BARBELITH underground
 

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


Mike San Giacomo has a pop at comic art for being too "cartoony"

 
 
Sax
14:03 / 22.12.03
Specifically, Catwoman, with our very own Cameron Stewart namechecked, over at Newsarama.

Well, duh. Comic art too cartoony.

But what do we think? Do you like "realistic" comic art, or is the writing more important to you?
 
 
Jack Fear
14:57 / 22.12.03
Let me start by saying that "realistic" art vs. "cartoony" art is entirely a matter of personal preference, entirely subjective, and all a matter of taste, for which there is, of course, no accounting.

Let me further say that people who prefer "realistic" art are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Well, let me amend that: people who judge comics art as "good" or "bad" using "realism" as their primary (or only) criterion are horribly misguided.

Yes, there's a surface appeal to meticulous modelling: but there's a deeper craft (I think) in finding the essence of an object and rendering it in as few lines as possible.

Keep in mind, too, that comics is an artform that uses drawings to tell a story,--that presents an illusion of life, of motion: paradoxically, simpler rendering tends to make things look more alive, more "real." I really don't have time to go into it now, but Scott McCloud has a whole chapter on this in Understanding Comics.

The best comics art, I think, is that which doesn't call attention to itself either by show-off virtuosity or out-and-out crappiness--it moves the story along, but there's a wealth of craft to be found if one cares to examine the art closely.

Andi Watson's slashing brushstrokes are full of life, and the more you look at, say, Slow News Day, the more there is to see--the pacing, the beats, the backgrounds, the overall composition of the thing, are just masterly.

But "realistic" art--showy art--gives itself away all at once: there's an undeniable contact buzz from Kingdom Come, say, but the more time you spend with it, the more you realize Alex Ross's huge deficiencies as a storyteller. The photorealistic style leaves you with a collection of still pictures, rather than a paper movie: everything is stiff and posed and lacks any sense of flow.

Though Alex Ross may be a fine painter, he is a horrible comics artist. But the surface detail, the "realism," is so overwhelming that many people never notice what a poor storyteller he is. And his phenomenal popularity has led many fans to think that all comics art should look like Alex Ross.
 
 
Krug
14:57 / 22.12.03
That guy's a retard and I made the mistake of reading his column a few times.

And it's a no-brainer for me. Every story has it's own visual language(s).
 
 
Krug
14:59 / 22.12.03
//Though Alex Ross may be a fine painter, he is a horrible comics artist.//

Hear Hear.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:14 / 22.12.03
I agree about Alex Ross. I was looking through his new DC coffee table book, and it's fabulous - he's got his thing and no one touches him within his little niche - but his work translates poorly to actual comics pages.

I don't get some of these "realistic art" people. Often I find that the artist that they think make work that is "realistic" doesn't resemble reality at all. Looking at the Paul Gulacy artwork that Sangiacomo was so fond of, I can't help but think that Gulacy's work is vastly more cartoonish and less realistic than anything Cameron has ever done. Cameron's work is always grounded in reality, and that's part of what makes it so strong. Gulacy's artwork seems to only use comic books as a visual reference point.
 
 
bigsunnydavros
17:52 / 22.12.03
Yeah - the use of the word "realistic" in this discussion is pretty weird, as even the good artists who do more detailed work do so in a highly stylised manner, either romanticising or just plain distorting the human form in all sorts of peculiar ways.

The article that started this discussion is pretty hilariously wrong, for reasons that Jack Fear has pretty nicely covered already. Personally, I’m in awe of comics artists who do a lot with a little… it just blows me away, the amount some people can get across so economically.

And yeah – Alex Ross isn’t that well suited to his chosen medium. He’s a good cover artist, for certain projects, and he’s certainly a talented guy, but Kingdom Come – ugh! So hellishly cluttered at points… it was just total overkill.
 
 
The Falcon
19:25 / 22.12.03
I think of John Byrne on Fantastic Four/Superman in the mid-80's when people bang on about 'realism', such as it is, in comics. I think that's what they want to see, anyway.

It's really rather good art, but I'd still take Quitely over him any day.

And using Gulacy v. Cooke/Rader/Stewart on Catwoman is a really stupid analogy, given that every person who can write and has an opinion (except Mike San Giacomo) is really quite displeased about Gulacy's first ish. I know I am.
 
 
FinderWolf
13:33 / 30.12.03
I'm not upset about Gulacy's art being a departure from the 'cartoony, animated' look of the CATWOMAN book, I'm upset because Gulacy's art is stiff, often disproportional, and a bit shit, so much so that it's made me drop the book for now, despite my love of Ed's writing. I like both 'cartoony' and 'realistic' art, but it has to be GOOD art either way.
 
  
Add Your Reply