BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

Silvestri On New X-Men

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Jack Fear
18:30 / 31.12.02
What it all comes down to is the difference between illustration and storytelling.

An illustration is a picture that exists on its own: but comics is a medium of visual storytelling. It's all about how the pictures work together, how one follows on from another.

It's perfectly possible to produce a page wherein each panel is a beautiful, detailed frozen moment—but none of the panels relates to any of the others. It succeeds as illustration, but it fails as storytelling.

Good storytelling doesn't really need the sort of illustrative qualities you're looking for: it's quite possible to tell a story effectively with stick figures, or simple cartoon figures, and minimal backgrounds.

The real test for comics storytelling is: Can I understand what's happening on this page without reading the word balloons?

Whether or not Frank Quitely draws the faces the same way Ethan Van Sciver does, is beside the point: what makes Frank and Ethan good artists is the storytelling: way the pictures work together, the way the pictures alone convey action and movement, the way that camera angles and shadows move your eyes forward.

These are not pictures to look at: these are pictures to read.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:32 / 31.12.02
A good primer on visual storytelling and the mechanics of reading comics, by the way, is Understanding Comics, by Scott McCloud.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:39 / 31.12.02
Right on.

I just want to clarify one more time - I think Ethan's really good. His last issue of NXM was really well drawn from start to finish, with only a couple wobbly bits. I am fully convinced that in a few years, he's going to be one of the top artists in mainstream comics.

LM Rosa, building on what Jack's said, I'd also recommend checking out comics artists like Seth and Andi Watson, both of whom tell beautiful, graceful stories with deceptively simple minimalism.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:01 / 31.12.02
No, no, no - the negative examples of other X-artists were not meant to be taken as me slamming Ethan, I'm very sorry that you got that impression.

To be honest, i didn't get that impression.

It's weird that you'd think Frank's Xavier looks too old, because I think his Xavier looks about 15-20 years younger than Xavier as illustrated by Ethan, Igor, or Phil Jiminez. I think his face looks a lot younger, and he looks like he's got a more athletic build when Quitely draws him.

You say that because Quitely is the only one who has got to draw Xavier without clothes since Morrison's run and so we've seen his body, but his face just seems too wrinkled, as opposed to Ethan's plain face.

I don't get the thing with Jean either - there's been a few weird panels here and there, but for the most part, I'd say Frank draws her as a very cute girl in her late 20s.

True, but admit her face was too old and too ugly from NXM 114 to 117 - but actually got great in NXM 126

I think it's fairly common for a lot of people to mistake style and surface detail for solid illustrating.

Hope you're not implying i'm of those 'style over substance' freaks - nothing sickens me more than 4-frames pages filled with explosions; i would like all books to be drawn with 9 frames per page, like Watchmen, and with its level of details, but Ethan can't be Dave Gibbons.

I don't think Ethan Van Sciver's art on New X-Men was ever bad, but I think that there are several examples throughout his first three issues of awkward layouts, stiff characters, and panels/pages in which the detail and odd perspectives overwhelmed the basic form and function of the pages. I'm thinking of one two page spread in #123 with Angel in the tree, Logan on a motorcycle, and Emma talking to the both of them, and that layout being very awkward and clumsy, almost sort of confusing to read.

You start reading it from left to right, from the top corner to the bottom corner - just like you would read a book, nothing confusing there - great page, actually.

By the way, i never believed Quitely was also bad at all, he's just not so good as everyone else says so.

Design and composition are a big part of art, especially art which is meant to tell a story in a coherant fashion - it's something Ethan's just picking up now, but something that Frank Quitely does effortlessly. A lot of why Quitely's work is remarkable for its grace and economy of line, which aren't things I think you will notice if you're fixating on surface style.

design and composition, i guess you're talking the way the frames are placed on the page, their size and shape. Isn't that also something already explicit in the script?
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:03 / 31.12.02
Good storytelling doesn't really need the sort of illustrative qualities you're looking for: it's quite possible to tell a story effectively with stick figures, or simple cartoon figures, and minimal backgrounds.

Something tells me you don't feel the same about Watchemen and From Hell's heavily-detailed 9 frames per page.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:05 / 31.12.02
A good primer on visual storytelling and the mechanics of reading comics, by the way, is Understanding Comics, by Scott McCloud.

Still haven't read it, i'm afraid.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:21 / 31.12.02
The real test for comics storytelling is: Can I understand what's happening on this page without reading the word balloons?

New X-Men 121 coming to memory right now, i guess i must admit i understood Quitely's art just from looking.

It's difficult to do the same test with Ethan, because the ballons are in the way and i sort of remember what each says.

I just want to clarify one more time - I think Ethan's really good. His last issue of NXM was really well drawn from start to finish, with only a couple wobbly bits. I am fully convinced that in a few years, he's going to be one of the top artists in mainstream comics.

I already think he's one of the top artists, concerning his talent, if not his fame - but i guess that's the problem: you want to convince me Quitely is better, and i want to do to you the same with Ethan - but i guess it really is just a question of taste.

I also enjoy Quitely's art, which was a breath of fresh air in the x-men comics - and actually like most of his faces(except Xavier's), namelly their chins (is it weird to admit that or just plain kinky?) and his storytelling ability (again, New X-men 121 was incredible)



Have to check Understanding Comics in a near future, and Seth and Andi Watson.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:35 / 31.12.02
Actually, I think WATCHMEN and FROM HELL tend to support my argument.
WATCHMEN, in particular, is drawn in a very clear, simple comic-book style--it's nowhere near photo-realistic--and it's a masterpiece of storytelling. And there are several long silent sequences that exemplify the sort of storytelling I'm talking about.

In Dave Gibbons's work, there's not a line out of place. In panels where the background detail is significant, there's a lot of background detail. But in places where the focus is on the characters, the background loses importance. I've got my copy open to the sequence where Dr. Long is having a session with Rorschach, and there are no backgrounds at all--just the faces, the bodies: Rorschach stiff like a soldier at attention, Long slouchy but tense.

Just as the first rule of clear verbal communication is the remove unnecessary words, so the first rule of clear visual communication is to remove unnecessary lines. WATCHMEN and FROM HELL are as detailed as they need to be--no more, no less. Detail for the sake of detail, though, is simply distracting.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
19:41 / 31.12.02
Actually, I think WATCHMEN and FROM HELL tend to support my argument. WATCHMEN, in particular, is drawn in a very clear, simple comic-book style--it's nowhere near photo-realistic--and it's a masterpiece of storytelling. And there are several long silent sequences that exemplify the sort of storytelling I'm talking about.

What? How can you say that? It's a masterpiece of storytelling, alright, but don't tell me you don't spend minutes looking at the details, trying to figure out small things you missed at first, and later on towards the end come to make sense - it's highly complex, even when it pretends to be simple.

I've got my copy open to the sequence where Dr. Long is having a session with Rorschach, and there are no backgrounds at all--just the faces, the bodies: Rorschach stiff like a soldier at attention, Long slouchy but tense.

Of course, it's waht we call close-ups.
 
 
Jack Fear
21:30 / 31.12.02
Yes, it's complex. But there's nothing there that doesn't need to be. Every line is in the service of the story: there is never a moment when the art cries out, "Look at me!"
 
 
Ethan Van Sciver
21:54 / 31.12.02
I just found this thread, and while reading it I bit my nails down to stubs. Thanks, LM, for your high opinion of my work, but gee whiz, this was the reason I was hesitant to work next to Frank Quitely in the first place. I am not in his league. That's not false humility, it's just truth.
I've been working for about 9 years now, I'm 28, and I've had absolutely no formal training. Everything I know I picked up in little bits of help from friends, and just from practice and repetition. I'm still young, and still learning. NEW X-MEN was out of my league, and I knew it then, but I took it because I figured that the worst it could be was a good learning experience, and that I'd kick myself later if I didn't do it and some other guy did.
And the truth is, watching Frank Quitely closely for two years and talking to him really helped. I think I've improved 200% and learned things because of my time on that book, surrounded by creators who are at the very top of the game. It did help.
But the bad thing is that people are almost forced to compare me to Frank Quitely, because we were the main two artists on the book for awhile. My filling in for him implied that I or someone thought I was almost as good as him, and so people rightfully scrutinized my work.
I think I'm a solid b-list comic book artist, and can stand up with a lot of my peers, but Quitely and Hitch are A-list. I hope to get there someday, and I think I have the talent. I just need more practice and more education.
Anyhow, in the meantime, thanks again for sticking up for me here, but I think you should take E For Extinction, sit down and read it again. Enjoy it for the way Frank Quitely and Grant Morrison can take you somewhere, create an illusion and maintain it until the end of the story. Frank's people are drawn as slight caricatures, and if it's not to your taste initially, I think after two issues you'll accept it and love it. They're his puppets, and he's a master of manipulating them. It's all completely natural looking, and deceptively simple in appearance. They all look alive.
Oh, I've got to cut this post short because my wife has to make a phone call. (heh) Happy New Year.

Ethan Van Sciver
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
14:52 / 01.01.03
Ethan, you said:

They're his puppets, and he's a master of manipulating them. It's all completely natural looking, and deceptively simple in appearance. They all look alive.


and I think this is a brilliant description of Quietly's technique.

Respect to you Ethan, cos you've done some good work on X-Men and I'll look out for your stuff from now on.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
15:17 / 01.01.03
I just found this thread, and while reading it I bit my nails down to stubs. Thanks, LM, for your high opinion of my work, but gee whiz, this was the reason I was hesitant to work next to Frank Quitely in the first place. I am not in his league. That's not false humility, it's just truth.

How can i fight this, if even Ethan is against me?

Okay, i respect your opinion, but don't humble yourself needlessly - you're better than a solid b-list comic book artist

Well, if you say Quitely has improved your quality, that's very good, and i just hope i'll be getting to see more of your art in the future - not as a fill-in artist, but working as the regular artist of an ongoing comic.
 
 
Persephone
18:32 / 01.01.03
They're his puppets, and he's a master of manipulating them. It's all completely natural looking, and deceptively simple in appearance. They all look alive.

That's basically the Holy Grail, isn't it? That reminds me of this Dan Clowes cartoon that was in the New Yorker. Dan Clowes draws a guy who he's seen at a coffeeshop and says, "Ha Ha! He's been reduced to a simple pictograph... I am the master of your world--you will do what I say!"

Ditto what yawn said, too.

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply