Why Marvel keeps Greg Land on artist and cover art duties ?

[klinton]

The Manara art was erotic but not pornographic. Greg Lands work on the other hand is quite clearly traced from porn in many instances (which he's reused for years at this stage). A kid might not make the connection, but that doesn't change the fact the image itself was directly lifted from a porno.

That doesn't make it pornoqraphic though. In the slightest. There is nothing on that page - or in any of Land's work for Marvel - that can be deemed pornographic.

Pornography, by definition, is something else entirely with some very obvious characteristics that are absent from Marvel comics (even at thier most 'erotic').

[The_Greatest_Username]

LOL, Greg Land totally doesn't trace porn...

tumblr_n6dabiB0og1tcdt9uo1_400.jpg

[JohnLynch]

And yet it's not a 'porno'. Even in the event that Land referenced porn, that image is not in ANY way porn (as a matter of fact, if you or Lynch find yourself stimulated by such imagery, I'd say you may have some serious issues to address). I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Claiming that this is 'porno' is hyperbole at best, flat out lying at worst.

Misrepresenting an argument to try to bolster your own doesn't facilitate an honest conversation.

It's certainly jarring when a 14 or 16 year old character looks like she's in the middle of a porno.

When a porno is traced (not referenced. Traced) it does become jarring and make the character look like they belong in a porn movie. The fact he does this regardless of the character's age is simply distasteful.

[JohnLynch]

LOL, Greg Land totally doesn't trace porn...

tumblr_n6dabiB0og1tcdt9uo1_400.jpg

If that's Ultimate Sue Storm (hard to tell without more context) she's barely legal. I know there's a market for that sort of thing, but I for one do not expect it in my comics. The fact people are up in arms over Manara (whose work is erotic and not necessarily lifted directly from porn) while giving Land is baffling.

[aquitaine]

LOL, Greg Land totally doesn't trace porn...

tumblr_n6dabiB0og1tcdt9uo1_400.jpg

Nobody was questioning that. Try to keep up please.

[The_Greatest_Username]

If that's Ultimate Sue Storm (hard to tell without more context) she's barely legal. I know there's a market for that sort of thing, but I for one do not expect it in my comics. The fact people are up in arms over Manara (whose work is erotic and not necessarily lifted directly from porn) while giving Land is baffling.

It's Arcana from Squadron Supreme.

Nobody was questioning that. Try to keep up please.

So what's being questioned? Whether or not his art can be considered pornographic or not?

[aquitaine]

When a porno is traced (not referenced. Traced) it does become jarring and make the character look like they belong in a porn movie. The fact he does this regardless of the character's age is simply distasteful.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Land's tracing and I'm not even defending him, but the pic YOU posted as an example didn't look pornographic at all which led me and many other posters on the previous pages to wonder why you are looking at that and seeing porn, because it's honestly disturbing that you're looking at a bloody beatdown and you can't stop thinking 'porn'.

As for it being 'distasteful', that's a matter of personal opinion. Artists reference things. Porn (when not traced) is actually not a bad reference point for female anatomy, especially in an artistic genre that features people wearing spandex which in most cases might as well be body paint on BOTH genders.

So what's being questioned? Whether or not his art can be considered pornographic or not?

Whether it is porn or inherently wrong if it's referenced from porn. I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone claiming that Lend doesn't reference porn. It's blatantly obvious and not in question here.

[JohnLynch]

It's Arcana from Squadron Supreme.

Thanks. I really could not tell without more context.

[Pat Thomas]

He not late on books.
His books don't sell badly.
Writers and editors like him(?)
Not everybody hates his art.
Marvel won't fire an artist off a book unless there is real negative controversy (not liking an artist's work is not controversy. As for tracing, I'm sure many artists also do so, but it not as well know or obvious.)

I find a creepy that some people are saying he shouldn't make a living because they don't like his art in a comic book that they won't even pick up, regardless who's drawing it or not. If you don't like his art and he's drawing your favorite book/team/character, I do feel for you, but in the end, things like that happen all the time if you've been reading comics long enough.

I don't like Ramos on Amazing Spider-Man, but I had to make a choice of whether or not I would let it deter me from buying my favorite comic every month, and I've
learned to deal with it enough that it doesn't bother me like it used to. I prefer that book with less cartoony art, and think the art might be the thing that stops Dan
Slott's run from being considered among the best. But, that does not mean I want this man to be fired. That's a whole different thing than saying you don't like
somebody's work. It's a really good thing most people aren't held to the standards at their jobs that some comic readers set as a reason to lose their livelihood. I don't
think a majority of people would even be able to function under a constant microscope like that. Why do we need to bash these people?

[JohnLynch]

it's honestly disturbing that you're looking at a bloody beatdown and you can't stop thinking 'porn'.

I'm looking at the top panel and seeing the same image Land has used a multitude of times. I'm not looking at the entire page and going "damn that's turning me on." I'm looking at the top panel and going "oh look. Another Greg Land porno trace." Lands tracings have no context. He cuts and pastes (or retraces) his work all over the shop with no actual thought given to making the character look anything alike from one panel to the next. When I look at Land's work I don't consider it in its totality to put it into context because his style has demonstrated for years now that he ignores any and all context. Sad Susan Storm, Happy Emma Frost and in pain Pixie? All have identical expressions as they're copied from the same source (which is quite often a porno).

Here's my argument restated if the pixie drawing isn't doing it for people: I'd get behind them removing all pornographic images from their books. It's certainly jarring when I see the same stock material from porn movies being used again and again and again.

[JohnLynch]

It's a really good thing most people aren't held to the standards at their jobs that some comic readers set as a reason to lose their livelihood. I don't
think a majority of people would even be able to function under a constant microscope like that. Why do we need to bash these people?

If your work is to produce original artwork according to a script and you do nothing but retrace the same photos panel after panel have you really carried out your job?

[aquitaine]

Here's my argument restated if the pixie drawing isn't doing it for people: I'd get behind them removing all pornographic images from their books. It's certainly jarring when I see the same stock material from porn movies being used again and again and again.

And once again, those images are NOT pornographic. Period. It doesn't matter where they're referenced from.

Look, I don't like Land's 'art' either. I'd be happy if Marvel stopped hiring him. But calling his art 'pornographic images' is simply inaccurate regardless of where he references from. THAT is the issue people are taking with your statement, not anything else.

[JohnLynch]

And once again, those images are NOT pornographic. Period. It doesn't matter where they're referenced from.

Look, I don't like Land's 'art' either. I'd be happy if Marvel stopped hiring him. But calling his art 'pornographic images' is simply inaccurate regardless of where he references from. THAT is the issue people are taking with your statement, not anything else.

When I look at a piece of art and all I can see is "this was traced from a porno" (e.g. Arcana picture above) then I view that image as pornographic. If you don't feel that meets the definition of pornographic that's fine. But I think what I mean when I use that phrase is quite clear.

[aquitaine]

When I look at a piece of art and all I can see is "this was traced from a porno" (e.g. Arcana picture above) then I view that image as pornographic. If you don't feel that meets the definition of pornographic that's fine. But I think what I mean when I use that phrase is quite clear.

When you are attempting to communicate, the onus of understanding is on you. Your words have been anything but clear. When you call an image pornographic, your words mean a fairly specific thing. If you meant that it makes YOU think of pornography, you should say that because it's not what you have been saying all this time. Words mean things. Regardless of the mental association you make with a traced face, the image is not pornography and calling it such is clearly inaccurate and does nothing but undermine any point you are trying to make.

[Ravin' Ray]

Twenty-eight Greg Land art posts were moved from the Alonso Says Manara Cover Cancellation "Only a Scheduling Problem" thread.