JiC: PICTURES VS. WORDS

[MattBrady]

by Michael San Giacomo

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: Catwoman 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.

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 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.

Along the same lines, since I can't talk about art I dislike and not mention Marvel, I might have enjoyed the recent Human Torch 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]by Michael San Giacomo



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.

[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 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.

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 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.

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:



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.