HA February Auction 6 6

[Carlo M]

Oh one final point.  As to JB not being influential, there is a lot of JB in early Silvestri work (look at the guys' faces or legs) and of course in Castellini's fantastic work!  That is a true modern legacy of JB's art, in my mind.  Surely not as influential as Ditko or Kirby, but still...

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, Carlo M said:

Oh one final point.  As to JB not being influential, there is a lot of JB in early Silvestri work (look at the guys' faces or legs) and of course in Castellini's fantastic work!  That is a true modern legacy of JB's art, in my mind.  Surely not as influential as Ditko or Kirby, but still...

Silvestri's legs.   Are we really having this convo? 

I 100% get those collectors that like his art.    Its good its just not great.

And if it was great, we wouldn't be talking about Silvestri's legs

Edited March 13, 2019 by Bronty

[Carlo M]

25 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Silvestri's legs.   Are we really having this convo? 

I 100% get those collectors that like his art.    Its good its just not great.

And if it was great, we wouldn't be talking about Silvestri's legs

Ah ah ah...you got me there! 

[Bird]

I consider SS4 the best superhero cover. EVAH! But I don't find a lot of JB work that thrills me other than that. I think his standing is also hurt by those all those Conan prelims and the Stan Lee anecdotes about JB being someone who didn't like drawing comics. That stuff seeps in and crowds out objective analysis sometimes. But when he was on he was a contender!

[jjonahjameson11]

1 hour ago, Carlo M said:

Oh one final point.  As to JB not being influential, there is a lot of JB in early Silvestri work (look at the guys' faces or legs) and of course in Castellini's fantastic work!  That is a true modern legacy of JB's art, in my mind.  Surely not as influential as Ditko or Kirby, but still...

I like John’s artwork, and I’m not dumping on him, but in addition to Ditko or Kirby, John was not as influential as Byrne or McFarlane or Eisner or Miller, etc.

John was a good artist, solid storyteller, good pacing, but not not great.  That’s my opinion... others will vary.

[buyatari]

32 minutes ago, Bird said:

I consider SS4 the best superhero cover. EVAH! But I don't find a lot of JB work that thrills me other than that. I think his standing is also hurt by those all those Conan prelims and the Stan Lee anecdotes about JB being someone who didn't like drawing comics. That stuff seeps in and crowds out objective analysis sometimes. But when he was on he was a contender!

Silver Surfer 4 is an awesome cover. 

I don’t think Stan Lee has any influence over how people see JBs art. 

 

[delekkerste]

52 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I like John’s artwork, and I’m not dumping on him, but in addition to Ditko or Kirby, John was not as influential as Byrne or McFarlane or Eisner or Miller, etc.

John was a good artist, solid storyteller, good pacing, but not not great.  That’s my opinion... others will vary.

That's where I stand as well.  Not as influential either stylistically or having created/co-created as many lasting characters and storylines as some of his better contemporaries.  But, he was better than most of his peers, and occasionally produced some great work (esp. in the late '60s to mid-'70s period) like SS #1 and #4. And he was "the" Conan artist for many, even though the artwork was very variable in quality over the years (some of it is great, some of it is definitely not).  To me, he's in the pantheon of greats, but, there's a decent number of names ahead of him.  

There is one thing about JB that I disagree - vehemently - about, though:  those  people who say that he was his own best inker!!  His inking style was far too loose and wispy; where a bold, confident, weighted line was needed, JB invariably fell short.  Palmer, Klein, Sal, Sinnott, Adkins, Alcala, DeZuniga, The Tribe...I prefer pretty much anyone other than Chan over JB inking himself (and even that's not 100%).  

BTW, I think that Hulk page is actually pretty good - really cool perspective and fleshed-out background even if the Hulk himself looks a bit wonky.  

Edited March 13, 2019 by delekkerste

[glendgold]

6 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

That's where I stand as well.  Not as influential either stylistically or having created/co-created as many lasting characters and storylines as some of his better contemporaries.  But, he was better than most of his peers, and occasionally produced some great work (esp. in the late '60s to mid-'70s period) like SS #1 and #4. And he was "the" Conan artist for many, even though the artwork was very variable in quality over the years (some of it is great, some of it is definitely not).  To me, he's in the pantheon of greats, but, there's a decent number of names ahead of him.  

There is one thing about JB that I disagree - vehemently - about, though:  those  people who say that he was his own best inker!!  His inking style was far too loose and wispy; where a bold, confident, weighted line was needed, JB invariably fell short.  Palmer, Klein, Sal, Sinnott, Adkins, Alcala, DeZuniga, The Tribe...I prefer pretty much anyone other than Chan over JB inking himself (and even that's not 100%).  

BTW, I think that Hulk page is actually pretty good - really cool perspective and fleshed-out background even if the Hulk himself looks a bit wonky.  

John Buscema is the Gene Colan of Buscemas. 

 

[comix4fun]

3 hours ago, Bronty said:

That's an interesting point and an anecdote I hadn't heard and I'm willing to listen to that POV, but I googled JB 1966 and this is the first piece of OA I found.   I'm not dazzled.

Like the second book he ever did for Marvel after nearly a decade working in commercial advertising art?

Imagine spending a decade as a sprinter and then changing sports to be a long distance runner.

Would you judge the athlete on one of their first practice runs, or after they've settled into the transition?

[Dick Pontoon]

Even Buscema himself didn’t think highly of his early Marvel art, and cited TTA IIRC.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Dick Pontoon

[batman_fan]

Compare Buscema to any artist that is highly coveted. I would say only Adams and s few strip artists (no not Charles Schulz) is better. You can look at any of the othe artist and find some pretty jacked up work even though in many cases people pay insane money for it  cough cough killing joke cough cough. 

[Bronty]

3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Like the second book he ever did for Marvel after nearly a decade working in commercial advertising art?

Imagine spending a decade as a sprinter and then changing sports to be a long distance runner.

Would you judge the athlete on one of their first practice runs, or after they've settled into the transition?

Oh for... ***** sake.  I was responding to an assertion that his early work was fantastic.   So I googled an early date.    You guys can't tell me that his early work is magic, and then tell me I can't consider his early work.   You can't have it both ways.    

Its just not that good.     

In fairness, there's later work that's not that good too :P 

None of it is horrid.    I never see a piece of his that truly offends my eyeballs.    And none of it is amazing.    I never see a piece of his that electrifies..

Edited March 13, 2019 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

Oh for... ***** sake.  I was responding to an assertion that his early work was fantastic.   So I googled an early date.    You guys can't tell me that his early work is magic, and then tell me I can't consider his early work.   You can't have it both ways.    

Its just not that good.

Anything from the 60's would probably be considered early work for Marvel given him coming on board in late '66.

You just happened to choose his second book and an example that even he didn't like.

As with most artists it's easy to grab a piece that's superb or subpar and use it to make a point. 

I didn't say his early work was magic. And I also didn't say you couldn't consider his early work. 

That piece is not that good, even JB didn't like it that much.

But consideration of that piece should not be made in a vacuum by not considering 1) How early that was in his tenure at Marvel, and 2) how it's not indicative of his work in those early 3 or so years at Marvel. 

Surfer work (just a couple years later) = Magic. 

TTA from '66 = Not Magic

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Like the second book he ever did for Marvel after nearly a decade working in commercial advertising art?

Imagine spending a decade as a sprinter and then changing sports to be a long distance runner.

Would you judge the athlete on one of their first practice runs, or after they've settled into the transition?

Agree anyone would be rusty. One of his last things he did in comics before working in commercial advertising art was Indian Chief run. Those pages were amazing not just pencils but his inks were great. Many don't care for John inking himself, I love his inks but do agree there are better inkers over him like George Klein and his brother Sal. But with John he was primarily a penciler. He did maybe one or two issues a year where he inked himself. He did have a run on Conan The Barbarian where he penciled and inked a number of covers. But that is still a very small amount of work as an inker.
John loved to draw but was not a big fan of drawing Super-Heroes, he looked as it more of a job than some other artists. But for someone who loved to say he hates comics he can draw so much better than many who love to draw comics. He didn't ink his work as much because it wasn't used to doing it and he felt it slowed him down and in trun wasn't making as much money as he did when he penciled. I wish he did ink more because I feel he would have gotten much better at it over time. Here are two examples of his Indian Chief work from 1958. I for one love the inks!

 

 

 

[Brian Peck]

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Anything from the 60's would probably be considered early work for Marvel given him coming on board in late '66.

You just happened to choose his second book and an example that even he didn't like.

As with most artists it's easy to grab a piece that's superb or subpar and use it to make a point. 

I didn't say his early work was magic. And I also didn't say you couldn't consider his early work. 

That piece is not that good, even JB didn't like it that much.

But consideration of that piece should not be made in a vacuum by not considering 1) How early that was in his tenure at Marvel, and 2) how it's not indicative of his work in those early 3 or so years at Marvel. 

Surfer work (just a couple years later) = Magic. 

TTA from '66 = Not Magic

1968 was John's prime period and during that time he was penciling (full pencils) 3 books a month. Avengers (New Masters of Evil, Death Be Not Proud, Behold The Vision, Even an Android Can Cry), Submariner early issues and Silver Surfer (40 page stories). Some of the classic Marvel Silver Age stories.

Here is one of my all time favorite pieces by Big John (still jealous of Scott) from Avengers #58.

 

 

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

1968 was John's prime period and during that time he was penciling (full pencils) 3 books a month. Avengers (New Masters of Evil, Death Be Not Proud, Behold The Vision, Even an Android Can Cry), Submariner early issues and Silver Surfer (40 page stories). Some of the classic Marvel Silver Age stories.

Here is one of my all time favorite pieces by Big John (still jealous of Scott) from Avengers #58.

 

 

 

that's a nice splash, but when we pointing at one single year as prime period for someone with a long career... hoo boy.

Its kind of like saying 1957 peanuts is magic, but watch out for 1950-1956 and 1958-2000 

[Twanj]

1 hour ago, Bill C said:

100% disagree with "absolute peak by any standards". Very cool and powerful looking cover, but so extremely physically impractical and impotent when you think about it.

Look at the poses. Imagine the speed the Surfer is going at. They are going to connect in a fraction of a second. If we watched this play out- say an animated feature, the board would ram into Thor, sure- but what the heck is the Surfer doing with his hands? There is no possible punch there. And look at Thor. There is no way he brings the hammer around even a small percent before he gets hit. It's just ridiculous in that sense. If they were in those poses but much further apart, then it would make sense.

True. It sucks. 

[I am not Glenda]

3 hours ago, Bill C said:

100% disagree with "absolute peak by any standards". Very cool and powerful looking cover, but so extremely physically impractical and impotent when you think about it.

Look at the poses. Imagine the speed the Surfer is going at. They are going to connect in a fraction of a second. If we watched this play out- say an animated feature, the board would ram into Thor, sure- but what the heck is the Surfer doing with his hands? There is no possible punch there. And look at Thor. There is no way he brings the hammer around even a small percent before he gets hit. It's just ridiculous in that sense. If they were in those poses but much further apart, then it would make sense.

Really? WOW! we are now talking about the speed at which Surfer is moving to say a cover sucks?,  I am sorry you may hate JB art but I would have to say if you don't think SS #4 is a masterpiece & hands down one of the great covers of the silver age ( regardless of how damn fast the Silver Surfer is moving in your mind) then IMHO art doesn't suck the internet sucks because it allows this crapola to be posted.  This post reminded me of the scene in Titanic when Rose shows a Picasso to her husband some people will just never get it. The cover to SS # 4 is amazing............. period.

[I am not Glenda]

11 hours ago, Carlo M said:

BTW as far as I recall the anecdote goes (and please anybody more informed than me correct me) that Stan Lee did not like SS 4 art, and gave JB directions to be more "Marvel style" or something like that.  Apparently, S Lee changed his mind afterwards.  Anyway, there is no doubt that you can tell there is far less energy in JB's super hero production after that.  Maybe he found more inspiration in Conan, but as I said I have not read that run.

You should look into the CONAN stuff not just he comics but the mags as its some really great stuff. I am curious what artist are on the top of our list???

[I am not Glenda]

4 hours ago, Bronty said:

that's a nice splash, but when we pointing at one single year as prime period for someone with a long career... hoo boy.

Its kind of like saying 1957 peanuts is magic, but watch out for 1950-1956 and 1958-2000 

Absolutely not true many artist musicians poets have a peak in their career where they are hitting on all cylinders and in my opinion JB had a pretty long run of high quality output from the late 1960s well in the early 1980s as his Conan stuff still stands the test of time. Does anyone here think Kirby, Ditko, Adam,s Cockrum didn't have a peak???