"His old stuff was better..."

[jick]

John Byrne is a living legend is the comics industry - having had history-changing critically-acclaimed longs runs with just about every significant characters from both the Marvel and DC Universe.

 

But somehow, many people nowadays say "his old stuff was better." I can somewhat say that with some other favorites of mine like George Perez and Neal Adams about their old stuff. With John Byrne, it seems that once in a while he manages to beat father time and give an inspired performance that trumps his older stuff.

 

27 years later, this re-imagination trumps his original cover ...by a mile... in my book. So happy to finally have this!

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1140695

 

...thanks for checking it out. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on John Byrne and other artists who you think have improved in their older age (maybe after they turned 50?) and those who have regressed and lost the ability to provide details or dynamics.

 

In general, I think most artists who get older end up using thicker line and have less feathering than back in their day (Joe Staton, Mike DeCarlo are examples I can think of with less feathering, while Perez is an example I have for thicker lines but he does have eye problems).

 

 

[Jeffro.]

That's a great piece. Byrne can still definitely hit it out of the park when he chooses to do so.

 

I was just re-introduced to Travis Charest's work. Hadn't looked at any of his stuff since the 90s when his style was typical Image clone type of work, but today? wow, just amazing stuff. Completely reinvented himself.

 

Joe Kubert remained remarkably consistent almost right up until he passed.

[kbmcvay]

George Perez is much better now than he was in the 70's-80's. Not just his pencils, but also his layouts. As for Byrne, I prefer his published stuff be inked by Austin or Ordway. I think a lot of the projects he has worked on in the last couple of decades (LAB RATS, his IDW stuff, CHAPTER ONE) are completely dull (storywise) with uninspired costumes (especially that generic Electro redesign he did). The last published thing he did that I loved was HIDDEN YEARS. His commissions are awesome about 95% of the time.

[theflashunc]

I think Simonson is still bringing the heat. Loved his recent arcs on Hulk and the other books he's dabbled in.

 

I'm curious to see Starlin's work in the next Thanos GN that's coming soon as well. His process shots on Facebook seem to show he's not lost much of his fastball either.

[AKA Rick]

I think there's the beginner stuff when artists emerge, using John Byrne as the example, so his stuff on Charleston's "Doomsday +1" and the transitional evolution stuff, for Byrne, his "Iron Fist" and then the pinnacle work that best represents an artist during their renaissance, so for Byrne that would be his "Uncanny X-Men" (as well as some Marvel titles of that era). In my opinion, his best work was done when paired with the right inker, of course most see fan favorite Terry Austin as that embellisher. I also think Bob Layton, Dave Hunt, and a few others. For me, his work started to decline with his 2nd run on The Fantastic Four, and then on Alpha Flight, followed by his work at DC Comics. Still good work, but pales in comparison to the pinnacle work. I think when Byrne writes, pencils and inks, it's a heavy creative burden and the artwork can suffer. However, Byrne and Austin reunited in 2005 with DC's Doom Patrol and the art wasn't like the 1980's, so it's not just about the tandem.

 

So, for a lot of artists it's sort of a bell curve.

 

I see that with J. Scott Campbell today, where his early work on random Image Comics titles like Stormwatch were not so spectacular. He got his groove going with "Gen 13" and really hit his stride with "Danger Girl" and is now surging (not yet pinnacled) with his current style. Only time will tell if he can keep it up or change.

 

Comic Art is not unlike any other creative field, music as one prime example. It's hard to live up to epic work and recreate the same magic as well as surpass let alone equal that same standard.

 

I do see the same thing with Perez today as noted, as well as Neal Adams and Frank Miller.

 

It's not like the artwork is bad per se, it's just not the same as the nostalgic key work most fans associate with the artist. It's like when you go to a concert of a band years removed from their hit making heyday, the fans want to hear the classics and aren't so hyped up to listen to new material.

 

 

[Logan510]

Great piece jick, congrats!

[jick]

I was just re-introduced to Travis Charest's work. Hadn't looked at any of his stuff since the 90s when his style was typical Image clone type of work, but today? wow, just amazing stuff. Completely reinvented himself.

 

Travis Charest is still in his 40's which puts him very much in his "peak". Byrne, Perez, etc, are in their 50's to 70's (Neal Adams). So he isn't really an "exception" but more of someone still evolving I guess?

 

George Perez is much better now than he was in the 70's-80's. Not just his pencils, but also his layouts. As for Byrne, I prefer his published stuff be inked by Austin or Ordway. I think a lot of the projects he has worked on in the last couple of decades (LAB RATS, his IDW stuff, CHAPTER ONE) are completely dull (storywise) with uninspired costumes (especially that generic Electro redesign he did). The last published thing he did that I loved was HIDDEN YEARS. His commissions are awesome about 95% of the time.

 

Perez in the 70's to early 80's did not draw good faces, and sometimes the heads were too big making the figures look short (I got this from someone who inked him before who had to redraw a lot of the heads). He really came into his own when he did Titans. I think Perez did a lot of great work up to recently where I think his quality dipped when he started having eye-problems. He adjusted his inking to use a thicker line - hence less details or contrast. Check out his New 52 work, it really went downhill there. Also his commissions, but you can't complain for the price he charged plus he did specify that they were "marker only" commissions.

 

Byrne hasn't done much published stuff recently, and none with the majors. His layouts are better now, especially with his commissions when he really makes an effort to use every inch of the page. His work does seem to lack some finesse and detailing. So I actually feel quite lucky as the commission I got seemed quite inspired. I guess it was the challenge put upon Byrne to improve on his old work.

 

Neal Adams isn't what he used to be. I guess with age and a failing eyesight - he uses a thicker line line, and doesn't feather like the old days. He sometimes does the lazy thing by using zigzag lines instead of intricate feathering. To make things worse, he usually lightboxes his own previous works with nothing new lately. But regardless of quality, he is a living legend and just to have a sketch from the best Batman artist of all-time would be worth it. He is like the Washington Wizards incarnation of Michael Jordan now.

 

Frank Miller has gotten more and more impressionistic over the years, and everything is becoming an exaggerated cartoon. Not sure if there is a place for his art now. I think he is intentionally trying to be a parody of his DKR self - just to use irony which seems to be his favorite form of humor.

[Catwoman_Fan]

I like Mike Mignola's current work, but I really fell in love with work during Hellboy's first couple stories, which were highly detailed. (1995-95). Others prefer his 80's work, with his rounded signature.

 

I met him once, and he seemed quite aware of the complaints that some of his old fans have regarding his current style.

 

[MedicAR]

I am one of those that bemoans John Byrne's current work and am really blown away by the commission example above. That is worlds apart from his recent published works that I have seen, including his most recent Next Men series and a Star Trek series he drew. I believe that he probably enjoys the commissions more and wonder if they actually pay better as the difference is huge. The example above is what I generally think of when I picture his work in my mind.

 

I had never considered failing eyesight as a reason for change in artists' styles. I had guessed that it was the reason for the more basic style exhibited in George Pérez's recent sketches. It makes sense, but if we are looking at physiology as a reason for change in style, we have to go beyond eyesight and consider a decline in fine motor skills.

 

Neal Adams' quality is probably more related to whether he wants to do quality work or just phone it in. I was thrilled to meet him in Kansas City and picked up two sketches from him. One he did while I watched and the other was what he called a "convention quickie" that was lying on the table, drawn and ready to sell. They were the cheapest option. When I saw the Deadman below, I was sold instantly.

 

 

When I picked it out, he laughed and made a comment to the effect of "don't let her see that, she told me I should get three times the price1" referring to his wife. The other convention quickies looked more like this:

 

 

 

Neal Adams' artistic skill and marketing ability are such that he stops just short of printing money. He can get pretty much whatever he asks for anything he does. If we were less willing to pay the prices we do, he might turn out the higher quality work.

[Koa]

 

Frank Miller has gotten more and more impressionistic over the years, and everything is becoming an exaggerated cartoon. Not sure if there is a place for his art now. I think he is intentionally trying to be a parody of his DKR self - just to use irony which seems to be his favorite form of humor.

 

I really love the way Miller composes his pictures. The first half of Holly terror looked great, imo.

IMO Miller's work is more exciting as an artist now than it was in 1986. Not to degrade his earlier work because it's great but I've really enjoy the manic energy of his later art. I don't think he's parodying his 80's work but working in contrast to it's superficial elements of the presentation.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Koa]

I love the energy of Neal Adam's more reacent work like Batman odyssey but wonder what Neal Adams work would look like if he used more structured panels and inked with brushes and nibs instead of markers.

 

 

I'ma fan of byrne as well but the amount of tangents in his art these days makes me think he just doesn't care.

[nickwire]

neal adams,frank miller jump out at me as artists who are not as good now.adams recent variant covers look rough to me and millers batman variant covers are some of the worst ive ever seen, just my opinion

[thethedew]

Michael Golden's style has certainly... morphed over the years. His figures are far more stiff and often awkward, while his backgrounds can now be outright facinating.

 

Currently, he seems more interested in creating an unusual space and architecture than the figure. IMO.

 

Prefer his early stuff vastly.

[Solar]

 

Frank Miller has gotten more and more impressionistic over the years, and everything is becoming an exaggerated cartoon. Not sure if there is a place for his art now. I think he is intentionally trying to be a parody of his DKR self - just to use irony which seems to be his favorite form of humor.

 

I really love the way Miller composes his pictures. The first half of Holly terror looked great, imo.

IMO Miller's work is more exciting as an artist now than it was in 1986. Not to degrade his earlier work because it's great but I've really enjoy the manic energy of his later art. I don't think he's parodying his 80's work but working in contrast to it's superficial elements of the presentation.

 

Miller's art is still fantastic. It's his writing that has really fallen off.

[jick]

I noticed a lot of artists have started going to markers which has diminished the organic feel of what their art used to.

 

Examples I can give off hand are Ron Frenz and Joe Staton.

 

Not sure if John Byrne ever used brushes but the inking tools he uses now (PITT pens) can somewhat replicate the brush strokes.

 

Anyone have recent commissions from Pat Broderick, Tom Mandrake, Mike Grell, or Al Milgrom? I'm wondering how their more recent works are.

 

One artist to me who hasn't lost a step yet - but also hasn't really changed styles like some have - is Jerry Ordway. Always very distinctive and recognizable - while still not skimping on quality and details.

 

[Koa]

 

Frank Miller has gotten more and more impressionistic over the years, and everything is becoming an exaggerated cartoon. Not sure if there is a place for his art now. I think he is intentionally trying to be a parody of his DKR self - just to use irony which seems to be his favorite form of humor.

 

I really love the way Miller composes his pictures. The first half of Holly terror looked great, imo.

IMO Miller's work is more exciting as an artist now than it was in 1986. Not to degrade his earlier work because it's great but I've really enjoy the manic energy of his later art. I don't think he's parodying his 80's work but working in contrast to it's superficial elements of the presentation.

 

Miller's art is still fantastic. It's his writing that has really fallen off.

 

He;s definitely more minimalist with story.

 

I'm afraid now with his movie commitments his art will begin to suffer. Just saw some preview pages from Xerxes though which don't look so great