What are your thoughts & opinions on the realism movement going on with comic covers?books today? 1 1

[FSF]

Perhaps it's overstating things to call it a "movement" just yet but what are your thoughts on artists like Stanley "Artgerm" Lau, Natali Sanders, Josh Middleton and the like who are drawing covers that depict characters in a very realistic way, sometimes even photograph like.  To be clear, I am not referring to photo covers. 

[VintageComics]

38 minutes ago, FSF said:

Perhaps it's overstating things to call it a "movement" just yet but what are your thoughts on artists like Stanley "Artgerm" Lau, Natali Sanders, Josh Middleton and the like who are drawing covers that depict characters in a very realistic way, sometimes even photograph like.  To be clear, I am not referring to photo covers. 

I think the bigger problem is that covers don't tie into the stories. They're poster pieces to themselves.

I think I'd like captions back on comic book covers.

[FSF]

18 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I think the bigger problem is that covers don't tie into the stories. They're poster pieces to themselves.

I think I'd like captions back on comic book covers.

 

I'm not sure why you consider it a "problem" insofar as the covers themselves.

[jason4]

I'm loving the art. I think it looks amazing. Mike mayhew comes to mind as well. I do prefer the cover having something to do with the interior tho which it does most of the time but not all the time.

[SBRobin]

I love it. It is certainly much more refreshing than the covers of Liefeld who depicts characters at the opposite end of the spectrum. 

[VintageComics]

3 hours ago, FSF said:

3 hours ago, VintageComics said:

I think the bigger problem is that covers don't tie into the stories. They're poster pieces to themselves.

I think I'd like captions back on comic book covers.

 

I'm not sure why you consider it a "problem" insofar as the covers themselves.

Well, the art is nice but it's more like buying a post card than a comic book.

Often the covers don't have much to do with the stories and I prefer being drawn in by a cover if I'm reading a book. I'm old fashioned that way.

Additionally, I tend to remember story arcs I like by the covers (which were tied into the stories).

If the covers are simply poster art, they don't remind me of the story arcs. I don't form an emotional attachment to the book in the same way.

Edited April 22, 2019 by VintageComics

[Amazing Spidey]

I agree. Modern covers are mainly splash pages of the title character. I miss the days when the cover to a comic depicted the climax or most dramatic moment within the book. That made the book jump off the rack and made me want to immediately read it. 

[FSF]

First off, I am a huge fan of the art and Artgerm has already catapulted to my top artist of all time.  However, one of the reasons I ask the question is that it isn't traditional "comic art" which lends more toward a caricature look.  It certainly is different than what we've all been used to for so many decades. 

While I agree that it may be annoying that the cover may not reflect the story inside, I wonder if that's even doable in many if not most instances.  I would think that in many of these situations, the artist may not know what the storyline is, especially when it is a store ordered cover. 

[VintageComics]

4 hours ago, FSF said:

While I agree that it may be annoying that the cover may not reflect the story inside, I wonder if that's even doable in many if not most instances.  I would think that in many of these situations, the artist may not know what the storyline is, especially when it is a store ordered cover. 

So, the cover has nothing to do with the book and that doesn't seem strange?

We've jumped the shark as a hobby and it's indicative of society in general.

I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out how ludicrous things have become.

And on your point, it's not hard for someone to convey to the artist what the story is about.

[FSF]

No it doesn't seem strange.  The notion that it is "ludicrous" is way overstating things. It's a comic book, not the Manhattan Project. 

As for conveying the work to the artist, do you really think Marvel or DC are going to spend time reaching out to all of the potential shops and cover artists even as stories might change as they're writing them.  I'm not sure if you ever worked for a "real" company but businesses do not operate that way. Never have and never will.

Of all the things to complain about the comic world, which jumped the shark over a decade ago, that would be way down on my list of things to worry about.  Candidly, I don't really read any new comics.  Lots of people don't but want to book for cover art.  It is the only thing one sees when it is bagged and boarded and immensely important.

I'm not sure why you are extending this to society in general.  You sound like a tired old guy talking about the "good old days."  Nothing is more tiresome on the internet.

 

[Ken Aldred]

I don't mind covers that have nothing directly to do with the story contents.

EC, during the Atom / late Golden Age, published many comics with covers that weren't explicitly connected to the contents, such as Weird Fantasy, with quite generic-looking spaceships and alien landscapes...

 

I like many of the Artgerm covers, and the shift towards the opposite end of the spectrum to Al Feldstein's cover above, to realism, doesn't bother me.  Much better than more of Greg Land or Greg Horn's obviously-swiped efforts from a decade or so ago, anyway.

Adam Hughes is an extremely-talented cover artist whose work sometimes relates to the story inside, but sometimes has a quite unrelated, generic quality.  A degree of realism to his style, but somewhere in between the polar opposites of Feldstein and Artgerm.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Ken Aldred

[Get Marwood & I]

10 hours ago, FSF said:

Perhaps it's overstating things to call it a "movement" just yet but what are your thoughts on artists like Stanley "Artgerm" Lau, Natali Sanders, Josh Middleton and the like who are drawing covers that depict characters in a very realistic way, sometimes even photograph like.  To be clear, I am not referring to photo covers. 

Great art is great art. Some of the covers are beautiful, and would look good framed or as a print. That said, I find that they somehow detract from the contents though, as they stand alone from it, unconnected. If I see a comic with a key scene from the book, I may go "Wow, Spidey gets unmasked in this one", or "Spidey fights the Hulk in this one, I've got to buy this!". Or at least would have as a kid. If I see an - admittedly - beautifully drawn 'pose' cover, the only reason I would want that is because the cover looked nice (unless I was a run collector, or a fan of the cover artist). So if the only reason I want it is because the cover looks nice, then the comic has become secondary to the cover. 

Personally, and at the risk of sounding like one of those 'tired old guys', I prefer comics that look like this...

...to ones that look like this (alright, I know it's a variant):

That's just a personal preference though. My own view is that comics have evolved - they are no longer what they were and have become to a degree showcases for certain 'hot' artists work. I used to collect ASM, and there was a spell where every cover was just Spidey in a pose. Nothing connected to the story. So I have no idea now, what the comic contains. Here's what I mean - five consecutive issues that tell me nothing:

    

Now, I know what happens in these ones...

    

But they do seem 'old fashioned' now don't they? Maybe that is because comics have moved on. It's a matter of personal preference whether they are better, worse, or just different now. And my preference, whilst I can appreciate a lovely piece of unconnected art, is that the old books with their story telling narrative / key event cover spoilers, are more in line with a medium that makes sense. That is, to tell a story and to entice the buyer to want to read it. 

[FSF]

Marwood, that's all fine and dandy and I respect anyone's opinion or personal preferences.  But none of that has anything to do with the topic of the thread.  You guys aren't talking about artists who draw is a realistic style, you're talking about substance and variants in general, the vast majority of which are still drawn in the old stye of comic art.  

I'm not sure why VintageComics felt the need to conflate a completely off-topic matter right out of the gate and make it the central issue when that isn't the point at all whatsoever of this thread.

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, FSF said:

Marwood, that's all fine and dandy and I respect anyone's opinion or personal preferences.  But none of that has anything to do with the topic of the thread.  You guys aren't talking about artists who draw is a realistic style, you're talking about substance and variants in general, the vast majority of which are still drawn in the old stye of comic art.  

I'm not sure why VintageComics felt the need to conflate a completely off-topic matter right out of the gate and make it the central issue when that isn't the point at all whatsoever of this thread.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood where you were going with it. Put me on the right track? 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Get Marwood & I
Was half way through a post with additional thoughts!

[bababooey]

I prefer artists who can tell a story AND draw nice pictures doing covers.  I'd consider myself a fan of painted art covers but prefer classics like Bring on the Bad Guys or Spectacular Spider-man 2 magazine to anything I've seen lately but those classics are paintings of comic characters not paintings of real people as comic characters. 

If I want realism or real people portraying the characters I can see it on TV or at the movies but I suppose for anyone who discovered the hobby over the past 20 years (post Y2K movie era) the depiction of a real person "as" the character is more aligned to their experience in today's hobby.   

 

[mrc]

11 hours ago, FSF said:

what are your thoughts on artists like Stanley "Artgerm"

My thoughts are that all the faces look the same and to call them 'realistic' would be an insult to comic artists that draw realistic faces.

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

I prefer artists who can tell a story AND draw nice pictures doing covers.  I'd consider myself a fan of painted art covers but prefer classics like Bring on the Bad Guys or Spectacular Spider-man 2 magazine to anything I've seen lately but those classics are paintings of comic characters not paintings of real people as comic characters. 

If I want realism or real people portraying the characters I can see it on TV or at the movies but I suppose for anyone who discovered the hobby over the past 20 years (post Y2K movie era) the depiction of a real person "as" the character is more aligned to their experience in today's hobby.   

 

I agree. This does link in a little to the spirit of my post, the old school charm vs the more modern realism. Some comic characters don't translate well into reality. They look, frankly, silly. So ultra realism may be at odds with the original medium. 

1 minute ago, mrc said:

My thoughts are that all the faces look the same and to call them 'realistic' would be an insult to comic artists that draw realistic faces.

Yes, they all seem to use the same models as reference points don't they!

Anyway, I'll keep quiet until FSF frames his question a little clearer, maybe with some pictorial examples and his own initial guiding thoughts. 

[Hollywood1892]

I really like the transition.

[Ken Aldred]

Quite the opposite to the extremes present in older comics.

Effectively, it's neon-lit, roadside sign overkill.

But, I'm fond of them.  

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Ken Aldred

[jason4]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

I don't mind covers that have nothing directly to do with the story contents.

EC, during the Atom / late Golden Age, published many comics with covers that weren't explicitly connected to the contents, such as Weird Fantasy, with quite generic-looking spaceships and alien landscapes...

 

I like many of the Artgerm covers, and the shift towards the opposite end of the spectrum to Al Feldstein's cover above, to realism, doesn't bother me.  Much better than more of Greg Land or Greg Horn's obviously-swiped efforts from a decade or so ago, anyway.

Adam Hughes is an extremely-talented cover artist whose work sometimes relates to the story inside, but sometimes has a quite unrelated, generic quality.  A degree of realism to his style, but somewhere in between the polar opposites of Feldstein and Artgerm.

 

Don't be hatin on Greg Horn. There's no way he swiped his old art of a character that just came out. Plus that's the best Gamora cover art I've ever seen. He's exceptional at making fantasy characters look "real" plus he put a little reference to the interior with cgr holding cap. Didn't read the guardians book but maybe she gets the stones in it?

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by jason4