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

99 posts in this topic

10,763 posts
1 hour 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.

Be fair, he does change her hair colour :smile:

artgerm.thumb.PNG.e101a6973642c8ecfdf68b08bd61e7ff.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,005 posts
2 hours 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.

What @VintageComics posted isn't as completely off-topic as you may think. 

Based on my experience in the hobby, it seems that the "realistic style" is more suited for pinups than traditional comic covers.  Historically, pinup images by a variety of artists would be relegated to the end of the interior of a book.  However, there has been a shift, or movement as you say, to using these pinups as cover art instead.  Like you mentioned, there is a whole subset of comic collecting that never cracks open a comic but simply collects them for the covers.  Nothing wrong with that...and there's clearly more than a few that do it, hence the shift in focus. 

However, it's hard to separate the art style from the cover style because more often than not they are so tied to one another.  If you see a comic with word bubbles or a scene that's playing out, it'll likely be drawn in the old style.  If you see something that is more "realistic", it'll likely read more like a traditional pinup as opposed to a comic cover.  If you had asked how people felt about the shift to more "realistic" art vs. traditional art, I think we'd have the conversation you were looking for.  But since you specifically mentioned covers, you've unintentionally welcomed people's varied opinions on the purpose of a comic cover.  Should a comic cover offer a summary of what can be found in the book so the potential buyer can make a decision or should it be eye-candy with no link to the interior because the cover is what you'll see 99% of the time anyway?

You invited Roy's "conflation" by throwing the word "cover" into your original post.  It can be difficult to separate art style from art purpose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,678 posts

I suspect the OP just wanted to gush about how much he loves the Artgerm covers, and is upset he didnt find us a receptive audience!

To answer the unspoken question: yes, we're jealous of all of your Artgerm covers.  We'll look back on this very thread in 20 years and say "darn, the OP was so smart.  I wish I'd bought all those Artgerms before they were four-figure books!"  You're well on your way to paying your child's college tuition!  Keep it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725 posts
Posted (edited)

I think both topics are good discussion. Here's a new mike mayhew cover which looks like the realistic art the OP mentioned. I like it as a piece of art. If black cat is in the jungle with spidey in this costume it's all good but somehow I doubt it...

As a comic? Is black cat even in this book? Wtf "Kravenized"?!?!

Now everything is being "ized" because of all that ridiculous overdone venomized everything stuff.

 This is only one of several versions on this book (not sure how many)

Ps better than artgerm covers imo.

Screenshot_20190422-080926_eBay.jpg

Edited by jason4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
675 posts
1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Be fair, he does change her hair colour :smile:

artgerm.thumb.PNG.e101a6973642c8ecfdf68b08bd61e7ff.PNG

.......is that a Barbie Doll collection? :roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,449 posts

Was Alex Ross the 1st to design characters in a "realistic" fashion? Serious question.

I think that part of the reason I love 20th century comics is the fact that they're not designed realistically. I watch the MCU/Worlds of DC etc films for the "realistic" takes on comic characters and the stories.

I'm not a fan of covers not matching the interior, either. Which is likely a big factor in my disdain for most variant covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,763 posts
12 minutes ago, jason4 said:

I think both topics are good discussion. Here's a new mike mayhew cover which looks like the realistic art the OP mentioned. I like it as a piece of art. If black cat is in the jungle with spidey in this costume it's all good but somehow I doubt it...

As a comic? Is black cat even in this book? Wtf "Kravenized"?!?!

Now everything is being "ized" because of all that ridiculous overdone venomized everything stuff.

 This is only one of several versions on this book (not sure how many)

Ps better than artgerm covers imo.

Screenshot_20190422-080926_eBay.jpg

See, while I can see that that is a good piece of art, perfectly well rendered, to me it has nothing to do with the comic. That's not how I see Felicia in my mind. That's just someone who has painted a picture of a good looking woman in a semi pornographic pose, and stuck Black Cats mask on her. So I hate it, really, as it has no place being on the comic. No connection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,005 posts
14 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

See, while I can see that that is a good piece of art, perfectly well rendered, to me it has nothing to do with the comic. That's not how I see Felicia in my mind. That's just someone who has painted a picture of a good looking woman in a semi pornographic pose, and stuck Black Cats mask on her. So I hate it, really, as it has no place being on the comic. No connection. 

I'd agree with this.  I'll add that the face reminds me of Lindsay Lohan quite a bit

Capture.JPG.f0b1235088164363d4555d7e09d730c2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,763 posts
20 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Was Alex Ross the 1st to design characters in a "realistic" fashion? Serious question.

Serious answer? Dunno

20 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

I think that part of the reason I love 20th century comics is the fact that they're not designed realistically. I watch the MCU/Worlds of DC etc films for the "realistic" takes on comic characters and the stories.

Yeah, that's what Bababooey was saying earlier. Some characters only work on the page don't they. And I can't see how any superhero could maintain a secret identity in the modern world. Comics were of their time.

20 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

I'm not a fan of covers not matching the interior, either. Which is likely a big factor in my disdain for most variant covers.

Agreed. Variants just feel like blatant money making schemes to me, often with little artistic merit. 49 ASM v3 relaunch covers anyone? 47 suck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,613 posts
14 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

See, while I can see that that is a good piece of art, perfectly well rendered, to me it has nothing to do with the comic. That's not how I see Felicia in my mind. That's just someone who has painted a picture of a good looking woman in a semi pornographic pose, and stuck Black Cats mask on her. So I hate it, really, as it has no place being on the comic. No connection. 

Black cat is one of my favorite characters and I can't stand the sight of this cover.  The gimick of "ized" covers is not for everyone.  There are very few Venomized covers that I actually liked even though I never bought any.  Kravenized Black Cat seems like a bad attempt to be the first artist to start a new trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,763 posts
2 minutes ago, Catwomancomics said:

Black cat is one of my favorite characters and I can't stand the sight of this cover.  The gimick of "ized" covers is not for everyone.  There are very few Venomized covers that I actually liked even though I never bought any.  Kravenized Black Cat seems like a bad attempt to be the first artist to start a new trend.

Agree. The whole thing's been bollockized in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,613 posts
4 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I'd agree with this.  I'll add that the face reminds me of Lindsay Lohan quite a bit

Capture.JPG.f0b1235088164363d4555d7e09d730c2.JPG

That Artgerm Lindsay Lohan looks fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,763 posts
5 minutes ago, Catwomancomics said:

That Artgerm Lindsay Lohan looks fantastic.

It's almost too realistic, like a photo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,763 posts
3 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

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

Whoops, I didn't stick to that did I. Anyway, @FSF, your thread has taken off good and proper. Be pleased! And do come back and give us your thoughts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241 posts

The point of the thread is very simple.  Do you like the increasing new style of art or not?  I suppose that as an extension of that is whether it is even appropriate to consider it comic art at this point though this part was not obvious.  Beyond that, there is no objective or agenda or any other consideration.  I'm just curious what the audience thinks of this pretty significant shift in what is being defined as "comic art."  As far any notion that I'm upset, that is completely absurd.  Feel free to post whatever you want and lots of threads get derailed so I get that and am guilty of it myself from time to time but I still don't understand this need to focus on the stories and even more so, the talk of "captions" as if there were that many books that actually even used them on the cover even before the modern era.  And regarding any sort of notion that I think Artgerm or any other books that I buy are going to be valuable is completely laughable.  I'm well entrenched in the camp that thinks that virtually all comic books will be essentially worthless sometime before i die.  I'm in my mid 40s if that helps.  I don't do comics, or any collectibles, for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,449 posts
7 minutes ago, FSF said:

The point of the thread is very simple.  Do you like the increasing new style of art or not?  I suppose that as an extension of that is whether it is even appropriate to consider it comic art at this point though this part was not obvious...

Contradiction is contradictory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241 posts
Just now, TwoPiece said:

Contradiction is contradictory...

Please clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1