their asses and even the shriveled corpse Kirby hand drawing from post-mortem twitching is more dynamic than most artists today! And the corpse gives more profound quotes in interviews too.

heh. As long as you realize that your whole post literally amounted to you saying, "nuh-uh, Kirby's still the best!" As for the rest of the "kids arguing," I think it's been argued well and intelligently, citing McCloud as well as various examples on both sides, including Maus and Scott Sava's Spider-man miniseries.

[Alex Scott]

Originally posted by Zadillo
That's why I said it probably didn't have to do with anything. I kind of just let it go after a few days, and didn't look into it much further. It just reminded me of the brouhaha over the Lion King and Atlantis. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Nick Wyche]

Originally posted by Rod Odom
Point taken, I did miss that. A new visual aesthetic has been introduced into a comic book, and why is that important? This happens with almost every book DC or Marvel produces, the nature of the beast. It's about creative people telling entertaining stories from month to month, SERIALIZED PULP FICTION with all its flaws and irregularites, not a seamless, monolithic work like some kind of comic version of Tolstoy's War and Peace.

True enough. The point is that those of us who are unhappy are unhappy because we were buying and enjoying the total package; the writing and the visual aesthetic of the book. We are extremely unhappy about the change in the visual aesthetic of the title and we are no longer buying the title because a crucial part of the package is now missing.
I, personally, understand and embrace the fact that CATWOMAN is a corporately owned property and, as such, it is perfectly within the rights of the owner (DC Comics) to do with that property as they see fit. I find their decision very wrong-headed and it has ruined my enjoyment of their property. Thusly I will no longer be buying that property.
Serial fiction changes, this is true. It's a fact of nature as far as the form is concerned. The other neat thing about serial fiction is that when a change occurs that the buyer doesn't like, the buyer gets to stop buying that serial fiction.

[gwangung]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Again I'll state this. For years now, people have argued that "Manga" isn't about the style of art, but it's more than that. If the "Manga-style" (and if someone else said this in another thread, you assholes would be all over them because they don't understand Manga and are just pigeonholing it.) was truly king, then wouldn't the more "Manga-esque" books that Marvel is putting out in their Tsunami line be selling better?


Maybe. But we can't tell since Marvel, in their infinite wisdom, has put the Tsunami titles before the eyes of just traditional comics fan. And the whole point of this argument is that what catches the eye of traditional comics fans may not be the same as what catches the eyes of mainstream readers.

when flipping through a book, Jim Lee's style is more likely to catch the eye than Oemings or Allreds.

I think you're arguing from assertion here, as opposed to evidence.

[Nick Wyche]

Originally posted by OcCaM
Couple or three or so things.

1) It's my money I'll waste it on what I want, so I think it's ridiculous that you think people should buy what YOU like!

2) Cartoony artwork is fine for stuff like PowerPuff Girls, or Mike Kunkel's, "HeroBear and the Kid" because I don't take them seriously. Sure, I can enjoy looking at the artwork for the early issues of Catwoman but I"ll not appreciate or take the work seriously, won't happen! (Might as well draw stick figures in my opinion!)

3) I agree that people who bash Timm etc. should not be praising people like Ditko and Kirby. Personally, I don't want any of them on superheroes. I grew up around the Perez was drawing era in the 70's so I guess I'm spoiled. Probably what we grow up to appreciate, I'm sure kids today think that God-awfully drawn Teen Titans cartoon looks fine! :)


4) Oh yeh almost forgot I'm not very fond of Mignola's artwork. The first time I bought into his "world" was with the three one-shots of B.R.P.D. Oddly enough though I do love Guy Davis' artwork. Probably because while it is "cartoony" it's also very detailed and the quirky character expressions he draws are priceless! So, I'm very much looking forward to the Guy Davis drawn B.R.P.D. mini-series in March! GO DAVIS!

Finally, in general, Mike is right about the cartoony artwork being less than the detailed realistic artwork. In terms of time and work definately. How could anyone argue that the third cover to JLA/Avengers would take infinitely less time to draw if he did it in a style like Timm's or Paul Dini's? Now, if he's implying the cartoony styles have no artistic merit or they aren't a valid style, then he's dead wrong! It's just subjective which is better and miore valid as far as that goes obviously.

I'll say though, I don't get why people would buy something like X-statix! Allred's art is so bland to me. Timm's I could see it has style, but Allred's? Ah well!

(There, I just have to get my Allred dig in wherever I can!)

(And yeh, I will add most artists who draw in a cartoony style without detail or lazier artists, not to be confused with bad artists!)

This has got to be the biggest pile of steaming crap I have ever read. Do you know thing one about art? Do you know what it means to draw that "simpler" art as you call it? Or is it that you simply have no powers of discernment?
Artists like Timm, Mignola, Allred, and Oeming can't hide behind the bullshit little details that people like Perez, Lee, et. al. hide behind. Any flaws in their drawings are out in the open, ergo they have to work twice as hard to ensure that they get it right on the printed page. The "detailed" artists can hide a plethora of flaws behind the "details" (and most of them do). Any artist, going all the way back to DaVinci, has said and continues to say that it is infinitely harder to draw a simple clear image and it is infinitely scarier to most artists to do that. The ones that have the balls to (all the guys you've cracked on and more) should be rightly hailed for spending the time and effort to clarify and strengthen their craft to the point that they can do it and do it well.
There were only 2 points in your little pile of bile that were correct:
1.) You have every right to spend your money on whatever you wish. More power to you.
2.) You have the right to like whatever you want to like. Again, more power to you.
You don't (or at least shouldn't) have the right to spew crap about the works of others when you obviously don't know thing one about which you are speaking.

[kalorama]

Originally posted by kcekada

Obviously, many people chiming in here loved it. However, look at Catwoman's sales. This is a bat character and apparently it's well written--so why aren't more people checking it out. Only thing I can think of is the art. And I'll guess that's why DC wanted to try a completely different style on Catwoman.

KC


That line of reasoning is flawed on multiple levels.

Yes, Catwoman is a "Batbook," but it's a Batbook in which Batman does not appear, so it's Bat connection is tenuous at best. Also, it's not like all the books in which Batman does appear are flying off the shelves. Detective and Gotham Knights aren't exactly hot sellers.

But the most glaring fallacy is the idea that because the book is well-written and sales are slow (assuming they actually are) then the problem must be with the art. First, the shelves are full of well-written AND well-drawn books that don't reach a big audience (another Bat-free "Bat" book, Gotham Central, comes to mind). Second of all, it is far from any kind of concensus that the art on Catwoman was ever anything other than good. Throughout its run both the writing AND the art have been well-received critically.

And, as the responses here indicate, a significant portion of the people who currently buy the book like the art as it was. So making a radical change in artistic direction that potentially alienates the existing fan base in a highly speculative attempt to attract readers who previously showed no interest in the book would be a risky strategy akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Some books click with the general public, some don't. there's no formula for making it work.

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by gwangung
I think you're arguing from assertion here, as opposed to evidence.

Well, yea, but most everyone is for the most part. You can't really definatively state what a mass of people will do, so I concede that I'm going on my own assumptions. However, I do know that there was a huge boom that was based on two things:
1) A bunch of jackasses buying a ton of comic books that they thought would appreciate in value over the years. (morons)
2) A new style of art that had kicks going, "HELL YEA!" I vividly remember my friends and I spending all of math class trying to copy the latest WILDCATS issue. (We were very studious.... good gosh, I was in 5th grade back then, i'm old.)

I'll put it this way: The Jim Lee stuff is probably closer to a Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Big on flashy visuals, gets the job done, but not the most artistic stuff on earth. While the more "Simple" stuff (and to everyone arguing it, we all know it's difficult to draw, simple is just the term that's been introduced in the discussion thus far, and there's no point in going back and changing it now.) is closer to a Roberto Benigni or someone who can still do great stuff that is commercially successful, but it's more of a technically superior, and artistically superior, method, even if most people don't understand why.

[Dave Accampo]

I think most everything has been well covered here, but I'll just add my two cents.

As has been pointed out, the argument isn't about whose art is better, but an opinion that states that one type of art is "less" than another when combined with a certain type of story. As others have mentioned, this is subjective. A lot of it lies in the tastes of the readers, and there's not much that can be done about that. But the creative team, before the reader ever sees the final product, has to make a choice. And that lies in the gray area between art and science. There's no black-and-white rule as to what style complements what type of story. Maus was cited. Powers was cited. In some cases, the simpler, cartoonier style can offset the darkness of a grittier or more tragic story. On the other hand, if the art and writing styles are not similar enough or don't contrast each other enough (and in the right way), you can get what happened with Scott Sava's Spider-man miniseries.

Personally, I side with the Cooke, Rader, Stewart camp. Maybe part of it was the offsetting of "cartoony" (whatever that means) and the gritty, maybe it was the expressiveness allowed with that style. All I know is, when Cooke designed that new outfit, it worked. When Jim Lee and Paul Gulacy draw it, it looks uuuuuugly.

I also find it interesting that Gulacy (who I do like, BTW), Lee, and others are considered more "realistic." Yeah, I know McCloud puts in all on a scale, but that scale is still all relative. I don't really find Gulacy that much more realistic than Stewart. I mean, if you put his Selina in a Wonder Woman outfit and showed it to someone on the street, they'd say "when did Wonder Woman get a haircut?" The point is, it's still cartoon or comic book art. It's still iconic, they are just exaggerated in different places to different degrees. Someone mentioned Gulacy's depiction of Selina's breasts in leather, and how unrealistic THAT was. Or for further examples, we can always just go straight to Balent...:)

Anyway, I think from the posts here, the majority of people on this board seem to have agreed that for whatever reason, the old style on Catwoman (#1-24 of the current series, I mean), not only worked, but didn't lessen or degrade the impact of the stories.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
Again I'll state this. For years now, people have argued that "Manga" isn't about the style of art, but it's more than that. If the "Manga-style" (and if someone else said this in another thread, you assholes would be all over them because they don't understand Manga and are just pigeonholing it.) was truly king, then wouldn't the more "Manga-esque" books that Marvel is putting out in their Tsunami line be selling better? Manga is hot right now, but if that STYLE was truly the "best" then the books the emulated it would be selling better. Since those books do NOT sell well, I'm betting it's because Manga is a lot more than just the style of art. It's about the kinds of stories that are told, the pacing their told at, the tradition behind the books, etc...

When people see the "simple" artwork they think of cartoons. I'm NOT ARGUING THEY ARE CORRECT! For fucks sake, you people seem to think that if I argue against one point, I'm arguing against all the points. "Simple" style is great, and I love to read it. If more people read it, they'd love it. But when flipping through a book, Jim Lee's style is more likely to catch the eye than Oemings or Allreds.

Wow, all the writing and you completely, COMPLETELY missed my point.

You stated that more people would like Bryan Hitch or Jim Lee over someone like Darwyn Cooke or Mike Oeming because most people would like "detailed" art of more "simple" art. MY point was that IF that were true then people WOULDN'T be so keen on manga. I absolutely agree with you that manga is about more than just art style and my point is that SO ARE AMERICAN COMICS! You're saying that most people would choose a comic based on "detailed" are over "simple" art, but people ARE choosing "simple" artwork over "detailed" artwork in the "general public"...CONSISTENTLY. Now of course manga is more than just art, but art IS a big part of it. If people hated the more simple art style then they wouldn't read manga with simple art because really, who the hell wants to read a story if they think the art is ugly? If the art wasn't important to manga, then people would just read prose.

You can't make an argument about what "most people" would like and then deny someone else's use of the SAME argument, even when they base their argument on something concrete, while yours is based on making up facts to suit your opinion.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
I disagree. I've showed Jim Lee's Batman to a few non-readers and they go:

"Wow, that IS nice!"

And by the same token, I've hooked people on comics by showing them the Cameron Stewart/Brad Rader/Javier Pulido/Darwyn Cooke issues of Catwoman.

I've also gotten people into comics by showing them Jim Lee's work, Bryan Hitch's, Mike Mignola's, Steve Dillon's, Pia Guerra's, Mike Oeming's, Alex Maleev's, and the list goes on.

What's your point?

[Erik K]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
and if someone else said this in another thread, you assholes would be all over them

Ah, name calling. The last resort of someone who has no real idea how to debate...

For me, I simply had to ignore your points. When the name calling begins, I feel that the person has already lost their argument.

[Erik K]

Originally posted by G Dog
If people hated the more simple art style then they wouldn't read manga with simple art because really, who the hell wants to read a story if they think the art is ugly? If the art wasn't important to manga, then people would just read prose.

Very good point.

I have to add one more point. I work some with tweens and teens learning to draw. Almost all of the girls are doing things very much inspired by different Manga. And none of the other girls are doing "comics" art. As for the boys, more than half are doing this style as well. And again, very few of them are doing American-style comics art. Even some who are closer to the American style tend to include those big eyes with the light reflections in them...

So the upcoming generation of illustrators and comics readers really seem to be embracing the iconic, as opposed to the realistic.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by Dave Accampo

Personally, I side with the Cooke, Rader, Stewart camp. Maybe part of it was the offsetting of "cartoony" (whatever that means) and the gritty, maybe it was the expressiveness allowed with that style. All I know is, when Cooke designed that new outfit, it worked. When Jim Lee and Paul Gulacy draw it, it looks uuuuuugly.



I think Jim Lee just got confused by the fact that Selina's costume (a) had no thong, (b) had no cleavage, and (c) didn't fit on her body like Saran Wrap. How the hell is he supposed to draw that? Drawing a female without any convenient way to work in thrusting breast and asscheek shots must have been the biggest challenge of his whole career. I must say though that I'm impressed that he showed restraint and didn't "cheat" by putting a thong on the outside of the leather pants, like he did on Storm's leather outfit on the X-Men.

[Dave Accampo]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
I think Jim Lee just got confused by the fact that Selina's costume (a) had no thong, (b) had no cleavage, and (c) didn't fit on her body like Saran Wrap. How the hell is he supposed to draw that? Drawing a female without any convenient way to work in thrusting breast and asscheek shots must have been the biggest challenge of his whole career. I must say though that I'm impressed that he showed restraint and didn't "cheat" by putting a thong on the outside of the leather pants, like he did on Storm's leather outfit on the X-Men.

HAH!

[SAINT TY]

After letting it "sit" for a day or so I went back & re-read this "op-ed" piece. Wow :rolleyes: .......
I don't mean to be petty but I can't believe that a Newsarama writer could be so out of touch with the "hipper" pro & critical elite of the industry. He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but it comes off as so shockingly ill informed & out of step with current "critical" consensus. Once again, I know this sounds elitist but I can't help but feel he did serious professional damage to himself with this article & not because it was so inflammatory but because it was so very "un-cool" & sad!
His subsequent silence (as far as a real defense) has been deafening; tho he's kinda dug himself a hole that seems pretty bottomless.
Although I was shocked & saddened to hear the artistic aesthetic on Catwoman would be changed way back in San Diego, it's a shame that Gulacy had to be on the receiving end of the backlash of this sad, sad op-ed piece.
DC is usually pretty good about letting a critical fave carry on even when the sales aren't so great.
This book had gotten cover endorsements from the likes of Bendis, Frank Miller, James Robinson & Grant Morrison & was very well liked by many of my peeps in the indie set as well.
Thanx to Brube, Cooke, Allred, Radar, Stewart, Shanower, Pulido (who may have penciled my fave arc) & co. for 24 memorable issues, a great Secret Files & a beautiful hardcover.
Maybe DC is listening & will rectify this tragedy.

[JLAJRC]

I loved both artists on Catwoman so I can't complain. However, it is a known fact that the more cartoony the art, the less successful it is. How many of you read Batman Adventures, Justice League Adventures, or the Titans cartoon comic? I'm betting not many and it's because of this reason (You'd be surprised how many will watch the cartoons without a problem but avoid the comics based on it like the plague)

Many people in this forum hated the Truth mini-series because of cartoony art. Check out the Sabrina manga thread on this forum and you see people aren't that fond of it. When Kurt Busiek announced his new Marvel's followup many of you called it practically worthless because Alex Ross wasn't drawing it. Me personally, I'm not a big fan of the new Plasticman comic because of the art. Tsunami, anyone?

Now, I like cartoony and realistic art. But when push comes to shove I'm betting many of you will choose a Jim Lee or Alex Ross over a Kyle Baker and Bruce Timm.

[mikesang]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
One does NOT need (and really can't even use) "evidence" to back up an OP/ED piece. OP/ED is one's OPINION & not simply a matter of reporting facts like in a regular news story.

Heh, I was going to open this post with "the Lone Mike supporter bravely strode in to the forum" but then I read OcCaM's post and found that I was not completely alone!


:D
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE:
Ow, hey, watch where you're throwing those tomatoes.
Hey, I'm glad to see such passion in defense of what you all like.
I guess I was just curious to see how many out there preferred the (can I say different style art without being crucified?) different art of previous Catwoman artists to one of my favorite artists Paul Gulacy.
Bottom line everyone is that it's all just opinion. Most of you missed the point I was trying to make, that my comic supplier and I discuss this all the time and we both believe we are right. And guess what? We are both right because you can't have an "incorrect" opinion, even people who think it's a great idea to bring Chris Claremont back for the X-Men KIDDING, KIDDING, PUT DOWN THE KNIVES.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by JLAJRC

Now, I like cartoony and realistic art. But when push comes to shove I'm betting many of you will choose a Jim Lee or Alex Ross over a Kyle Baker and Bruce Timm.

I wouldn't buy a new Jim Lee work since I have a few of his old X-books from the 90s and I know his new stuff is going to recycle the exact same poses, physiques and faces ad nauseum. Alex Ross may be photorealistic, but (a) could the work be any more flat, static and lifeless? and (b) does this guy use anybody for photoreference outside of arrogant-looking bloated, Eisenhower-era WASPS. All his heroes look like overweight cocky WASPS from the 50s, that dude needs to leave the Norman Rockefeller-esque nostalgie and step into the 2000's pronto.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by mikesang
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE:
Ow, hey, watch where you're throwing those tomatoes.
Hey, I'm glad to see such passion in defense of what you all like.
I guess I was just curious to see how many out there preferred the (can I say different style art without being crucified?) different art of previous Catwoman artists to one of my favorite artists Paul Gulacy.
Bottom line everyone is that it's all just opinion. Most of you missed the point I was trying to make, that my comic supplier and I discuss this all the time and we both believe we are right. And guess what? We are both right because you can't have an "incorrect" opinion, even people who think it's a great idea to bring Chris Claremont back for the X-Men KIDDING, KIDDING, PUT DOWN THE KNIVES.

I think you need to take some of your own advice. I think most posters here were not taking issue with you expressing an opinon, but rather that you were expressing your opinion as if it was an objective fact by summarily dismissing a whole class of artists as inherently inferior.

[Erik K]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
that dude needs to leave the Norman Rockefeller-esque nostalgie and step into the 2000's pronto.

Just for the record, it's Norman Rockwell. A great American illustrator, though seen now by many as out of date. A deeply skilled man, though, no matter the content.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by Erik K
Just for the record, it's Norman Rockwell. A great American illustrator, though seen now by many as out of date. A deeply skilled man, though, no matter the content.

Oops, I actually know that but I was just reading about the old New York Mayor Rockefeller on the web and subconsciously wrote that. Didn't even notice. Well, no point editing it now...:)

Rockwell was very skilled, a great illustrator, but his stuff was current for its time, even if it was a little saccharine at times. When Alex Ross draws like that (except with the people retaining a lot more water), it just seems like an old fogie who refuses to let go of the past.

[Egg]

Originally posted by ssava
Oh...thanks Egg...much appreciated.
THe Dreamland Chronicles is keeping me busy....and will do so for a few years.
But at the time of Spidey...the CGI art was still in it's infancy....so I definitely would like to take another crack at my favorite web slinger....maybe one day.

This time I hope to work with the right writer....maybe a Paul Dini....or someone else with a good sense of animation and physical comedy and such......so we can have fun.

Anyways...back to the topic....sometimes the artist and writer are mismatched....usually....you don't blame them....it's most likely the decision of the Editor.

Thanks again
Scott

Mr. Sava,

I'm looking forward to The Dreamland Chronicles! I saw the preview at (I had to go dig this up): http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=2880

It looks like it'll be cool!

And a Spidey with you and Paul Dini would be fun, fun, fun!

But, onto the thread, I'm torn! I like all types of art. I like working with serious artists like Steven (upcoming Green Lantern, Gene Pool, upcoming Flash, upcoming Elektra, upcoming Kamen) Cummings. But my girlfriend, Jessi (upcoming First Love on a Tuesday) Nelson, is VERY cartoony and I love her work, too. But I think that all art has a place somewhere.

As for my own art, well it’s God-awful, that’s the reason I write!

Egg ( www.KamenComic.com / www.SilverBulletComicBooks.com )

[AnimalMan#1-26]

"I agree that people who bash Timm etc. should not be praising people like Ditko and Kirby. Personally, I don't want any of them on superheroes. I grew up around the Perez was drawing era in the 70's so I guess I'm spoiled."

This is about the most absurd thing I think I've ever seen anyone say on a comics message board. Perez would not even EXIST without Kirby--his entire style, the whole visual esthetic he is communicating, the entire vernacular of symbology and communication tools is rooted in Kirby.

Sure he embelleshes on it well-- better facial expressions and very dynamic panel arrangements for example, but saying Kirby shouldn't draw superheroes is a little like saying the Beatles shouldn't have recorded pop songs because they can't dance like the Backstreet Boys.

This is exactly what Understanding Comics talks about when it talks about the stages in a comics afficionados's level of sophistication and abilty to understand and appreciate the source material. As your sophication progresses, you can understand the art beyond just the finishing touches-- the first thing that people trying to appreciate art notice.

I'm not trying to belittle Perez in any way--he is one of the great talents of his generation-- but Kirby is one of the great masters of the medium and saying that Perez should draw superheroes and Kirby should not have is just a display of ignorance.

[Hdefined]

Originally posted by mikesang
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE:
We are both right because you can't have an "incorrect" opinion, even people who think it's a great idea to bring Chris Claremont back for the X-Men KIDDING, KIDDING, PUT DOWN THE KNIVES.

:D This thread rules

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by mikesang
MIKE SAN GIACOMO HERE:
Ow, hey, watch where you're throwing those tomatoes.
Hey, I'm glad to see such passion in defense of what you all like.
I guess I was just curious to see how many out there preferred the (can I say different style art without being crucified?) different art of previous Catwoman artists to one of my favorite artists Paul Gulacy.
Bottom line everyone is that it's all just opinion. Most of you missed the point I was trying to make, that my comic supplier and I discuss this all the time and we both believe we are right. And guess what? We are both right because you can't have an "incorrect" opinion, even people who think it's a great idea to bring Chris Claremont back for the X-Men KIDDING, KIDDING, PUT DOWN THE KNIVES.

You can say "different" now all you want, but the fact is that earlier you used "simple" to define that style, and you used "regular" for the style YOU prefer (as opposed to the style you "hate") and said that was the style for more "discerning" fans, while stating that the "simple" style was for "others".

You're trying to say you were just going for a light-hearted tone with this piece, and I recognized that right off the bat, but then you contradict that tone by coming out with serious statements like wanting outside fans to see Gulacy's style because that's the "truer picture of what comics are all about". You still aren't addressing this statement. And you still aren't addressing what you said about how there are "regular" artists for "comics" and then there are artists who just do the "books based on the cartoon shows". Mike, it's right there in your article and this is the biggest problem people are having with your comments. Instead, you are trying to shrug this off as though it's just another passionate debate where there's no right or wrong. However, there's no debating that what you said was an insult to the artists who employ the style you are knocking, and an insult to the fans who enjoy that style.

Hey, if you don't want to address this stuff, that's fine. And I'm trying my best to not be hateful towards you, since there are more important things in this world to get wacked out about. My main point here is that I had more respect for you as a journalist and a critic, and this particular article has put a serious damper on that respect. It's very disappointing.

[Caramuru]

We also have to remember that "simple" is not the same as "easy." In the same way that "complex" or "detailed" aren't the same as "deep" or "interesting."

I think it's a common bias to assume those words are intrinsically related.

[Jack Burton]

I know it's been said a hundred times on this thread but I just gotta say it. To me good art is good art. Manga, Cartoony, Detailed, Traditonal. Digital whatever. I don't think ones better than the other and I think it stupid to say cartoonish art is lesser than any other. I love a lot of the cartoonier artists. I was just looking through my Deadpool trade and my Superman/Batman and one thing was going through my head: McGuiness kicks ass. That guy draws a really cool Hawkman and Batman. Ringo is one of the best damn Spider-Man pencilers I've ever seen and I love his FF. Jack Kirby is to me the greatest artist ever. Do I like cartoon art yeah if it's good. I also like Maleev, Lee, Ross, and Perez more realistic art. If it's good. If you don't like the art that's fine it's your opinion but just because it's cartoon like doesn't make it lesser than more "realistic" art just different.

[SAINT TY]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
You can say "different" now all you want, but the fact is that earlier you used "simple" to define that style, and you used "regular" for the style YOU prefer (as opposed to the style you "hate") and said that was the style for more "discerning" fans, while stating that the "simple" style was for "others".

You're trying to say you were just going for a light-hearted tone with this piece, and I recognized that right off the bat, but then you contradict that tone by coming out with serious statements like wanting outside fans to see Gulacy's style because that's the "truer picture of what comics are all about". You still aren't addressing this statement. And you still aren't addressing what you said about how there are "regular" artists for "comics" and then there are artists who just do the "books based on the cartoon shows". Mike, it's right there in your article and this is the biggest problem people are having with your comments. Instead, you are trying to shrug this off as though it's just another passionate debate where there's no right or wrong. However, there's no debating that what you said was an insult to the artists who employ the style you are knocking, and an insult to the fans who enjoy that style.

Hey, if you don't want to address this stuff, that's fine. And I'm trying my best to not be hateful towards you, since there are more important things in this world to get wacked out about. My main point here is that I had more respect for you as a journalist and a critic, and this particular article has put a serious damper on that respect. It's very disappointing.



Indeed. As if the original article wasn't bad enough, he's now trying to insult our intelligence further by acting all "open minded" while refusing to address his close minded statements.
Incidently; when he asserted that his outdated artists were more suitable for the "discerning" readers & the iconic illustrators for Powerpuff Girls he couldn't be more wrong. I think no matter your personal preference, it's clear that the higher critics, "artsy types", indie readers & intellectual snobs of all stripes prefer iconic illustration. Put it this way; which type of comic is more likely to recieve praise in a mainstream publication that usually covers strictly prose lit?
Another example; I've seen the very iconic or "cartoony" Hernandez Bros. reviewed quite favorably in things like Publishers W., LA Herald, Washington Post Book World, Playboy etc. etc. etc. but I suppose they are not nearly as discerning as you.

[kurtcobain731]

Mike (i think not being an artistic person or involved in any form of design) has come up with the most errant perception of judging simple design in, say graphic art or even comic book art, the most diificult thing to portray is to convey the message/story/script directly in the simplest form to the viewer, hence the famous term LESS IS MORE.

the cartoony art you deem derivative or lesser than the more anatomical correct art you think that Gulacy's is better is definitely not so. Gulacy's art to those who view art simplistically may be superior, unfortunately, his recent art has deteriorated to being snapshots of stiff leggy heroes/heroines, i dont see the fluidity of movement or the flexibility of the human body, as for his facial expressions there is only snarls on villains and stoic introspection on the heroes, i think his range has not improved in leaps and bounds, since i read his work on Batman's Legends of the dark knight run featuring his oft reprise on hugo strange ( how many arcs can we have on that). not to diss his work but his women always look good, but that's about it, it stilll has a lot to improve, we're not talking about our "new" discovery, the rejuvenated Jim Lee you know, Jim Lee has been out of the limelight for eons, but he returned with at least new things (different mediums; watercolour, pencil,...experimentation to improve) which he doesn't need to, his action sequences and women are still some of the top notch in the niche that he's carved out, (George perez 's being super teams galore, alex ross's photo realistic work etc...)

but i digress, the work of Cameron Stewart is superior to Gulacy's is the fast pacing, the expression of movement but never compromising on the subtle facial expressions and suspense that he portrays, what does gulacy have in suspense and subtlety? a whole page of selina walking nude in her room, a whole lot of shadow to cover his inadequecies as a story teller or artist? Mike your assessment of Catwoman's art improving is erroneous, i have followed Catwoman from issue 1 on the strength of Brubaker's Writing and the art which was led in the final arc by Cameron Stewart which captured almost the entire spectrum of DC's cities night and day successfully, with gulacy's first issue, i am contemplating discontinuing because of the "strength" of his art, or the lack of,.... which i find your article lauding his work extrememly ironic.

thanks
guys

objective guys, "is it informed beauty or true beauty?" paraphrasing from Immanuel Kant.

[Dragonhead]

One does NOT need (and really can't even use) "evidence" to back up an OP/ED piece. OP/ED is one's OPINION & not simply a matter of reporting facts like in a regular news story.



How can Mike possibly win my understanding if he can't back his shit up.
He doesn't need facts, just an educated arguement! So if Mike can say Stewart, Cooke, amd Pulido are only fit for the Power Puff Girls and the like, then I can say Gulacy is only fit for instruction manuals! But I won't, unlike Mike. I think Mike got alittle ego, with his Epic book.

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
:D

This IS most unusual. Seems I agree with the guy whoe wrote the article and disagree with all of the replies to the thread!

BTW, I hate Ditko, Cooke, etc. but I always loved Kirby.

[shrugs]


Go figure.

You and the minority posters on this thread are not alone in disliking cartoony art on the superhero books. I absolutely DESPISE IT as well...

I have nothing against cartoon-like art in kid-friendly type comics (Richie Rich, etc.) as I feel it has its place, but I will not buy a superhero book with art in the vein of Ramos, Herrerra, Criss Cross, Asymia, Stewart, etc., etc.

The cartoon/exaggerated pencil thing makes a comic virtually unreadable to me, as I find myself distracted and nauseated by overblown heads, eyes, huge pointy noses, toothpick-thin necks and mangled chins.

I love Catwoman, love the new art, and I'm happy as hell that Brubaker's writing is now complimented by Gulacy's style, as I dropped the book due to the former drab look of the thing...

With #25, it's back on my list.

Thanks, DC.

[zombiekid]

basically, my opinion is totally different from mike's, i love 'cartoony' artists but i don't think of it as simpler i think of it as more stylised. art is the main reason i buy comics and also the main reason i drop them (well, that and money restraints) batgirl being a prime example. damion scott has an amazing, kinetic style, it wasn't very 'realistic' but it made that book for me and the subsequent art that followed after he let was dull in comparison imo, same with scott mcdaniel on nightwing.

i like style with my comics, and because of this i hate george perez because his work does nothing for me, it seems bland. don't get me wrong his layouts and story telling is spot on but it all seems a bit to text book for me, like it was produced by a machine.
batman black and white rules because all the stories have different, varying styles. people like mike mignola, mike allred, jim mahfood, scott morse and james kochalka really float my boat because their work is instantly indentifiable. and for the record i'd love to see stephen king doe powerpuff girls with alex ross on art duties or frank millar on scooby doo because it would be different and that's what makes comics great: diversity.

[kalorama]

Originally posted by Snakefish
I have nothing against cartoon-like art in more cartoon-ready type comics (Richie Rich, etc.) but I will not buy a superhero book with art in the vein of Ramos, Herrerra, Criss Cross, Asymia, etc., etc.



And therein, in brief summary, lay the central fallacy underlying this whole discussion.

Half the artists named above have almost nothing in common with one another, stylistically (I'll give you Ramos and Herrerra, since the latter is, essentially, a clone of the former). But Criss Cross and Kia Asymia? Please. Trying to categorize them under the same banner is misguided to say the least. The only thing they have in acommon is a lack of any kind of obsessive-compulsive attraction to excessive crosshatching.

[ZakK]

As a "cartoony artist" this is sort of an annoying opinion, but not without it's own points. My uncle would always bitch about the same thing when the more dynamic artists would come onto the DC titles replacing what he loved (Perez like work).

Bruce Timm's comment about how Alex Ross needs to "lose his camera" is the best thing I've ever heard said about Ross as an artist. I love the fact that Ross can paint such magnificent detail, BUT the poses look very static & almost stale. There's no feeling to them truly. Its like the Hildebrandt brothers. There's just no OOMPH that comic artists have. Just pretty static poses. While people may love it, it just doesn't speak to me.

While I love more expressive art, realistic detail is something I can't ignore. George Perez, Alan Davis (fuck Hitch. Give me Davis anytime.), John Cassaday, and Kevin Maguire are three of my favorite artists. They can be finely detailed while pulling off amazing storytelling, and it comes off so very smooth. Maguire does some of the BEST facial expressions in the business, and well I can't say enough about the other two.

The "cartoony" artists as you kids have been calling them are right up there as well though. One that immediately comes to mind is Kano on HERO. That's an instance where simple line art melds perfectly with the story. Another couple of overlooked talents are Jim Mahfood & Andi Watson who both bring amazing new styles to comics, and storytelling. And you just can't deny Dave Johnson's style worked so well with Superman: Red Son & the 100 Bullets covers.

I think a lot of the cartoony artist also know how to set the mood better than most realistic artists though. Take Mike Mignola for example; you can just feel the darkness coming right out and enveloping you into Hellboy. He sets that tone better than anyone does, and that includes Frank Miller. Mike Allred is another guy who just has such energy, and X-Statix would never be the book it is today without him. He adds an irreplacable style that distinguishes that book from any other. X-Statix NEEDS that quirky 50s pop art to work, otherwise it'd just be another "grim & gritty" style book. Tim Sale is another guy who sets the mood so very well, along with Eduardo Risso. You can't tell me that there are people who can set a noirish mood better than those two, save with the exception of the master that is Alex Toth. And I'm really glad someone mentioned him right off the bat. As I was reading Mike's column that was the first thing that hit me. HELLO, ALEX TOTH THANK YOU!

And I think you're all overlooking the fact that the master of storytelling; Will Eisner is quite cartoony himself. His design asthetic was better than any other artist to ever come across the comic panel. I'd say him & Jack Kirby are probably our most valued artists, and neither of them were hyper realistic in their art. They were just dynamic & amazing. And honestly I just see that influence more in the Mike Allreds, Alan Davises, Mike Mignolas, and P.Craig Russels of the community. Their characters stand out, and are alive!

Something that guys that came around in the early 90s really didn't have. Like Brett Booth, Marc Silvestri, Platt, and even Byrne just don't have that dynamic. Byrne has just gone to the dogs IMHO. Choppy line quality is teh suck.

I look at Paul Gulacy's work, and I'm just not impressed. Catwoman kinda looks like he gave her the Julia Roberts grimace from hell. Darwyn Cooke made that book for me. It wasn't big titty fest like dumbass Jim Balent, and he actually made Gotham look like a rotten dark mess that it really is. It really reminded me of Mazzuchelli's Year One, and THAT is why I read the book. In fact, there's your PERFECT Catwoman book written by Brubaker. Dave Mazzuchelli & Ed Brubaker. Now come on DC!! READ MY INTARWEB FANDOM POST!!

so yeah, that's just one artist's litte rant. While the realistic artist certainly has his place, the characters just sort of get lost in the background detail half the time. That could easily just be the inker's problem by not establishing a superior line quality for the character over the background. But I digress, these are comic books. Quit being ashamed of "cartoony" art and give it a chance. Lose yourself in the story. Crap, if I lived through the OMG I AM JIM LEE TOO phase, I'm sure you guys could take some time, open your minds and get into the OMG I AM ALEX TOTH TOO phase. ;)


PS. Manga appeals to more people because, HEY they can relate to it! There's virtually something for everyone with Manga. That and tentacle furry rape. :eek: Something the American market is just now starting to figure out (well I hope we can forget the tentacles & furries). Too bad Oni is the only one really leading the charge.

[scott_i.]

Hahahaha...I nearly busted a gut as I read through the article and the replies were even funnier. To the fellas that made the comments about comparing Tezuka and Pokemon, the thing about Sienkiewicz getting a lawyer and 90's comics, THANKS! I really needed a good chuckle and this thread was the answer. This is the funniest thread ever!

I do have one comment to add and that is about the subject of "style." Why do people care? I suppose I am one of those silly people who judges work by whether I enjoy it or not and on a technical level focus primarily on composition and general design sense rather than execution.

Composition is the beginning and the end. It doesn't matter if there are a million lines, ten or even one line on the paper. Flow and pacing is all about the composition. Composition, composition, composition, composition.

If art were to be likened to writing, composition serves as the theme and major plot line of a story and surface affectations can be likened to the subtler nuances that flesh out and emphasize the underlying structure. Seriously, style doesn't dictate "good" and "bad" nearly as much as composition does.

[zombiekid]

Originally posted by ZakK

Another couple of overlooked talents are Jim Mahfood & Andi Watson who both bring amazing new styles to comics, and storytelling.



hey zakk you seem to have pretty much the same taste in comic art to me, i'd be quite interested to see some of your work.

ps. i thank fully just got through my OMG i'm jim mahfood stage but am still kinda stuck in my OMG i'm bruce timm stage

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by WebHobbit
And you obviously know EVERYTHING since you elaborated your point so nicely.

I know that I've been writing op-eds and opinion columns for more than a decade and that every single one of them has evidence to support my opinion.

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by mikesang
Most of you missed the point I was trying to make, that my comic supplier and I discuss this all the time and we both believe we are right.

That isn't much of a point. But I guess you never expected you could step in it so badly just by phoning in a column.

[WebHobbit]

I don't think EXAMPLES are always the same thing as <b>evidence</b>.

[Barry]

Has anyone read Alan David Doane's spot on and hilarious parody of this column in his weblog?

http://www.addblog.com/archives/2003_12_21_archive.html#1072001451216640 85

[mpg]

Originally posted by Zadillo
Glad to see someone else give props to Batman Adventures.......... I also think it is one of the best Batman books each month (although I will say I am enjoying Azz and Risso a lot right now too)..... what Slott and Templeton are doing with it is just great. I always used to sort of avoid these books for whatever reason, but I decided to give it a chance after they relaunched this title, and I absolutely love it.

-Zadillo

Not to mention the late great Mike Parobeck. He was an amazing artist with a great sense of simple detail and action..

I wonder what Mike thinks of Mike Allred?

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by mpg
Not to mention the late great Mike Parobeck. He was an amazing artist with a great sense of simple detail and action..

I wonder what Mike thinks of Mike Allred?

Mike's had several columns dedicated to his dislike of Mike Allred's "cartoony art." This is apparently some sort of crusade for the man.

[mpg]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
Mike's had several columns dedicated to his dislike of Mike Allred's "cartoony art." This is apparently some sort of crusade for the man.

Allred is one of those few creators that shapes my opinion of human beings. if you cant see value in his stuff, i cant see value in you :) stufff like Red Rocket 7 is just killer. i have that on my coffee table, and so far, so good :)

its like people complaining about lord of the rings. (to me , at least :))

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by kalorama
And therein, in brief summary, lay the central fallacy underlying this whole discussion.

Half the artists named above have almost nothing in common with one another, stylistically (I'll give you Ramos and Herrerra, since the latter is, essentially, a clone of the former). But Criss Cross and Kia Asymia? Please. Trying to categorize them under the same banner is misguided to say the least. The only thing they have in acommon is a lack of any kind of obsessive-compulsive attraction to excessive crosshatching.

I never attempted to label these artists, nor did I try to lump them all into one catagory for anyone else but myself. I have no need to individually place them under some type of "jargon" genre, as I don't care enough about these types of styles to even try...

They all accomplish different degrees of the same ill-effect in my world.

As far as I'm concerned, on a superhero book these styles of art come across as self-indulgent and quasi-impressionistic at best.

Like I said before, I'm sure these art forms have their place. I'm just not liking their apparent forced presence in the meta, superhuman and/or mutant books.

Not for me.

Not my cup of java.

No way.

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by mpg
Allred is one of those few creators that shapes my opinion of human beings. if you cant see value in his stuff, i cant see value in you :) stufff like Red Rocket 7 is just killer. i have that on my coffee table, and so far, so good :)

its like people complaining about lord of the rings. (to me , at least :))

You're preaching to the choir here, bro! ;)

[mpg]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
You're preaching to the choir here, bro! ;)

then lemme get a hallelujah!

[Cole Odell]

Mike is confusing surface detail with sophistication. It's not a direct correlation; as many people here have pointed out, it's often an inverse relationship. Charles Schulz was one of the most sophisticated cartoonists ever, yet his line was among the most simple (deceptively so).

Just look at the work collected in, say, Spirit Archives #12 and tell me that Eisner, who could be as "cartoony" as they come, was less sophisticated than the hyper-real fanboy favorites of the past 30 years. Or that his noir crime stories would have better served by an Adams or MacFarlane clone. It's like kids in high school who used to rave about what a "technically perfect" drummer Neil Peart of Rush was. Yahoo, the guy sounds like a robot. Gimmie Meg White any day; she may drop the beat once in a while, but at least she plays like an identifiable human being. There's a genuine idea behind the work, not just training.

Mike doesn't seem like a very sophisticated reader. Luckily, he represents the tastes of a tiny, steadily shrinking group of superhero fanatics. The real irony here is that his preferred art style is far more juvenile than the incredibly diverse body of work he criticizes--that is, for anyone outside the cult compound that mainstream superhero fandom has become. The poster who surmised that people like Mike reject all "cartoony" art because they're embarrassed to be reading comics as adults, was really on to something. To these eyes, Jim Lee is far more "kid stuff"--its sexual and emotional immaturity just radiates from the page--than someone like Seth or the great James Kochalka.

Cole Odell

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
Mike doesn't seem like a very sophisticated reader. Luckily, he represents the tastes of a tiny, steadily shrinking group of superhero fanatics. The real irony here is that his preferred art style is far more juvenile than the incredibly diverse body of work he criticizes--that is, for anyone outside the cult compound that mainstream superhero fandom has become. The poster who surmised that people like Mike reject all "cartoony" art because they're embarrassed to be reading comics as adults, was really on to something. To these eyes, Jim Lee is far more "kid stuff"--its sexual and emotional immaturity just radiates from the page--than someone like Seth or the great James Kochalka.

Well, this is merely your opinion, friend.

We could get into a brow-beating, insulting, cartoon vs. anatomically correct style-war but what's the point, really?

To try and psycho-jive-babble people who prefer the Jim Lee "hyper-real" art, etc. over distorted faces and incoherent figures in what is primarily an action/high concept medium -- to suggest "sexual and emotional immaturity," is really stretching it.

Your very same sentiment might be postulated about the "neat-o! Wow! Look how much Spectacular Spider-Man resembles a smashed frog now" approach.

But It's doubtful that anyone would be correct in trying to assume the psychological development of an individual, based on that individual's taste in sequential art.

Don't you think?

Now, if that same person laying down the judgment on others has connected his/her own psychological fortitude to what style of comic book art he/she prefers, then maybe that person could be attempting to transfer their own neurosis onto others.

If this is the case, then this is truly unfortunate.

[kalorama]

All the name-calling, chest-thumping, and finger-pointing aside, I have a very hard time imagining what kind of "reality" is inhabited by people who think the work of Jim Lee or Paul Gulacy is "realistic." It's all cartooning people. Just different shades and degrees.

And the knee-jerk lumping of all "cartoony" artists into one pile is a bit ironic, given the very apparent fact that there is far more visual/stylistic variation at that end of the spectrum than there is at the end of the pool inhabited by the multitude of V. 12.0 Jim Lee clones.

But getting back to original topic: While I enjoyed the visual aesthetic established on Catwoman by Darwyn Cooke, I also have no problem with the decison to move the style ina different direction, per se. I do, however, have a problem with the selection of Paul Gulacy (only partly because, IMO, his work has seriously declined from his MOKF heyday).

Gulacy's selection seems to me to be a self-conscious (and unltimately doomed) attempt to please everyone, a strategy that is always doomed to please no one. On the one hand, the so-called "realists" get to see a Catwoman drawn in a densely shaded, volumetric style they can equate with reality. On the other hand, Gulacy's twisted, exaggerated facial expressions and poses have enough "cartoonishness" in them to, at least in the minds of the DC PTB, please the "old guard" Catwoman fans. It comes off like an attempt to straddle the fence while standing on both sides simultaeously. And we all know what kind of injuries that can lead to.

If they were going to make a change, I'd have much preferred that the Cat editors make a firm committment and go with an artist who fully embodied the kind of noirish feel that Brubaker's writing seems to suggest, someone like Greg Land or Pat Zircher.

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by kalorama
All the name-calling, chest-thumping, and finger-pointing aside, I have a very hard time imagining what kind of "reality" is inhabited by people who think the work of Jim Lee or Paul Gulacy is "realistic." It's all cartooning people. Just different shades and degrees.

And the knee-jerk lumping of all "cartoony" artists into one pile while ignoring the very apparent fact that there is far more visual/stylistic variation at that end of the spectrum than there is at the end of the pool inhabited by the multitude of V. 12.0 Jim Lee clones is a bit myopic.

Yes. I agree that "it's all cartooning people," but how I like my comics might be very different from how you like yours.

I never said the word "realistic." I said Jim Lee's "hyper-real" art (a term I read quoted by Lee himself, I think) -- whatever that means.

And really, what does it matter if I as an individual decide to lump what I feel is cartoony and/or self congradulatory art into "one pile," or not?

I like it in one pile so I can keep it away from my pull-list without discretion.

Honestly, why does the contrary opinion of another poster seem to be such a call to arms for certain individuals?

If someone on this thread says Jim Lee-type art sucks, I really and truly could care less...

That's YOUR opinion, it's in YOUR head, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

If anything, I enjoy hearing all the different opinions on comic books here at Newsarama... kinda keeps it interesting, y'know?

[kcekada]

But the most glaring fallacy is the idea that because the book is well-written and sales are slow (assuming they actually are) then the problem must be with the art. First, the shelves are full of well-written AND well-drawn books that don't reach a big audience (another Bat-free "Bat" book, Gotham Central, comes to mind). Second of all, it is far from any kind of concensus that the art on Catwoman was ever anything other than good. Throughout its run both the writing AND the art have been well-received critically

Never said the art wasn't good. My feeling is that people who would normally Catwoman, but aren't buying it now are probably not fans of the artwork.

Being that issue 25 sold out in my shop, while the past few months issues are still on the stands gives a bit of weight to my hypothesis. Of course, this is only one location and sales may be different elsewhere.

[kalorama]

Originally posted by Snakefish
And really, what does it matter if I as an individual decide to lump what I feel is cartoony and/or self congradulatory art into "one pile," or not?

Do you think the people in the TV talk directly to you?

Not to but too big a kibosh on your self-righteous indignation, by my post wasn't directed at you "as an individual." To be honest, I'm not even sure I read your post before responding. I was making a statement regarding a POV that had been expressed by numerous posters before you.

"I never said the word "realistic.""

Which should have been your first (of many) clues that I wasn't responding directly to you.

"Honestly, why does the contrary opinion of another poster seem to be such a call to arms for certain individuals?"

Good question. One that you seem perfectly suited to answer since you seem to be on a crusade to take everything that disagrees with your POV personally.

"That's YOUR opinion, it's in YOUR head, and it doesn't bother me in the least. "

Really? Could of fooled me.

[stevenchen03]

Hmmm... Paul Gulacy is not a bad artist, but I feel contrary to Mike's opinion. I felt that Gulacy is the mismatch and I already miss the old art team, which brought so much class and character to the book. With Gulacy, Catwoman looks just like any other superhero book, which I guess was the point of the art switch-- to make it more mainstream in light of Jim Lee's run on Batman to increase sales, yadayadayada.

[Caramuru]

It just occurred to me that this discussion depends on the assumption that the writer is the creator of a comic book, while the artist is the hired hand.

There are many great examples of comics that have a more "cartoony" (I would say less naturalistic or stylized) art that are undeniably great - some by creators who are both writers and artists like Frank Miller, Art Spiegelman or Will Eisner, some by collaborations of writers and artists who are both creators and contribute to the comics like Bendis and Oeming, Lee, Kirby, Ditko (I don't think they are necessarily cartoony but some have mentioned them so I'm including them for the sake of examples).

While it's a good idea to think about how the art fits the writing, we also have to remember comics are neither. They are the combination of both. In some cases, the artist can create a comic book without words, apparently without the need of a writer. But said comics would still need a plot to follow, of course. Still the visuals, the panels, the sequencing is what defines the medium.

I mention that because we are discussing Mike's point on his own terms: a writer's point of view.

There's an age old conflict in performing arts like theatre and film which I think applies here: the writers vs. directors and actors. The writer has a vision. He wants that vision translated the best way possible into a medium he can't really control. The directors and actors have their own interpretation of the writer's vision and sometimes will know how to resolve a script in a way which the writer couldn't have foreseen. This conflict is resolved better when there's a natural collaboration bringing a final product together, where everyone share a vision, contribute equally and are flexible enough to accommodate the others. However, it is the director and actors the ones who can bring a play to life.

We are too used to think that because the script is made first, the artist just puts it on paper, when we can also see it as the artist creating a comic book from the "raw material" of the script.

The final product is still the combination of both and every single case of writing vs. art should be thought of separately and on its own merits.

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by kalorama
Do you think the people in the TV talk directly to you?

Not to but too big a kibosh on your self-righteous indignation, by my post wasn't directed at you "as an individual." To be honest, I'm not even sure I read your post before responding. I was making a statement regarding a POV that had been expressed by numerous posters before you.

"I never said the word "realistic.""

Which should have been your first (of many) clues that I wasn't responding directly to you.

"Honestly, why does the contrary opinion of another poster seem to be such a call to arms for certain individuals?"

Good question. One that you seem perfectly suited to answer since you seem to be on a crusade to take everything that disagrees with your POV personally.

"That's YOUR opinion, it's in YOUR head, and it doesn't bother me in the least. "

Really? Could of fooled me.

Okay. Great.

But you did appear to be generalizing on the "myopic" vision of those who prefer the Jim Lee style, and questioning what kind of "reality" we might live in where one might consider that type of art "realistic."

Seeing as how I was the only one posting in favor of the "Lee-style" at the time, and you directly attacked the "absurdity" of this "myopic" vision, I did take it as a response to my posts:

If you truly weren't directing your rebuttal at me, then I apologize.

The comedy never ends here at Newsarama, it seems...

[kalorama]

Originally posted by kcekada
Never said the art wasn't good. My feeling is that people who would normally Catwoman, but aren't buying it now are probably not fans of the artwork.

Being that issue 25 sold out in my shop, while the past few months issues are still on the stands gives a bit of weight to my hypothesis. Of course, this is only one location and sales may be different elsewhere.

The first issue of a much advertised creative change often results in a temporary sales jump, but much of that can be attributed to the curiosity factor. It remains to be seen whether the change results in prolonged sales improvement (or if the new readers picking up the book because of the new art balance ouyt the old readers leaving the book for the same reason).

[Cole Odell]

Originally posted by Snakefish
[B]Well, this is merely your opinion, friend.

The obvious problem with my approach is coming up with critical criteria everone can agree on. Objectivity is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. The problem with your approach, however, is that there's no bottom to it. Think Micheal Bay is a better director than Alfred Hitchcock? Opinion! John Grisham a better writer than Shakespeare? Opinion! The great neutralizer! Critics, go home! Schools, shut down! Everybody's point of view, no matter how limited, is absolutely the same!

Horse-shit.

We could get into a brow-beating, insulting, cartoon vs. anatomically correct style-war but what's the point, really?

Granted, Kochalka probably wouldn't be the right artist for The Flash. (Loved his Hawkman story, though.) But to posit that mainstream action art is inherently superior, and to speculate that it has more potential appeal to more people than good cartooning, is idiotic. And that's what Mike has done, both in this post and in previous writings. Someone who can't understand what essential element Mike Allred brings to X-Statix is someone who has comics reading comprehension problems. And yes, I realize that's "just my opinion". But it's a fact that a mainstream industry dominated by "realistic" art over the last 30 years has shrunk to the size of Ant-Man's genitals, while more expressionist cartooning still fills thousands of newspapers, wins people's hearts (as with Calvin & Hobbes or Peanuts) and currently sells five times as many comic books (manga) as anything Bryan Hitch can bring on his best day. Look, I'm by no means an absolutist. I love Cassaday, Scott Kolins, and other fine examples of the "realistic" school. That stuff can be very fun, and has its place. But I don't think you'd find that any one of those artists would dismiss more expressionistic cartoonists as easily as some fans try to. There's room for all kinds of styles. The opinions of those who would dismiss not only modern cartoonists but past masters such as Eisner, Kirby and Ditko are essentially worthless. If these "fans" love comics, why do they disdain so many of the best ones? It's like you're trying to deny the personal art of comics, and push them entirely into the realm of commerce. Perhaps you're more comfortable there. Consuming product is safer than engaging other peoples' imaginations.

To try and psycho-jive-babble people who prefer the Jim Lee "hyper-real" art, etc. over distorted faces and incoherent figures in what is primarily an action/high concept medium -- to suggest "sexual and emotional immaturity," is really stretching it.

Incoherent figures? Where? Show me an "incoherent figure" from Allred, Cooke or Stewart. And, cribbing from McCloud, what do you think all those extraneous lines in so-called "realistic" art represent if not messy, pubescent teenage angst? Cooke and Stewart expertly captured the motion and grace neccesary for a Catwoman comic, with great storytelling chops. It had the fluidity of great cartooning. Art that approaches photography, on the other hand, tends to freeze static moments in time. What you gain in the rendering, you lose in spontaneity. I ask you, in what conceivable way is that "better" for an action comic? For all the pyrotechnic tricks of his technique, a guy like Alex Ross has no idea how to express the energy and motion that was second nature for Eisner, Kirby and Toth.

But It's doubtful that anyone would be correct in trying to assume the psychological development of an individual, based on that individual's taste in sequential art.

I can't speak for Jim Lee--he probably knows exactly what buttons his most popular style (he's capable of others) pushes. But I think you can draw some conclusions about readers with narrowly proscribed tastes, who only go for the Jerry Bruckheimer-style art.

Of course, it's becoming a moot point, as there are only 10 of you boys left. Whoops. Nine.

[kalorama]

Originally posted by Snakefish
Okay. Great.

But you did appear to be generalizing on the "myopic" vision of those who prefer the Jim Lee style, and questioning what kind of "reality" we might live in where one might consider that type of art "realistic."

Seeing as how I was the only one posting in favor of the "Lee-style" at the time, and you directly attacked the "absurdity" of this "myopic" vision, I did take it as a response to my posts:

Your post also followed a small conflict I had with the person calling "sexual and emotional immaturity," and you mentioned "chest-beating and finger pointing."

If you truly weren't directing your rebuttal at me, then I apologize.

The comedy never ends here at Newsarama, it seems...


*Sigh*

This is obviously an exercise in futility, but what the hell. I can use the exercise.

First, you were far from the first person in this thread to reference Jim Lee as a touchstone of "Realistic" art. Second, your conflict with other posters are none of my concern. Third, you weren't even close to being the first person to engage in "chest-beating and finger pointing," just the most amusingly self-righteous in doing so.

[Barry]

Originally posted by kcekada
Never said the art wasn't good. My feeling is that people who would normally Catwoman, but aren't buying it now are probably not fans of the artwork.

Being that issue 25 sold out in my shop, while the past few months issues are still on the stands gives a bit of weight to my hypothesis. Of course, this is only one location and sales may be different elsewhere.

Given that what tends to be popular in the superhero/direct market world tends to be utter crap as a result of superhero fans settling for and continually buying said crap, I don't put much stock in what sells or doesn't as a measure of quality.

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by kalorama
*Sigh*

This is obviously an exercise in futility, but what the hell. I can use the exercise.

First, you were far from the first person in this thread to reference Jim Lee as a touchstone of "Realistic" art. Second, your conflict with other posters are none of my concern. Third, you weren't even close to being the first person to engage in "chest-beating and finger pointing," just the most amusingly self-righteous in doing so.

I never said I was the "first person," I said I was the only person doing so at the time.

Nor did I ever say that my conflicts with other posters were your concern. I stated why I thought you were responding to me.

And if I have amused you, then maybe you should thank me.

[mpg]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
The obvious problem with my approach is coming up with critical criteria everone can agree on. Objectivity is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. The problem with your approach, however, is that there's no bottom to it. Think Micheal Bay is a better director than Alfred Hitchcock? Opinion! John Grisham a better writer than Shakespeare? Opinion! The great neutralizer! Critics, go home! Schools, shut down! Everybody's point of view, no matter how limited, is absolutely the same!

Horse-shit.



Granted, Kochalka probably wouldn't be the right artist for The Flash. (Loved his Hawkman story, though.) But to posit that mainstream action art is inherently superior, and to speculate that it has more potential appeal to more people than good cartooning, is idiotic. And that's what Mike has done, both in this post and in previous writings. Someone who can't understand what essential element Mike Allred brings to X-Statix is someone who has comics reading comprehension problems. And yes, I realize that's "just my opinion". But it's a fact that a mainstream industry dominated by "realistic" art over the last 30 years has shrunk to the size of Ant-Man's genitals, while more expressionist cartooning still fills thousands of newspapers, wins people's hearts (as with Calvin & Hobbes or Peanuts) and currently sells five times as many comic books (manga) as anything Bryan Hitch can bring on his best day. Look, I'm by no means an absolutist. I love Cassaday, Scott Kolins, and other fine examples of the "realistic" school. That stuff can be very fun, and has its place. But I don't think you'd find that any one of those artists would dismiss more expressionistic cartoonists as easily as some fans try to. There's room for all kinds of styles. The opinions of those who would dismiss not only modern cartoonists but past masters such as Eisner, Kirby and Ditko are essentially worthless. If these "fans" love comics, why do they disdain so many of the best ones? It's like you're trying to deny the personal art of comics, and push them entirely into the realm of commerce. Perhaps you're more comfortable there. Consuming product is safer than engaging other peoples' imaginations.



Incoherent figures? Where? Show me an "incoherent figure" from Allred, Cooke or Stewart. And, cribbing from McCloud, what do you think all those extraneous lines in so-called "realistic" art represent if not messy, pubescent teenage angst? Cooke and Stewart expertly captured the motion and grace neccesary for a Catwoman comic, with great storytelling chops. It had the fluidity of great cartooning. Art that approaches photography, on the other hand, tends to freeze static moments in time. What you gain in the rendering, you lose in spontaneity. I ask you, in what conceivable way is that "better" for an action comic? For all the pyrotechnic tricks of his technique, a guy like Alex Ross has no idea how to express the energy and motion that was second nature for Eisner, Kirby and Toth.



I can't speak for Jim Lee--he probably knows exactly what buttons his most popular style (he's capable of others) pushes. But I think you can draw some conclusions about readers with narrowly proscribed tastes, who only go for the Jerry Bruckheimer-style art.

Of course, it's becoming a moot point, as there are only 10 of you boys left. Whoops. Nine.

good job , dude . you points are well stated

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
The obvious problem with my approach is coming up with critical criteria everone can agree on. Objectivity is difficult, if not impossible to achieve. The problem with your approach, however, is that there's no bottom to it. Think Micheal Bay is a better director than Alfred Hitchcock? Opinion! John Grisham a better writer than Shakespeare? Opinion! The great neutralizer! Critics, go home! Schools, shut down! Everybody's point of view, no matter how limited, is absolutely the same!

Horse-shit.



Granted, Kochalka probably wouldn't be the right artist for The Flash. (Loved his Hawkman story, though.) But to posit that mainstream action art is inherently superior, and to speculate that it has more potential appeal to more people than good cartooning, is idiotic. And that's what Mike has done, both in this post and in previous writings. Someone who can't understand what essential element Mike Allred brings to X-Statix is someone who has comics reading comprehension problems. And yes, I realize that's "just my opinion". But it's a fact that a mainstream industry dominated by "realistic" art over the last 30 years has shrunk to the size of Ant-Man's genitals, while more expressionist cartooning still fills thousands of newspapers, wins people's hearts (as with Calvin & Hobbes or Peanuts) and currently sells five times as many comic books (manga) as anything Bryan Hitch can bring on his best day. Look, I'm by no means an absolutist. I love Cassaday, Scott Kolins, and other fine examples of the "realistic" school. That stuff can be very fun, and has its place. But I don't think you'd find that any one of those artists would dismiss more expressionistic cartoonists as easily as some fans try to. There's room for all kinds of styles. The opinions of those who would dismiss not only modern cartoonists but past masters such as Eisner, Kirby and Ditko are essentially worthless. If these "fans" love comics, why do they disdain so many of the best ones? It's like you're trying to deny the personal art of comics, and push them entirely into the realm of commerce. Perhaps you're more comfortable there. Consuming product is safer than engaging other peoples' imaginations.



Incoherent figures? Where? Show me an "incoherent figure" from Allred, Cooke or Stewart. And, cribbing from McCloud, what do you think all those extraneous lines in so-called "realistic" art represent if not messy, pubescent teenage angst? Cooke and Stewart expertly captured the motion and grace neccesary for a Catwoman comic, with great storytelling chops. It had the fluidity of great cartooning. Art that approaches photography, on the other hand, tends to freeze static moments in time. What you gain in the rendering, you lose in spontaneity. I ask you, in what conceivable way is that "better" for an action comic? For all the pyrotechnic tricks of his technique, a guy like Alex Ross has no idea how to express the energy and motion that was second nature for Eisner, Kirby and Toth.



I can't speak for Jim Lee--he probably knows exactly what buttons his most popular style (he's capable of others) pushes. But I think you can draw some conclusions about readers with narrowly proscribed tastes, who only go for the Jerry Bruckheimer-style art.

Of course, it's becoming a moot point, as there are only 10 of you boys left. Whoops. Nine.

Good God...

You're a funny guy.

Just one thing: why do you seem to find it impossible to differentiate and exclude your opinions from your insults?

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by mpg
good job , dude . you points are well stated

My lord...

[Cole Odell]

Originally posted by Snakefish
Good God...

You're a funny guy.

Just one thing: why do you seem to find it impossible to differentiate and exclude your opinions from your insults?

There's a difference? Just call me Triumph the Insult Comic Fan. Jim Lee needs a little pooping, Liefield needs a little pooping, Snakefish needs a little pooping...

And not that I don't love to see my own writing, but why is everybody quoting my *entire post* when it's right up there for everyone to see?

Cole

[mpg]

Originally posted by Snakefish
My lord...

i dont need that title, i would dissapoint you :)

if you need that restated, i felt like he made his points, and i didnt feel like cutting out what ididnt agree with, but he was on the right track

i honestly didnt see how his insults were any less intertwined with his opinions than yours were.

respectfully, i came away from your article feeling like you feel that you know whats best for the industry.

i think that the same old formulaic approach to mainstream books will be the death of the industry.

and i felt like your last line about the keyboards was really cheesy.

[mpg]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
There's a difference? Just call me Triumph the Insult Comic Fan. Jim Lee needs a little pooping, Liefield needs a little pooping, Snakefish needs a little pooping...

And not that I don't love to see my own writing, but why is everybody quoting my *entire post* when it's right up there for everyone to see?

Cole

to let you know that they are responding to those particular comments

[MichaelCoughlin]

Because some things go over people heads....

My ENTIRE point regarding the popularity of Manga is that it is NOT because of the art style, but because of something more, something deeper. If it was because of the art, wouldn't more books the mimic the "manga style" be selling better?

Again, people who deride others for saying "Manga style" (meaning the "simpler" lines, "japanimation" look and feel art) because they know it is so much more, and that there are a multitude of different styles, are now stating that the popularity of Manga leads credence to the idea that "simple style" art. Which is it? Is Manga so much more, or is it "simple line style"? Wouldn't a book like X-Statix, drawn by Allred, one of the preeminant "simple style" artists in the world, a man universally praised, a book that has recieved numerous accolades, a book with a freaking "X" in it, be selling better?

Manga sells well for a number of factors, and art is not the only one. The art obviously plays some role in the sucess, but the fact that such art doesn't lead to big bumps in sales on other books should be SOME SORT of proof that the art is not as important to Manga's sucess as some are trying to argue.

[Alex Scott]

I've already gone over this: they can't FIND the manga-influenced books the US companies put out, and these books are too expensive. Note that of all of Marvel and DC's attempts to appeal to the manga audience over the past year, the only one that worked was Death: At Death's Door--a book that was readily available at bookstores, and cost exactly the same as the average manga (the existing Sandman fanbase didn't hurt, either). Tsunami, on the other hand, hardly penetrated outside comic stores (which manga readers don't go to), and was still $2.50-$3.00 for a single issue (which is a ripoff compared to the $5 for 300 pages of Shonen Jump).

Plus, a lot of manga fans just don't have a taste for traditional superheroes, whether they look like manga or not.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Alex Scott
I've already gone over this: they can't FIND the manga-influenced books the US companies put out, and these books are too expensive. Note that of all of Marvel and DC's attempts to appeal to the manga audience over the past year, the only one that worked was Death: At Death's Door--a book that was readily available at bookstores, and cost exactly the same as the average manga (the existing Sandman fanbase didn't hurt, either). Tsunami, on the other hand, hardly penetrated outside comic stores (which manga readers don't go to), and was still $2.50-$3.00 for a single issue (which is a ripoff compared to the $5 for 300 pages of Shonen Jump).

Plus, a lot of manga fans just don't have a taste for traditional superheroes, whether they look like manga or not.

I'm not sure how well it worked, but I've seen something else in bookstores that seem to be reprints of old ElfQuest comics, but in black and white and in a manga-sized digest, and at the same price point........ and it seemed to me like a pretty good job in general of getting that right.

Some of the other companies seem to be doing a fairly good job of this as well......i.e. the Blue Monday trades from Oni, those Courtney Crumrun TPB's, etc.

-Zadillo

[Cole Odell]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
[B]Because some things go over people heads....

My ENTIRE point regarding the popularity of Manga is that it is NOT because of the art style, but because of something more, something deeper. If it was because of the art, wouldn't more books the mimic the "manga style" be selling better?

Terrible comparison. The "more books" you refer to are sold via a different distribution system to a dwindling audience self-selected over decades to appreciate a different aesthetic. What I take from the widespread success of manga is simply that a "cartoony" art style is clearly *not* a limiting factor for the popularity of action-oriented books. Would manga with Perez/Hitch-style "realistic" art sell even better? I sincerely doubt it.

While you refer to "something deeper," I don't think one can easily separate the art from the manga phenomenon. There's something about that particular range of styles that appeals to lots of people, a design sensibility shared by anime, manga and their ancillary products that serve to reinforce each another. Manga fans certainly enjoy their comics as pop art objects, accessories of cool. Mainstream American comics, for all their trying, don't have anything similar, and the books that have attempted to graft surface elements of manga onto their tired old concepts (Sabrina, the Tsunami line) seem even lamer than ever.

Manga art is one answer to the old question "why don't more girls read comics?" Try drawing comics in an approachable style that doesn't automatically exclude women by portraying everything in terms of crassly objectified forms (male and female) shot through a lens of teenage male anxieties. Duh, the masses said.

Beyond the art, manga succeeds where traditional American comics can't because it is perceived as new, exotic, it's affordable, it tells stories with actual endings, and it isn't neccesarily preoccupied with the same exact great power/great responsibililty/male-adolescence-in-a-cape themes that have defined the bulk of Marvel and DC comics of the past 50 years. At the least it approaches those themes differently.

Cole

[OM]

Originally posted by Snakefish
Good God... <center><font size=14><B>WOULD
YOU
GUYS
PLEASE
TRIM
YOUR
QUOTES?!?!
</b></font></center>
Egads...

[Alex Scott]

Zadillo: Yeah, that's why I have more faith in Oni to survive alongside manga than I do for, say, Marvel. And so far I haven't actually seen the Elfquest collections except in one Media Play. I hope they're doing well elsewhere.

Cole: Isn't it a little early to judge how Sabrina turns out? So far all we've seen is the cover, and I doubt most of us have read the artist's contest entry.

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by mpg

i honestly didnt see how his insults were any less intertwined with his opinions than yours were.

respectfully, i came away from your article feeling like you feel that you know whats best for the industry.

and i felt like your last line about the keyboards was really cheesy.

Where in the world did you glean any insults out of me stating my personal opinions on comic book art, what I like and don't like?

I was speaking from my point of view about why I don't like "cartoony" art, and I never came close to insulting... not until the above mentioned other poster made a direct statement as to how the minds of these "10, whoops -- 9" people were supposedly Sexually and emotionally deficient.

And I never, ever stated what I thought was "best" for the industry... not even close.

I clearly stated what I appreciated art-wise in comics, and also what I abhored... and I stand behind every statement I made.

Unlike a portion of the posters on this thread, I do try to state my opinions as opinions, and I don't engage in tit-for-tat arguments until another poster starts insulting others for not sharing their own personal thoughts and beliefs.

If anything is a sign of an under-developed mentality, it is this ugly habit (and I'm speaking of the poster you praised more than anyone else on this thread) of attempting to gouge others for not sharing in the popular opinion.

Also, what "line about the keyboards" are you talking about?

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
There's a difference? Just call me Triumph the Insult Comic Fan. Jim Lee needs a little pooping, Liefield needs a little pooping, Snakefish needs a little pooping...

Maybe there is no difference in your reality. And I think that's a shame if such is the case. But if you insist on making what you would like to believe are these judgments that lie somewhere closest to rational objectivity...

You might want to consider the fact that you are most probably fooling yourself silly and blind.

Why don't you just give an honest try at letting people have their "subjective" opinions, and realize that your own perceptions in no way whatsoever contain the "bottom" that you accuse my sentiments of lacking.

Really.

Think about it.

You might surprise yourself...

[kalorama]

Originally posted by OM
<center><font size=14><B>WOULD
YOU
GUYS
PLEASE
TRIM
YOUR
QUOTES?!?!
</b></font></center>
Egads...

I have a guy who comes by once a week to trim my quotes. He does a nice job on the hedges, too.

[Cole Odell]

I was speaking from my point of view about why I don't like "cartoony" art, and I never came close to insulting... not until the above mentioned other poster made a direct statement as to how the minds of these "10, whoops -- 9" people were supposedly Sexually and emotionally deficient.

There's no accounting for taste, it is said. Not by me, but it is said.

If it is not self-evident to you that grimly earnest, over-rendered superhero comics read by men well into adulthood doesn't raise some issues of arrested development, (and god knows I recognize that description in myself) I don't think I'll be able to convince you. How many endless threads have discussed this, and hashed over in particular the pathetic portrayal of women?

Unlike a portion of the posters on this thread, I do try to state my opinions as opinions, and I don't engage in tit-for-tat arguments until another poster starts insulting others for not sharing their own personal thoughts and beliefs.

My position is that a wide variety of art styles are what makes comics so interesting. Those who close themselves off to entire artistic approaches are only doing themselves a disservice. If it's your opinion that somebody like Cooke or Stewart isn't suited to what you consider "serious" action comics, I'm sorry, but you have a silly opinion. It might be polite, but it would be lying to pretend otherwise. A book like Catwoman requires an artist who can convey mood and fluid motion. Both of the above artists had that in spades. If you disagree, I have to believe that your pre-concieved notions about what kind of art is acceptable are faulty. Mike S's certainly are, if he can't see the difference between what Allred is doing on X-Statix and the artists following studio model sheets to crank out Powerpuff Girls comics.

If anything is a sign of an under-developed mentality, it is this ugly habit (and I'm speaking of the poster you praised more than anyone else on this thread) of attempting to gouge others for not sharing in the popular opinion.

Yup, I'm pretty caustic. If I'm in violation of the superhero code of chivalry that causes comics fans to address each other and comic shop clerks as "sir", make courtly bows, and discreetly refrain from mentioning that Subway sandwich smell that lingers around most comic shops--EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAS EATEN ONE--I guess you can sue me. Mike S. has certainly earned the privilege of being laughed at. The word "opinion" isn't enough cover for a position as inanely limiting as his. I can't help it if his opinion is ridiculously stereotypical, something often overheard in the Android's Dungeon. And besides, he uses the word "opinion" disingenuously himself, with each use of the word stating that he *really* thinks the other point of view is just plain wrong. Now he's playing the blithely-above-the-fray-card, which doesn't wash either. But whatta gonna do?

Cole

[mpg]

snakefish

I know you were stating your opinion, i got that.

but it was my opinion , after reading your piece, that you came across a bit snide and arrogant. i didnt say that you specifically said that you knew what was best for the industry, i said that was the message that i felt came thru. maybe not your intention, but that is how i felt.

its that same feeling i get when i go to buy a He-Man , Superman or Batman video and they are in a big section labeled "childrens"

its not a big deal, but that is a bit demeaning. it reduces my tastes to a child's level, when those shows have a lot of depth to them.

the keyboard line was at the end. it was just an antagonistic ending to your coulmn. imho

i really begrudge you nothing. i don't want you to feel like that. i got your humor. i get your points (as i did with the other folks)

but we all knowingly walk that fine line when we talk about not liking "styles" It is a backwards insult.

people who dont read comics think they are just for kids. and you think that cartooning style art is just for kids.

and you know the people who dont read comics for that reason are missing out, so i kinda feel like that.

i mean, if you read Untold tales of spiderman 96' and told me Mike Allred wasnt the perfect spidey artist, my head would explode. :)

[Cole Odell]

Originally posted by Snakefish
But if you insist on making what you would like to believe are these judgments that lie somewhere closest to rational objectivity...

You might want to consider the fact that you are most probably fooling yourself silly and blind.



Larry: I can't see! I can't see!

Moe: Why?

Larry: I got my eyes closed.

Snakefish, it's all *men* that are created equal. Not opinions. Is the opinion that some people are better off as slaves "equal" to the opinion that slavery is wrong? Is the opinion of a person who has seen nothing but chick flicks, and holds"Beaches" up as the finest example of cinema ever made, equal to that of a professsional film critic who has a lifetime of studying movies?

I make no claim to objectivity. But some subjective opinions *are* more well-founded than others.

Cole

[mpg]

For example, we have "regular" artists on comics and then we have artists on comics meant for kids like "Powerpuff Girls" and the Justice League and Batman books based on shows.

It is less detailed, features exaggerated physical characteristics and is simply, simpler.

This is not a bad thing, just a different thing.

We are saying that the art based on the cartoon shows is less than the "regular" work.

So, if we agree that these comics based on cartoons are simpler than we have established an art level. Up here, the "regular" artists are for more discerning readers and down here, the animated stuff is for...others

see, you called the art you liked "regular"

you stated, as fact, that it is less detailed, which is opinion.

then you established a hierarchy of artwork.

the thing i am mislead by is that , comics are fantasy. people dont really look like that. they dont have powers. we dont go to space all the time. dont you think it is a minor detail if someone's chin is pointy?

if the art is bad, its bad, but to dump it all out on one shot, is really taking a lot of really EXCEELENT artists out of you pull list, which is a shame.

it took me soo long to like Mike Mignola. he did this xfactor annual cover that i would constantly rip it. but now , he is one of my favorite artists.

i didnt like dark styles, i didnt like independants. i wouldnt read black and whites. and i missed out on a lot of good stuf because of it.

personally, i just think it is a bad thing to dismiss something for its style.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Snakefish
And really, what does it matter if I as an individual decide to lump what I feel is cartoony and/or self congradulatory art into "one pile," or not?

Honestly, why does the contrary opinion of another poster seem to be such a call to arms for certain individuals?

Probably because some people like to call art "self congradulatory" just because they don't like it.

[The Blue Spider]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
No offense to anyone, but if you think that art like the type that was gracing CATWOMAN up until Gulacy came on board is "too cartoony", you are simply being stubborn and close-minded.

While Sangiacomo was totally wrong...... you're not giving enough credit to simple matters of taste. Artistic intent doesn't please a soul if that soul just doesn't like what he sees.

Besides, the term is 'narrow-minded'. 'Close-minded' is a meaningless catch-phrase that college-age leftists throw at their political/philosophical opponents.

Beyond that I accept your point.

[Chris Saksida]

...Bullshit deleted because Kalorama and Zadillo find it insulting...:p


Chris Saksida

PS:sorry about my english:rolleyes:

[Caramuru]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
[BThe truth is that almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style, and that's why the market is sinking... [/B]

That's as simplistic as it is untrue.

[joe desman]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
The truth is that almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style, and that's why the market is sinking...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,

yes you are right chris,americans draw almost the same freaking way...for example,Alex ross draws exactly the same as Chris Bachalo...sometimes I cant tell the difference.


Joe

:D

[Slangword]

Re: Alan David Doane's parody

I like how he uses "pop noir" as though it actually meant anything other than that he can't describe why he thinks the former art style is appropriate.

I also noticed how he digressed into a discussion of Epic for no reason other than to slam Mike S.

Bottom line is all I found was that he disagreed with Mike S., with no real explanation of why . . . . most of the posters here did a better job of explaining why they felt the way they did.

I think Gulacy is a great choice for a Catwoman series. I somewhat enjoyed the other artists, but feel that the style they use is misleading to the general public. Just as I don't think that Carl Barks' or Floyd Gottrfredson's styles would have been appropriate for Maus, I think there's a good point about the animated style not really fitting the stories told in this book.

"Pop Noir" or not . :rolleyes:


--Scott

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
ˇˇHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!:D :D :D :D

I find all this ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, I hate the tremendous lack of personality of northamerican comics artists, can't you see that they all draw almost the same freaking way?, it's almost as anoying as asian artists... I can't even distinguish between a manga/anime artist and another, why can't artists have a little more personality and not copy everyone else's style? be yourselves, for christ's sake!

The truth is that almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style, and that's why the market is sinking... take a look at what the rest of the world are doing and you'll see that american art doesn't do anything else than recycle itself over and over... or copy the styles of the rest of the world; and that's when the thing gets interesting.

open your eyes, people...


Chris Saksida

PS:sorry about my english:rolleyes:

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, I can only hope you are being sarcastic, and trying to make a point in doing so.

The stuff about "north american" artists is stupid. The stuff about asian manga and anime artists is also ridiculously stupid........ there's a ton of variety among artists, in style, character design, etc. And that's not even including folks like Yoshitaka Amano (the guy who has done a lot of art for stuff like the Final Fantasy games, Neil Gaiman's "Sandman: The Dream Hunters" and art for the "Vampire Hunter D" novels). But to say that all Asian artists of anime and manga are indistinguishable is insulting........ not even going to the thousands of individual artists, all I have to do is bring up a few of the most famous, such as CLAMP (Card Captor Sakura, X, etc.), Kosuke Fujishima (Oh! My Goddess and You're Under Arrest), Leiji Matsumoto (Space Battleship Yamato, Captain Harlock, Galaxy Express 999, etc.), Osamu Tezuka (Astroboy, Kimba the White Lion), Hayao Miyazaki (Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind), Katsuhiro Otomo (Akira), Shirow Masamune (Ghost in the Shell), Rumiko Takahashi (Ranma 1/2, etc.), Yoshiyuki Tomino (Mobile Suit Gundam), Shoji Kawamori (Macross, Escaflowne, etc.), Akira Toriyama (Dragon Ball Z, Chrono Trigger, etc.)

..... to say all of these artists are indistinguishable is frankly ridiculous. And if you're incapable of telling the difference betweem, say, the work of Akira Toriyama and the work of Leiji Matsumoto, you should get your eyes examined.

-Zadillo

[Chris Saksida]

I said ALMOST... not ALL :rolleyes:

luckily, there still are people like Alex Ross, Mike Mignola, Paul Pope, even Scottie Young tries to be different from the mayority or the american artists; but if you compare the american comics market to the european comics market, you'll see that the european has a hell of a lot more diversity in the drawing styles than the american... just take a look.

The few artists that have a little more personality than the rest are either bashed, or glorified.


Chris Saksida

[Chris Saksida]

And if you're incapable of telling the difference betweem, say, the work of Akira Toriyama and the work of Leiji Matsumoto, you should get your eyes examined

Yeah, there is of course some difference between the artists; but is almost indistinguishable for someone outside the fan circle, I hear things like: "this artist does more pointy noses", "that artist does the eyes bigger", "that other artist does the male faces more affeminated than the other", there are differences but they're minimal, the difference is not like, let's say, an Hergé and a Carlos Meglia or a Juanjo Guarnido.

Chris Saksida

[zombiekid]

you do have a point chris, but i wouldn't go so far as to say ALL north american comic art looks the same but when it comes to mainstream super hero books there are similarities.

my favourite artists are the ones you can recognise straight away because they tried something new and developed a distinctive style, don't get me wrong style certainly doesn't make up for a lack of talent but having both is what it's all about in my eyes.

oni press is a fine example and i think it may be due to they're lack of superhero comics (does sidekicks and love fights count?) but there is also top shelf, slave labor, com.x (when they do anything) and many others.

it just seems like a lot of people don't want to read non-superhero books sometimes, which is a shame coz books like pop gun war and scott morse's visitations are REALLY good.

[kalorama]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
I said ALMOST... not ALL :rolleyes:

luckily, there still are people like Alex Ross, Mike Mignola, Paul Pope, even Scottie Young tries to be different from the mayority or the american artists; but if you compare the american comics market to the european comics market, you'll see that the european has a hell of a lot more diversity in the drawing styles than the american... just take a look.

The few artists that have a little more personality than the rest are either bashed, or glorified.


Chris Saksida

Oh, well if it's only ALMOST ALL... that makes it all better.

Please. This is just a different side of the same "what I like is good, what you like is homogenous junk" overgeneralization that started this whole thing.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
Yeah, there is of course some difference between the artists; but is almost indistinguishable for someone outside the fan circle, I hear things like: "this artist does more pointy noses", "that artist does the eyes bigger", "that other artist does the male faces more affeminated than the other", there are differences but they're minimal, the difference is not like, let's say, an Hergé and a Carlos Meglia or a Juanjo Guarnido.

Chris Saksida

I'm sorry, but again, this is just not true. The differences are night and day between ALL of the artists I mentioned above. It's not just a matter of "this guy does noses a bit differently". The styles, artistic sensibilities, etc. of these things are COMPLETELY different.

Believe what you want, but there is a huge amount of difference between the art of each of those people I mentioned above..... some more than others, and some are COMPLETELY different (such as the difference between Amano's art and Toriyama's).

I'm sure I'm not going to convince you of this because you've already made up your mind, but it's incredibly insulting to these artists to say that somehow all Asian artists have similar styles or are generally indistuingishable, and if you took the time to actually look at the art of the people I mentioned above, I would really challenge you to tell me that it is indistinguishable.

I'm not sure what your criteria is, but to say that there isn't as much variety or as much to distinguish Japanese artists as the European artists you cite is just incredibly insulting and a ridiculous statement.

-Zadillo

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
it's almost as anoying as asian artists... I can't even distinguish between a manga/anime artist and another...
The truth is that almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style, and that's why the market is sinking...

Heh. You're funny.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
I said ALMOST... not ALL :rolleyes:

That is STILL a ridiculous statement. There are hundreds of comics released in North America every month and you can honestly stand by your statement that most look exactly the same?

[zombiekid]

IMO it seems that after the huge 'art is more important' time caused by the creation of image that nowadays writing has taken over again, i mean who's the biggest name in comics at the moment? i'd say bendis. so art is being neglected a bit, i find the best art is in creator owned projects or indy comics, not all the time tho there are still some great artists working for DC and marvel

[Chris Saksida]

Look guys, If you read well what I wrote , I said "almost all american comic artists draw almost the same way", that is, a 75% of the artists are too influenced by someone else, I've never objected their talent, the problem is that they don't search originality, the same with manga/anime artists.

I totally admire the talent of a very good Jim Lee clone, but I can't say that the artist is very original, he doesn't even try to be... catch the point?

And the thing about the sinking of the american market; I think one of the reasons for that is just that: their lack of originality, and I think zombiekid got my point, I wish there was more people that reads outside the superhero stuff and even outside american market sometimes, you could see what I'm talking about.

Chris Saksida

[kalorama]

Oh, so it's only 75%? Well... that's different.

Nice save attempt, but you're fo far off the mark you should be waving to the taget as you pass by.

There's plenty of variety among "north american" comics artists (whatever that means; does that include only those born on the continent or are you blindly stereotyping transplants too?) as long as you understand and accept the basic fact that the North American comics market does not begin at Marvel's front door and end at DC's back alley.

[Chris Saksida]

kalorama: ok, I'll say what you want: "the american comics market is, stilistically speaking, THE MOST DIVERSE market in the ENTIRE world":):rolleyes: :p

Isn't it Marvel and Dc the most important comic companies in the american market?, how much is the percentage of comics they sell over the whole? 40?, 50?, 60?

I can name many original american artists: Alex Ross, Mike Mignola, Paul Pope, Dave Mc Kean, Joe Madureira, Bruce Timm, Mike Allred, Scottie Young, and many others; and there are editorials, as zombiekid said: Oni Press, Top Shelf, (Com X is british :p ), slave labor and many others that I think are trying hard to do distinctive and original stuff, but unless they become bigger, the american industry will not change.

Chris Saksida

[ssava]

Originally posted by Egg
Mr. Sava,

I'm looking forward to The Dreamland Chronicles! I saw the preview at (I had to go dig this up): http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=2880

It looks like it'll be cool!

And a Spidey with you and Paul Dini would be fun, fun, fun!

But, onto the thread, I'm torn! I like all types of art. I like working with serious artists like Steven (upcoming Green Lantern, Gene Pool, upcoming Flash, upcoming Elektra, upcoming Kamen) Cummings. But my girlfriend, Jessi (upcoming First Love on a Tuesday) Nelson, is VERY cartoony and I love her work, too. But I think that all art has a place somewhere.

As for my own art, well it’s God-awful, that’s the reason I write!

Egg ( www.KamenComic.com / www.SilverBulletComicBooks.com )

Totally....it's all a matter of putting the right story with the right artist....and again...that's the editor's responsibility for the most part.

By the way...I didn't know you also wrote....and we apparently did work on the More Fund book together?
Cool!
I have to check it out when I get home from the holidays....

See ya
Scott

[zombiekid]

the bigger companies do try, ult. marvel team up and batman:black & white spring to mind, it's just that afterwards they slip straight back into their status quo. don't get me wrong i loved jim lee's art work on batman: hush but i honestly prefer someone like edward risso, mike mignola, bruce timm, tim sale or even scott morse because they're trying new things, different styles and approaches. that's what causes the evolution of comics and stops them from being stale. if no one takes risks how would we know if it wouldn't be better than the art we have now?

[Cartoon Jay]

I'm glad Mike "wrote" this piece, if only so I could see how many people agree with me. This is a long-running debate with me and my mates, the cartoony vs. realistic. I was starting to think I was alone in my preference for "cartoony (or as I like to call it "comic book') art.

When I look at a comic, I want to see the hand of the artist, his/her unique personality and visual flair. And, I want to see that they can consistantly draw more than just people in spandex. I find that "realistic art" very often gets in the way of the story.
Sometimes more isn't just better. Sometimes it's just more.

If I wanted some slavish reproduction of reality, I'd pick up my camera, walk outside and take a picture. For my comics, I'll take Kirby, Cooke, Timm, Mignola, Herge, Pini, Miyazaki, Jeff Smith, J. Bone, Tezuka, Jill Thompson, Glen Murakami, Min-Woo Hyung, Yasuhiro Nightow, Ditko, Daniel Torres, or any "cartoony" artist you can name.

By the was, I was going to check out Phantom Jack. Was. I don't appreciate rabble-rousing, even if I'm the rabble.

[Chris Saksida]

When I look at a comic, I want to see the hand of the artist, his/her unique personality and visual flair. And, I want to see that they can consistantly draw more than just people in spandex. I find that "realistic art" very often gets in the way of the story.
Sometimes more isn't just better. Sometimes it's just more.

Cartoon Jay, you're my HERO!:D :D , I can't agree more with you.

if no one takes risks how would we know if it wouldn't be better than the art we have now?

Exactly, I think they're too busy counting cash to care doing different things, even if the american industry is dying.

Chris Saksida

[kalorama]

The percentage of comics sold by Marvel and DC is irrelevant to the point you seem to think you're making. You made the farcically incorrect claim that "almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style". You didn't say "all mainstream comic artist" or "all artists working for Marvel or DC" or "all artists amont the top 40-60% of comics sold." You made a blanket generalization that was comically off the mark. (This is to say nothing of the fact that even if you had said any of those things you'd still have been wrong.) The fact that you prefaced this little bit of fiction by proclaiming it to be "the truth" just makes it even more egregiously wrong.

Last I heard, Oni, Dark Horse, Slave Labor, NBM, et al, were all part of the North American comics market, to say nothing of the number of smaller independent publishers. There's a plethora of diversity out there. Whether or not it's being effectively marketed and sold is another question.

But that's not what you said, was it?

[Chris Saksida]

Kalorama: if I say "the market", and I say "the northamerican comic artists", I'm talking about the artists that represent "the market" as a whole, let's put it this way: if I'm someone that never touched a comic book in his entire life, I go to a comics shop, I look around and it almost seems that all the comics are drawn by the same artist, or someone that imitates that artist, or another that imitates the one that imitates the other, and so on.

I know there are a lot of underground artists that produce different work, but they represent a really tiny percentage of what could be considered the "american market", maybe my post could be misunderstood as if I was implying that ALL comic artists in northamerica draw almost the same way, and that's stupid; I was obviously refering to the artists that represent the market.


Chris Saksida

[Snakefish]

Originally posted by Cole Odell
Snakefish, it's all *men* that are created equal. Not opinions. Is the opinion that some people are better off as slaves "equal" to the opinion that slavery is wrong? Is the opinion of a person who has seen nothing but chick flicks, and holds"Beaches" up as the finest example of cinema ever made, equal to that of a professsional film critic who has a lifetime of studying movies?

I make no claim to objectivity. But some subjective opinions *are* more well-founded than others.

Sure. Some opinions may very well be "more well-founded" than certain other perspectives, and I argue neither for or against this assertion.

However, since we have agreed that this may be the case:

There will always be those opinions that are even more legitimate than those that are "more well-founded."

Further, there will always be those opinions that are vastly more grounded in true insight than those opinions that are more legitimate... and so on and so on.

Now there goes that "bottom" you were talking about, right out the obligatory window. I don't think there's really a ceiling anywhere on there, either.

And the fact remains -- all are still only opinions. Unless there is a fact that is entirely wrapped around common knowledge and is so self-evident that there can be virtually no dissent: as in, "people breathe air and so do dogs." Now that is basically an irrefutable fact, unless air is not what we really think it is, or if air is not what we're really breathing, right?

Don't you think that each holder of perspective opinion should have the right to express themselves freely, without having their eyes sucked out and their faces eaten, without having to be rudely insulted by the opposers of that opinion?

What is truth to one's self may not be truth to another's self. But we are all free to own and express our own personal truths...

All I am trying to suggest here is that if you disagree with another poster's thoughts on why they do or do not like something, why not stick to the subject/opinion being debated, and refute that opinion as respectfully as possible rather than insult and berate the holder of that opinion?

Just like you said, people and opinions are two different entities...

The poster that initiated this thread may have rubbed a few people wrong with his thoughts on cartoony art.

So what?

Comics are a form of entertainment, par for the course of dissection and debate, different thoughts, personal likes, dislikes and critical response.

Said poster criticized a type of art in certain comic books...

He didn't insult the people who insulted him.

And that, right there, is the difference.

[Cole Odell]

And the fact remains -- all are still only opinions.

Dude, you act as if no one has ever challenged your tastes before. Given your tastes, this is hard to believe.

Didn't you know that a team of German scientists conclusively proved in 1998 that you have no taste in comics? It's an empirical fact. A thousand lab rats died in your name. I'm sorry.

Cole

[Alan Coil]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TDerenick

The real issue isn't about whether the artist is realistic or cartoony it about whether he or she isn't skilled enough at what they're doing or they do something stylistically that is so jarring that it takes the reader out of the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gotta agree with this.

__--__--__--__--__

I like what Bagley is doing in Ultimate Spider-Man.
But if I wanted a stylish pinup of Spider-Man, I'd ask Humberto Ramos. As far as story-telling abilities, I think Ramos is great. But as a contradiction, I don't really get into an entire issue in his style. Personal preference, that's all. I don't hate the guy and I don't hate those that do. Different strokes.

[Alan Coil]

Oops. That should have ended "...and I don't hate those that do like him."

And in response to another poster, no, I didn't sleep through the nineties. The art was better then. It's predominantly bad now. Some of today's artists wouldn't have even been hired in the past. I think this is mostly the fault of the editors these days, who don't seem to have been trained in their jobs.

On the other hand, the writing today is way above most of the stuff from the nineties.

It's a pity that the two can't get coordinated.

[Alan Coil]

And finally, I'm not a super-hero fanatic. I like them best, but I also read a lot of other stuff, too.

I don't like the manga style because most of them are drawn with such big eyes. Eyes the size of grapefruits are just so unrealistic. The same with the mouth taking up half the face. Blehck.

I don't think that Silverfish needs any pooping, but Liefeld needs a truck-load of pooping. ;)

I don't know if you guys noticed or not, but it is the Christmas season. How about some love for your fellow man? Mike has been writing about comics for some time. All of a sudden, bunches of people are hating him. Seems that most of you liked him when he was going to be working for Marvel, and now that he's not, he's treated like the black sheep of the family. Could it be that you are all mad at him because you won't be able to get freebies from him and from the Marvel offices?

[SAINT TY]

Cole Odell threads should be collected & published. Intelligent, hip, razor wit...... bravo! Pleasure to read, Cole; Thanx!

[WebHobbit]

Alan Coil allow me to introduce you to the EDIT button:

"Edit Button this Alan Coil, Alan Coil this is the Edit Button"

:)

[Patrick_Wedge]

Different artists, different styles. Toth has used the old saying that it is harder to hide mistakes with less detail than it is to cover mistakes up with additional rendering (quote maybe off but the setiment is still there). But for those artist who use more detail, that is not a jab at them, what that will do is depict or draw attention to the artist that uses more detail to cover up mistakes instead of rendering correctly.

Me, I prefer both styles. A good artist is a good artist if they know how to use their style correctly. The writer/artist combination is a must but the same writer can shift styles or story lines to meet the needs of the artist and vise virsa. Take Rucka for example, I think he writes different stories (dialog, structure, pacing, etc) for Lark in Gotham Central than he does for Johnson in WW. Both are good but each has its own voice and plays to the strength of each artist.

I am a fan of Timm, Cooke, Stewart, Rader, Lark (all who have been lumped in the "cartoony" style in this thread) to the detailed artists of Gulacy (who is still telling the story visually and doing it quite well and outside inking himself, Jimmy is a good match for him). If you can point to specific reasons (outside of the usual, "new sucks, we like old" arguement) then discuss them, otherwise drop or add the book based on your tastes.

Until then, I keep my .02.

Patrick

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Alan Coil
And finally, I'm not a super-hero fanatic. I like them best, but I also read a lot of other stuff, too.

I don't like the manga style because most of them are drawn with such big eyes. Eyes the size of grapefruits are just so unrealistic. The same with the mouth taking up half the face. Blehck.

I don't think that Silverfish needs any pooping, but Liefeld needs a truck-load of pooping. ;)

I don't know if you guys noticed or not, but it is the Christmas season. How about some love for your fellow man? Mike has been writing about comics for some time. All of a sudden, bunches of people are hating him. Seems that most of you liked him when he was going to be working for Marvel, and now that he's not, he's treated like the black sheep of the family. Could it be that you are all mad at him because you won't be able to get freebies from him and from the Marvel offices?

Frankly, this kind of "manga style" you refer to (eyes as big as grapefruits, etc.) is certainly at the far end of the spectrum. It really isn't necessarily a requirement of the genre........ it has the most in common with certain types of manga in Japan aimed at kids, young girls specifically (and the origins trace back to Osamu Tezuka, pretty much the father of modern manga, the creator of Astroboy and Kimba the White Lion...... who was, in turn, inspired by Disney cartoons, with their huge eyes). That exaggerated style is designed to be overly cute or sentimental, while also emphasizing the size of the eyes because of the emotion that can be conveyed.

But as I said, it's not a requirement of the manga genre..... plenty of manga features smaller eyes (especially various action and horror titles) and less exaggerated art and character designs.

I just bring this up again because "manga style" does not have to equal the over the top exaggerated style, and it doesn't have to always have a specific "look"

-Zadillo

[kalorama]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
maybe my post could be misunderstood as if I was implying that ALL comic artists in northamerica draw almost the same way, and that's stupid...


Chris Saksida

I agree. It's stupid. It's also exactly what you said. It wasn't until people started challenging the obvious untruth of it that you started the whole "marketplace" spin.

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by kalorama
I agree. It's stupid. It's also exactly what you said. It wasn't until people started challenging the obvious untruth of it that you started the whole "marketplace" spin.

Indeed. His exact quote was:

I find all this ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, I hate the tremendous lack of personality of northamerican comics artists, can't you see that they all draw almost the same freaking way?, it's almost as anoying as asian artists... I can't even distinguish between a manga/anime artist and another, why can't artists have a little more personality and not copy everyone else's style? be yourselves, for christ's sake!

The truth is that almost all northamerican artists draw with almost the same style

It seems pretty clear he was implying "almost all" at the very least (which basically is like saying everyone but maybe a few exceptions). And he said that asian artists were worse and he was incapable of telling the difference between one anime/manga artist and another..... which frankly says all there is that needs to be said about his ability to speak knowledgeably on this subject.

-Zadillo

[Chris Saksida]

Kalorama and Zadillo:

OK guys, you know what? you can keep your hordes of Jim Lee and Osamu Tezuka clones for your marketplaces, it's all right, If you're happy with them, fine!, I've deleted the bullshit I wrote as it seems you find it insulting.

I'm getting tired of trying to explain the crap I wrote.


Chris Saksida

[Zadillo]

Originally posted by Chris Saksida
Kalorama and Zadillo:

OK guys, you know what? you can keep your hordes of Jim Lee and Osamu Tezuka clones for your marketplaces, it's all right, If you're happy with them, fine!, I've deleted the bullshit I wrote as it seems you find it insulting.

I'm getting tired of trying to explain the crap I wrote.


Chris Saksida

Of course, nothing more mature than deleting your original post (I'm glad I quoted you). And I see you have still missed the point entirely. Not every anime and manga artist is a "clone" of Osamu Tezuka, and you really believe that is so, I have no idea what your artistic sensibilities are, but clearly you have trouble differentiating between different art styles. I will say again that the difference is night and day between Osamu Tezuka, Leiji Matsumoto, Shirow Masamune, Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Toriyama, and scores of other anime and manga artists....... if you really believe there is no difference between, say, Yoshitaka Amano and Akira Toriyama and Osamu Tezuka....... I just can't understand it.

I would think a reasonable person could look at the works of the following artists and be able to describe them as unique from each other:

Yoshitaka Amano: http://psi-square.sinfree.net/ff2amano.html (just one example of his work)

Osamu Tezuka: http://en.tezuka.co.jp/anime/classification/serial.html (for example)

Leiji Matsumoto: http://seattleotaku.com/reviews/matsumoto/

Hayao Miyazaki: http://www.yumeworld.net/Opere/KazeNoTaniNoNausicaa.htm

If you're going to tell me all these artists are clones and indistinguishable.... well, I don't know how else to respond to that.

Anyway though.... again, it's not that I found your comments insulting, per se (although I do see them as an insult to the individual artists who you lump together)..... it's more that I find them baffling, as I do not see how you can look at the individual work and say they are indistinguishable and clones of each other.

Clearly you believe they are, but as I said, that also frankly calls into question your very ability to be judging what is and isn't a clone of something else, because your insistent that there is no difference in the art of these individuals makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.

But you have shown your stance on this, that you cannot and will not back up your statements and have now deleted y our original post as well.

-Zadillo

[Dave Accampo]

Not to get involved in the minutaie of this debate, but when I think of MY comics, coming from the North American market, I think of (just off the top of my head):

Mike Allred, Ashley Wood, Marcelo Frusin, Darwyn Cooke, Brian Hurtt, Eric Shanower, Eduardo Risso, Mike McKone, Jeff Smith, Adrian Tomine, Seth, Peter Gross, Cameron Stewart, Cully Hamner, Andi Watson, Frank Quitely, Kano, Ed Benes, David Mack, David Lapham, Terry Moore, Ben Templesmith, Mike Avon Oeming...

I could go on forever, right?

Now, these are not all north american artists, but this is the body of work that I might pick up on any given Wednesday. Some of these artists ARE derivative of other artists. However, what I'm NOT seeing in my weekly purchases is an overwhelming majority of identical, cloned artwork. And that is SOOO much better than the 90's, my friends. :)

[Johnny Triangles]

Can't we all just get along? :(

[mpg]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
Can't we all just get along? :(

nope, the economy depends on this

[Dave Accampo]

Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles
Can't we all just get along? :(

I sense a sing-along coming...

[Johnny Triangles]

Originally posted by Dave Accampo
I sense a sing-along coming...

I was having a Rodney King "kum-ba-ya" moment.