Well, Bagley's faces could get pretty samey, so I understand where they're coming from.
Printable View
Well, Bagley's faces could get pretty samey, so I understand where they're coming from.
Facial expression is an area many professional comic artists fail at, even some I really like (Byrne), but in this case, I was thinking about the depiction of the human form, which is still rigid after all these years (not uncommon either).
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;5193477]
And in any case after Romita Sr. you had Gil Kane, you had Ross Andru, you had Keith Pollard, you had Romita's own kid John Romita Jr. (in my view better than Dad). So the answer is wrong in either case.
[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Kane is a legend, Andru and Pollard are totally underrated.
JRJR is the best Spider Man artist IMO.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;5193477]
In either case you are dead wrong. The art of Spider-Man Comics in the 1980s to 1990s was a creative peak for the titles.
-- Ron Frenz on ASM with Tom Defalco. Frenz also illustrated "The kid who collects Spider-Man" for Roger Stern.
-- Sal Buscema on Spectacular Spider-Man with J. M. DeMatteis.
[/QUOTE]
Two of my favorite Spidey artists ever. :)
[QUOTE=shooshoomanjoe;5194192] Bill Sienkiewicz inking Sal Buscema's artwork was the worst I've seen on Spidey titles.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
But Sienkiewicz inked just a few issues. Buscema's penciled Spectacular since the 70s.
Great artist.
Am I the only one who doesn't think highly of Bagley's art? I mean, it's not [I]bad[/I], but it's hardly anything noteworthy either. Certainly a lot closer to mediocre than "best Spider-Man artist ever". Obviously it's all subjective, but I'm curious if I'm the only one with this opinion.
[QUOTE=blackspidey2099;5196022]Am I the only one who doesn't think highly of Bagley's art? I mean, it's not [I]bad[/I], but it's hardly anything noteworthy either. Certainly a lot closer to mediocre than "best Spider-Man artist ever". Obviously it's all subjective, but I'm curious if I'm the only one with this opinion.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=PCN24454;5195281]Well, Bagley's faces could get pretty samey, so I understand where they're coming from.[/QUOTE]
I think you have your answer.
[QUOTE=blackspidey2099;5196022]Am I the only one who doesn't think highly of Bagley's art? I mean, it's not [I]bad[/I], but it's hardly anything noteworthy either. Certainly a lot closer to mediocre than "best Spider-Man artist ever". Obviously it's all subjective, but I'm curious if I'm the only one with this opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's not all subjective, there are things like perspective, proportions, shadows, facial expression and diversity, cloth physics, human figure/dynamism... what's subjective is the ability of the reader to perceive these aspects in drawing.
Mark Bagley and Sal Buscema are the legends. In lieu of ASM 50 I was posting all the great JMD<>SB pages on my instagram. Many runs I loved when I was younger haven't aged as well but JMD, especially with Sal Buscema is peak Spider-Man for me.
I personally like both Mark Bagley and Sal Buscema; the former because of his style and the later because of his may Spider-Man and Hulk comics from my childhood. That doesn't modify the fact that neither of them is a good artist. Sal had an annoying tendency to draw the jaws of his characters wide open.
The art of Sal Buscema and Mark Bagley is good and really fun to look at, they both displayed weaknesses in their work at certain points like -as mentioned by someone else here- Bagley drawing faces very similar between individuals, and Sal had the era when he drew thick wrinkle lines that don't look appealing to me, and he does still have the tendency of drawing jaws open -as mentioned above- for dramatic effects.
Other good working artists from that period are Alex Saviuk (please don't say his art is bad), Mike Zeck, Rich Buckler, John Romita jr, Ron Lim, and maybe more I've forgot.
McFarlane is not good at drawing faces, and I don't like that his overly detailed art style, too many lines, and spaghetti webbing transferred to other artists work. Erik Larsen has good dynamics, but his art was never appealing to me as comic style, I like seeing similar art for [I]Back to the Future[/I] cartoon, but his art doesn't work for me on page.
There are artists whose work was not good in the 90s but improved for the following decade; Luke Ross, Mike Deodato jr (he drew an issue of [I]Spider-Man Unlimited[/I] with Frankenstein Monster (not the one based on the cartoon of the same name), and his 90s style was apparent) both come to mind.
[QUOTE=Speed Force League Unlimited;5200093]Other good working artists from that period are Alex Saviuk (please don't say his art is bad), Mike Zeck, Rich Buckler, John Romita jr, Ron Lim, and maybe more I've forgot.[/QUOTE]
[center]LOL! Don't forget these artists also from that period...
[B]1.[/B] Mike Wieringo
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkNaR71W0AAEzHQ.jpg[/img]
[B]2.[/B] Rick Leonardi
[img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/4f/80/cf4f80bd1eaa8913a57d55bf819d2f35.jpg[/img]
[B]3.[/B] Adam Kubert
[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/9g1xPgNHLnTawy08TZhvUIZsF4UGUNmBLkeZDbMsMEpipkf8Pn6UBbzihME5b5fUD7fSgDUyQmPg=s1600[/img][/center]
[QUOTE=K7P5V;5200187][center]LOL! Don't forget these artists also from that period...
[B]1.[/B] Mike Wieringo
[url]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkNaR71W0AAEzHQ.jpg[/url]
[B]2.[/B] Rick Leonardi
[url]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/4f/80/cf4f80bd1eaa8913a57d55bf819d2f35.jpg[/url]
[B]3.[/B] Adam Kubert
[url]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/9g1xPgNHLnTawy08TZhvUIZsF4UGUNmBLkeZDbMsMEpipkf8Pn6UBbzihME5b5fUD7fSgDUyQmPg=s1600[/url][/center][/QUOTE]
You're right. I see the late Mike Wieringo art improved even before the year 2000, his work on the Flash from that decade made him too buff.
[QUOTE=CTTT;5193435]Sorry Todd Macfarlane fans but I felt like the art style for Spidey really took a dip in quality after John Romita Sr. left. In my mind, he was the best artist for Peter, and I wish that other artists had tried to mimic that style as best as they could. Then you had him in costume drawn with big eyes. Starting around the 2 aughts the art has slowly gotten back I feel to the classic style from the 60s and 70s. I guess they figured out what worked.[/QUOTE]
Comparisons of comic art from different periods needs to consider that each period had different audiences, different pressures on the artists themselves, different styles in culture and different materials to use for art. A guy like Kirby didn't have any digital way to do his art, for instance, and if he made a mistake the deadline for him to get his work done still loomed just the same and there was no delete button on anything. And he drew in an era when comics were being made mostly for kids, a little bit college age later in his career, and he drew in an era when comics were a huge business and he was under extreme pressure, drawing multiple titles lots of times simultaneously. An artist today has no where near the same pressures and has tons of more sophisticated tools, not to mention they can learn from a great like Kirby.
Then you have to consider other factors like paper quality and the fact that copyright law changed during the 1970s to change the way "work for hire" operated. Its a big reason why we started to see lots of indies pop up during the 1980s. Remember these are "just comics" to many of the people in charge. The artists themselves feel differently but are often hampered in what they can do.
Each era of comic art needs to be appreciated for what it is, for being unique to the circumstances under which it was made. Its no different from other art forms, like music. Mozart was a court musician. Sure he had loads of talent and gifts, but he was paid for and beholden to the court, which limited him to an extent. Compare that to someone like Debussy, who grew up during wartime in a poor family and had to make his way through completely supporting himself through (shudder) music.
I guess what I am saying is - don’t disparage the work of those artists. Read and enjoy and appreciate.