Better artist of that era-Byrne or Perez. 3 3

[kav]

6 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Uninformed opinions can be incorrect.  

That statement of fact, is incorrect.

[500Club]

13 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Uninformed opinions can be incorrect. Your analogy doesn't hold water, we're not discussing if beets are gross, you're spouting incorrect information on technical aspects of his work.

Yup.  It depends what is being offered as an 'opinion', especially if that opinion stands in direct conflict with facts.  see: anti-vaxxers

[batman_fan]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

Very 2D and sideways.

I'll take it off your hands to help out a fellow boardie if you're that embarrassed 

 

I found a therapist to help me through this so I think I will be fine

[kav]

3 minutes ago, 500Club said:

Yup.  It depends what is being offered as an 'opinion', especially if that opinion stands in direct conflict with facts.  see: anti-vaxxers

any statement about art is pure opinion.  There is no mathematical model or scientific way to 'prove' one artist is 'better' than another.  Or that something is 'art'.  This is why there is a completely white canvas in the museum of modern art.  

[shadroch]

I see Byrne as a storyteller. Perez is an artist.

[500Club]

6 minutes ago, kav said:

13 minutes ago, 500Club said:

Yup.  It depends what is being offered as an 'opinion', especially if that opinion stands in direct conflict with facts.  see: anti-vaxxers

any statement about art is pure opinion.  There is no mathematical model or scientific way to 'prove' one artist is 'better' than another.  Or that something is 'art'.  This is why there is a completely white canvas in the museum of modern art.  

Almost.  In the case of comic book art, there are a few artistic concepts that verge on fact.  Construction and use of two point perspective, three point perspective and vanishing points tend to be pretty concrete and geometrical, as does human anatomy.  In fact, as a Byrne voter, I do agree that his rendering of female faces is limited, and based on evidence, this is more than just opinion.

Also, there's been no discussion about using 'facts' or 'models' to prove one artist is better than another.  This really only came up with the suggestion that Byrne has an issue with perspective. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, 500Club said:

Almost.  In the case of comic book art, there are a few artistic concepts that verge on fact.  Construction and use of two point perspective, three point perspective and vanishing points tend to be pretty concrete and geometrical, as does human anatomy.  In fact, as a Byrne voter, I do agree that his rendering of female faces is limited, and based on evidence, this is more than just opinion.

Also, there's been no discussion about using 'facts' or 'models' to prove one artist is better than another.  This really only came up with the suggestion that Byrne has an issue with perspective. 

Not always true.  Carl barks is considered a great artist and he does not use human or duck anatomy and his use of perspective is very minimal as in example below.  Perspective is not always required.  If those were say used as a scientific criteria for comic art, Byrne would win on anatomy, Perez on perspective.

[500Club]

3 minutes ago, kav said:

If those were say used as a scientific criteria for comic art, Byrne would win on anatomy, Perez on perspective.

That's fair.

I'm not looking to go too far with this, as overall, I agree with you that art, and the enjoyment of it is subjective and the majority of it is opinion. 

Interestingly, in terms of the above, I find Byrne's use of perspective far better that the average of the era, and Perez' anatomy far better than the average of the era. 

[Logan510]

2 hours ago, 500Club said:

That's fair.

I'm not looking to go too far with this, as overall, I agree with you that art, and the enjoyment of it is subjective and the majority of it is opinion. 

Interestingly, in terms of the above, I find Byrne's use of perspective far better that the average of the era, and Perez' anatomy far better than the average of the era. 

I personally dislike arguments like this...if it's all "opinion" (and remember, opinions can't be wrong! ) as some would have us believe than how do we quantify who is "better"?

Is it popularity? Is it sales? We've already been told "Liefeld"...so there goes that.

Is it eye test? There goes that pesky opinion thing again.

[Electricmastro]

George Perez’s earliest Avengers covers alongside John Byrne’s earliest Avengers covers for comparison:

George Perez:

John Byrne:

[Logan510]

To be honest, not a truly fair comparison because most of the time they weren't designing their own covers.

I think I prefer Perez's covers just a bit more though and when he designs his own they're generally outstanding 

 

[kav]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

I personally dislike arguments like this...if it's all "opinion" (and remember, opinions can't be wrong! ) as some would have us believe than how do we quantify who is "better"?

Is it popularity? Is it sales? We've already been told "Liefeld"...so there goes that.

Is it eye test? There goes that pesky opinion thing again.

I started this thread to check opinions because me and buddy were discussing it.  That is all.  I got what i wanted-Byrne seems to be the more preferred.  That doesnt mean I dont get to weigh in with my vote and give my reasons.
And no, opinions cannot be wrong.  I posted the definition earlier.

[kav]

How to quantify who is better would also be----opinion.

[shadroch]

If you can't prove your point with a couple of covers, the next dozen aren't going to help much.

[500Club]

1 hour ago, kav said:

I started this thread to check opinions because me and buddy were discussing it.  That is all.  I got what i wanted-Byrne seems to be the more preferred.  That doesnt mean I dont get to weigh in with my vote and give my reasons.
And no, opinions cannot be wrong.  I posted the definition earlier.

Both of these guys were so good that the question you posed pretty much comes down to purely opinion. 

However, if it came down to a debate about either Byrne or Perez vs Liefeld, I think I’d offer that concrete arguments using facts could be made. 

[kav]

Just now, 500Club said:

Both of these guys were so good that the question you posed pretty much comes down to purely opinion. 

However, if it came down to a debate about either Byrne or Perez vs Liefeld, I think I’d offer that concrete arguments using facts could be made. 

I agree but yet again-there are liefeld lovers that would argue he is better.  Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder.  Many would think Gary Panter is awful and objectively argue liefeld blows him out of the water.  Many others would disagree and Panter has won awards for his art. Panter was the recipient of the 2012 Klein Award, which is given by the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art at their annual MoCCA Art Festival in New York.  Other recipients include 

2002: Jules Feiffer

2003: Art Spiegelman

2004: Roz Chast

2005: Neal Adams

2006: Gahan Wilson

2007: Alison Bechdel

2008: Bill Plympton

2009: Jerry Robinson

2010: David Mazzucchelli

2011: Al Jaffee

2012: Gary Panter

[500Club]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

13 minutes ago, 500Club said:

Both of these guys were so good that the question you posed pretty much comes down to purely opinion. 

However, if it came down to a debate about either Byrne or Perez vs Liefeld, I think I’d offer that concrete arguments using facts could be made. 

I agree but yet again-there are liefeld lovers that would argue he is better.  Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. 

I see what you are saying, and in the majority of cases, I agree.  There are certain things that are impossible to get around, though - and in Liefeld’s case, it’s inconsistent proportioning and grossly incorrect anatomy.  Forearms with nine extensor muscles, and upper arms with incorrect bicep and triceps origins and insertions are one step away from drawing a person with three eyes or a car with five wheels. 

[kav]

3 minutes ago, 500Club said:

I see what you are saying, and in the majority of cases, I agree.  There are certain things that are impossible to get around, though - and in Liefeld’s case, it’s inconsistent proportioning and grossly incorrect anatomy.  Forearms with nine extensor muscles, and upper arms with incorrect bicep and triceps origins and insertions are one step away from drawing a person with three eyes or a car with five wheels. 

what do you think of gary panter's anatomy:

[500Club]

9 minutes ago, kav said:

what do you think of gary panter's anatomy:
 

Better than Liefeld’s... sadly... but also a great way to make your point.

Aside from some of the detailing creating surface textures, I don’t see much that would qualify for the winning of awards.

Opinion of the awards committee, that one is...

[kav]

5 minutes ago, 500Club said:

Better than Liefeld’s... sadly... but also a great way to make your point.

Aside from some of the detailing creating surface textures, I don’t see much that would qualify for the winning of awards.

Opinion of the awards committee, that one is...

overall I agree there is some as yet undefinable characteristic of art that makes one better than another.  But there will always be those who disagree, and truth is not achieved by consensus.  That is why opinion is outside the realm of 'true or false' and you cannot say things like 'opinions are not always correct'.  You have to understand the meaning of the word 'opinion'.
The force of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 is not an opinion.  Byrne is better than liefeld is an opinion.

Edited May 30, 2020 by kav