Is it really hard to admit it ? 0

[Panelfan1]

The other day I posted that I got Elflord covers on my CAF page and in the description I mentioned that I was very happy to get these EVEN THOUGH  the art isn't all that great.  In reality, nostalgia is huge for me - but I am not blinded so much that I actually think the art is good.

I feel the same way about other comics and cartoons that are nostalgic for me.  

Anyway - the reason for this topic, is the comment I got from Rurben da collector.  His comment made me wonder how others feel.

His comment (edited down):

let me sincerely congratulate you, for being the very first CAF member other than myself who I've ever seen be honest with himself about the quality of the art, rather than let nostalgia blind you as it does everyone else. Nostalgia can be a wonderful thing, but it should never be used as an excuse for fans to keep their rose colored glasses permanently on their faces and claim how great the art is. There's nothing wrong with being able to recognize and admit that the art in comics you loved as a kid isn't all that good.

See full comment and art here.

[malvin]

I don't publicly state it, but I do recognize that some of the art I like are very mediocre, and nostalgia is the driving factor, not aesthetics.

Malvin

[Will_K]

It shouldn't be all that hard to admit at all. 

Nostalgia is the main driver in this hobby.  Without naming names, I think a lot of the most "desired" artists aren't particularly good.  And can only assume it's because of nostalgia.  They wouldn't fall into my "top 10" mainly because I didn't read their comics.  So you can either say I'm unbiased or more biased because of that.  Either way, those artists are in many top 10 lists.

On the other hand, if you ignore collecting and nostalgia altogether and you're a kid that's judging a comic book on it's artistic merits.  Maybe you're not a really kid.  You're an art critic.  Do some portfolio reviews at the conventions.

[malvin]

3 minutes ago, Will_K said:

<snip>

On the other hand, if you ignore collecting and nostalgia altogether and you're a kid that's judging a comic book on it's artistic merits.  Maybe you're not a really kid.  You're an art critic.  Do some portfolio reviews at the conventions.

heh, I like that art critic and portfolio review comment!

Malvin

[Mercury Man]

I can't draw, so anybody who makes a living or even gets paid for their artwork is infinitely better than me.  So I guess I never looked at it like you are presenting.  I do admit I hate John Romita Jr's style, but he is still better than me.  I used to like Rob Liefield, but as 20+ year pass, I realize that he is also not my cup of tea, and would have no problem not buying any of his books or art. 

[kav]

27 minutes ago, Mercury Man said:

I can't draw, so anybody who makes a living or even gets paid for their artwork is infinitely better than me.

-Except Frank Robbins.

[stinkininkin]

1 hour ago, kav said:

-Except Frank Robbins.

When I was 13 years old, Frank Robbins was doing a lot of Marvel work and in my mind, he was the worst comic book artist on the planet.  His characters were wild and just flat out ugly.  Stuff like his Invaders work was absolutely cringeworthy.  Today, I don't believe that some of that Marvel work that traumatized me  as a teen is his best work, but I have since been exposed to enough of his career to realize he was actually extremely talented and a bold expressive inker to boot, albeit in an old school way.  I still don't go out of my way to seek or study Robbins work, and I do not own any of his original art, but he is the best example I can think of where I have done a complete 180 degree turn (even though I'll never like that Invaders stuff!  ).  But like most art opinions, YMMV.

Scott

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by stinkininkin

[Panelfan1]

2 hours ago, Mercury Man said:

I can't draw, so anybody who makes a living or even gets paid for their artwork is infinitely better than me.  So I guess I never looked at it like you are presenting.  I do admit I hate John Romita Jr's style, but he is still better than me.  I used to like Rob Liefield, but as 20+ year pass, I realize that he is also not my cup of tea, and would have no problem not buying any of his books or art. 

Rob is a great example. I dont think he is a great artist - but would be happy to buy a piece of art by him as  the nostalgia is strong.  

Ruben's 's point is (as I understand it) not buying something because the art isnt that good, but buying in spite of that and owning up to it. 

[Mercury Man]

I love Kirby.  He's one of my top 5.  But there is a strong camp out there that hates his work, and thinks he stinks.  Do you think they would honestly pass on owning some of his OA if they had the option, especially say at an affordable price?  Or are they blinded to the almighty dollar?  I tend to think most of them would want to own it, given his place in comics history, more so than liking or even tolerating his art. 

[stinkininkin]

1 hour ago, Mercury Man said:

I love Kirby.  He's one of my top 5.  But there is a strong camp out there that hates his work, and thinks he stinks.  Do you think they would honestly pass on owning some of his OA if they had the option, especially say at an affordable price?  Or are they blinded to the almighty dollar?  I tend to think most of them would want to own it, given his place in comics history, more so than liking or even tolerating his art. 

If I REALLY felt an artist and his work"stinks" as you say, I would have zero interest in owning it, regardless of a place in history.  If I could acquire it at the affordable price you mention, it would only be with the mind of somehow turning it into art I really wanted (through sale or trade).  I collect art and personal nostalgia, not history or trophies.

Scott

 

 

[Claudio]

If you are talking about art as just drawing, then a lot of comic art probably isn't great art.  However, comic art is a lot more than that.  It is bringing words and characters to life.  I think Frank Miller was very average as far as "drawing" but he was a great artists when you put everything together.  McFarlane could draw very well and added a dynamic effect to his art that was really unseen before.  Both are great artists but for different reasons.  With art, you have to take in the whole picture.  Not just technical ability.  That applies even to tradional art.  Think of Van Gogh.  There are a lot of artists with more technical ability but he struck a chord with collectors.  Salvador Dali was a genius in terms of technical ability but he real artistic contribution was his experimentation.  If you want a more modern example think of Banksy.  Is his art technically earth shattering? Hardly.  But he has struck a chord in modern culture and I am sure that history will view his contributions very favorably.

Heck, the Mona Lisa might be the most famous and valuable piece of art in the world...  Is it drawn exceptionally well?  Not in my opinion.  But its historical significance cannot be denied.  

I guess this is just a long winded way of saying art is not drawing.  It does not have to be technically perfect to be considered high quality.  Don't apologize for liking Elford.  If it struck a chord with you and you appreciate it merits, that is awesome.  I'm sure the artist would be thrilled to hear it.

 

[npasto]

1 hour ago, Claudio said:

I guess this is just a long winded way of saying art is not drawing.  It does not have to be technically perfect to be considered high quality.  Don't apologize for liking Elford.  If it struck a chord with you and you appreciate it merits, that is awesome.  I'm sure the artist would be thrilled to hear it.

 

If you go to a a big con like SDCC then you will see a million guys who can draw well technically. However, many of them lack style and creativity. An artist who is really good at drawing superheroes in the classic Marvel or DC style might get work, but will his work stand out? Maybe not so much.

 

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to comic art, but personally I gravitate towards artists who have a distinct style. Good examples for me are Jack Kirby, Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, and Jason Latour. Their stuff isn't technically perfect, but it often conveys emotion and tone much more effectively than more "accurate" art. And when you see one of their drawings, you know right away who made it.

 

Same deal in the fine art world. Loads of people can draw or paint photorealistically, but when you see a Picasso, Van Gogh, Basquiat, or Rothko (ick), you know exactly whose work you're looking at.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that "distinctness" (if you want to call it that) has a role in determining whose OA really becomes valuable (among many other factors), but at the same time I think taste is personal and wouldn't necessarily hold it against someone if they hate Kirby or Miller (even though they're wrong ;)).

Edited June 25, 2017 by npasto

[Dick O.]

14 minutes ago, npasto said:

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to comic art, but personally I gravitate towards artists who have a distinct style. Good examples for me are Jack Kirby, Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, and Jason Latour. Their stuff isn't technically perfect, but it often conveys emotion and tone much more effectively than more "accurate" art. And when you see one of their drawings, you know right away who made it.

 

Same deal in the fine art world. Loads of people can draw or paint photorealistically, but when you see a Picasso, Van Gogh, Basquiat, or Rothko (ick), you know exactly whose work you're looking at.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that "distinctness" (if you want to call it that) has a role in determining whose OA really becomes valuable (among many other factors), but at the same time I think taste is personal and wouldn't necessarily hold it against someone if they hate Kirby or Miller (even though they're wrong ;)).

I absolutely agree about the appeal and value of an artist style's "distinctiveness"

 

[Panelfan1]

2 hours ago, Claudio said:

Don't apologize for liking Elford.  If it struck a chord with you and you appreciate it merits, that is awesome.  I'm sure the artist would be thrilled to hear it.

 

First off I am not appologizing in any way for enjoying the art.  I just dont think to myself - wow that is great art. Fun, enjoyable, nostalgic ..yes. 

On a sad note - the artist passed away in 2010.  And as an artist known for his own creations rather than being just another guy who drew batman (or insert -marvel/dc property here), I admire the success he had for himself.

 

[comix4fun]

The thing is....art isn't math. It's not binary. It's not zero-sum. 

Art is meant to evoke emotions, enjoyment, pleasure, pain....a reaction...in the person viewing it. 

If that's triggered by nostalgia, great. If it's triggered by the artist's ability to perfectly render a set of human calves, awesome.  If it's because the artist took some crazy chances with style and created something that's never been seen before, so much the better. 

So if you enjoy the art, if it recalls a memory of a different time in your life, if it makes you feel something/anything...then it's beautiful. Even if it has a thousands pouches, no feet, a lazy eye, giant man-boobs, or anatomy that doesn't exist in the history of human evolution..it doesn't matter.

If people simply wanted to see accurate portrayals of human anatomy and nothing else, then photography will do just fine for them. For fans of sequential artwork for storytelling have a special type of sense memory tied to certain images. Much like the smell of a certain perfume can bring you back instantly to your senior prom, or the smell of a certain type of food cooking can transport you to your grandmother's kitchen, comic art is a vehicle to take you back to a different time and place. That is its own kind of magic, and it's NEVER mediocre. 

[tth2]

7 hours ago, kav said:

-Except Frank Robbins.

[SquareChaos]

Personally, for me, the anatomy can be off, maybe perspective is a little weird, perhaps facial expressions are not the artists strong point, but if they can capture movement and energy then I can almost always find something to love about it. Having said that, such a thing doesn't exactly make me blind to the fact that the artist isn't the most technically sound artist out there. The inverse is true as well, if the art is aesthetically perfect but it just lies there, stuck on the page... that can go a long way towards ruining it for me. Describing art as 'good' or 'bad' based just on technique or aesthetics... is just odd. All of this is supposed to invite some response from the viewer, so if it can manage that, it isn't 'bad' art.

 

[Bronty]

12 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

The other day I posted that I got Elflord covers on my CAF page and in the description I mentioned that I was very happy to get these EVEN THOUGH  the art isn't all that great.  In reality, nostalgia is huge for me - but I am not blinded so much that I actually think the art is good.

I feel the same way about other comics and cartoons that are nostalgic for me.  

Anyway - the reason for this topic, is the comment I got from Rurben da collector.  His comment made me wonder how others feel.

His comment (edited down):

let me sincerely congratulate you, for being the very first CAF member other than myself who I've ever seen be honest with himself about the quality of the art, rather than let nostalgia blind you as it does everyone else. Nostalgia can be a wonderful thing, but it should never be used as an excuse for fans to keep their rose colored glasses permanently on their faces and claim how great the art is. There's nothing wrong with being able to recognize and admit that the art in comics you loved as a kid isn't all that good.

See full comment and art here.

Many good and thoughtful answers on this thread, but yes I do think its hard for many accept that the aesthetics of their purchases are sometimes lacking, for many reasons.    We may have an elevated sense of how good comic artists in general were because many of us study only comic artists.... we may confuse familiarity with quality... we may have paid a lot for the piece which may color our thinking... heck some won't admit it to avoid reflections on resale value.     Many things.

I believe that the quality of the art itself is subjective, but the context is relatively objective and ultimately more important.    I'll be happier with a 5/10 page aesthetically that is an important moment in an important work by a great creator any day over a page that's an 8/10 aesthetically but has nothing else going for it, and I think we'd all make that trade if the circumstances were compelling enough.    So.. Elflord covers?  Heck yes!  

[JadeGiant]

10 hours ago, comix4fun said:

The thing is....art isn't math. It's not binary. It's not zero-sum. 

Art is meant to evoke emotions, enjoyment, pleasure, pain....a reaction...in the person viewing it. 

If that's triggered by nostalgia, great. If it's triggered by the artist's ability to perfectly render a set of human calves, awesome.  If it's because the artist took some crazy chances with style and created something that's never been seen before, so much the better. 

So if you enjoy the art, if it recalls a memory of a different time in your life, if it makes you feel something/anything...then it's beautiful. Even if it has a thousands pouches, no feet, a lazy eye, giant man-boobs, or anatomy that doesn't exist in the history of human evolution..it doesn't matter.

If people simply wanted to see accurate portrayals of human anatomy and nothing else, then photography will do just fine for them. For fans of sequential artwork for storytelling have a special type of sense memory tied to certain images. Much like the smell of a certain perfume can bring you back instantly to your senior prom, or the smell of a certain type of food cooking can transport you to your grandmother's kitchen, comic art is a vehicle to take you back to a different time and place. That is its own kind of magic, and it's NEVER mediocre. 

I agree. 

 

For me, I guess I can admit that others may have a different opinion of art than I do. It doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them but I can easily concede on difference of opinions. It make me cringe when I hear people say they don't like Sal Buscema or that his art is "just house style and not very good", etc. but it doesn't impact the way I see the art. Different strokes. This will always be a subjective topic and we all will always see some things differently - it's not like we are ever going to see CGC slabbing art by levels of universally accepted quality. 

 

I do see the point of this thread and it is a great topic ... it probably is especially great for all the Liefeld collectors out there

[Carlo M]

Great thread!  I agree 100% that one should be honest when evaluating one's purchases....I personally have a rule whereby no purchases are allowed to me over a certain threshold unless they meet also aesthetic and popularity standards.  Below certain thresholds, well.... let nostalgia rule! (hence my overspending on Buscema Defenders!)

Carlo