Amazing Spider-Man ARTISTS and ART

[The Question]

I like Larsen better than Finch.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Art from those three artists is PERFECT and TIMELESS. And PERFECT never goes out of style.

Spidey's arm looks like an old g.i.joe figure... like you could just pop them dudes off of there. The only way that should be drawn like that is if Spidey's muscles were huge... which wouldn't be appropriae with his body or frame.

Spidey's head doesn't seem positioned quite right with his shoulders in this. And look how crappy Jonah's hands look.

Punisher's eyebrows suck there... I've never known someone whose eyebrows go up like that.


Nothing's perfect. It's all personal taste honestly. Personally, I don't mind older art, but I look at that and I do think it's inferior to a lot of art today. I just don't feel that art. I think the quality, detail, and overall feeling is better for me. Now, that's not all inclusive... there's artists I can't stand obviously, but whatever.

 

[random_havoc]

That's right....

... and get off my lawn!!!

You guys are hilarious

 

[random_havoc]

I like Larsen better than Finch.

Well I like both I'd personally reverse the order that you've chosen.

 

[random_havoc]

Punisher's eyebrows suck there... I've never known someone whose eyebrows go up like that.


Nothing's perfect. It's all personal taste honestly. Personally, I don't mind older art, but I look at that and I do think it's inferior to a lot of art today. I just don't feel that art. I think the quality, detail, and overall feeling is better for me. Now, that's not all inclusive... there's artists I can't stand obviously, but whatever.

Oh dear, brace yourself from a response filled with shock and astonishment by Mr Slott



While your post is a little nitpicky to me, I'd definitely agree with the eyebrows. Castle looks like a freakin Vulcan there.

My complaints on that artwork would have to do more with the general look rather than the minutae, but I think you make a good point.

 

[random_havoc]

Also, am I the only one who loves The Punisher's original design? Like, I like his current one, the black leather duster really suits him, but I'd like to see a hybrid of the two. At least incorporate the teeth of the skull being the front pockets on his belt thing. That's my favorite part.

The only thing I hate hate hate is when he has the white boots and gloves. Like you said, give him the duster, and all black except for the skull. Encorporating the teeth as front pockets would be fine with me.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Oh dear, brace yourself from a response filled with shock and astonishment by Mr Slott



While your post is a little nitpicky to me, I'd definitely agree with the eyebrows. Castle looks like a freakin Vulcan there.

My complaints on that artwork would have to do more with the general look rather than the minutae, but I think you make a good point.

I was being nitpicky on purpose really just to show how none of it's perfect... or in Dan Slott's words, PERFECT.

I don't mind if people state their opinions. That's great. But to claim perfection is just, I don't know... niave maybe? (if I spelled that right).

It just bugs me when people state their time period of comics is so much better than another. If stated is mentioned as an opinion, then great, but to state it like its fact just seems wrong.

 

[CantThinkOfAName]

I was being nitpicky on purpose really just to show how none of it's perfect... or in Dan Slott's words, PERFECT.

I don't mind if people state their opinions. That's great. But to claim perfection is just, I don't know... niave maybe? (if I spelled that right).

It just bugs me when people state their time period of comics is so much better than another. If stated is mentioned as an opinion, then great, but to state it like its fact just seems wrong.

*naive

And naive isn't the right word...more like hyperbolic. I guess his point is that Romita, Andru, and Kane defined what Spider-Man is supposed to look like for generations. And those guys aren't from my time period of comic reading, but even I know how seminal and awesome their work is.

Plus, if you started reading Spidey in the 90's, then they are pretty much right, their period of comics was better than yours

 

[Spider-Gnome]

but I look at that and I do think it's inferior to a lot of art today.

That is why you fail. - Yoda

 

[SuperFerret]

Punisher's eyebrows suck there... I've never known someone whose eyebrows go up like that.

I have.

 

[random_havoc]

I have.

It was Spock wasn't it

 

[random_havoc]

*naive

And naive isn't the right word...more like hyperbolic. I guess his point is that Romita, Andru, and Kane defined what Spider-Man is supposed to look like for generations. And those guys aren't from my time period of comic reading, but even I know how seminal and awesome their work is.

Plus, if you started reading Spidey in the 90's, then they are pretty much right, their period of comics was better than yours

Yeah, but if we go by that standard then everyone should be praising McFarlane for decades to come. I mean, before McFarlane look how flexible Spidey was drawn, then look at him afterwards. McFarlane changed Spidey's portrayal A LOT! Nonetheless, I still wouldn't say McFarlane is a phenomenal artist.

Again, those guys were great for their time, but no one has given any cogent arguments as to why they should still be considered fantastic today.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, but if we go by that standard then everyone should be praising McFarlane for decades to come. I mean, before McFarlane look how flexible Spidey was drawn, then look at him afterwards. McFarlane changed Spidey's portrayal A LOT! Nonetheless, I still wouldn't say McFarlane is a phenomenal artist.

Again, those guys were great for their time, but no one has given any cogent arguments as to why they should still be considered fantastic today.

Ditko drew a really flexible Spider-Man.

 

[runawayboulder]

I like Larsen better than Finch.

I'd like poop smeared on a piece of cardboard better than Finch.

 

[Themanofbat]

Again, those guys were great for their time, but no one has given any cogent arguments as to why they should still be considered fantastic today.

Because these artists all had the great ability to tell a story with their art... and that's an ability that's timeless... many of us were witness to many "splash page" artists in the 90's and while there are some great NEW storytellers that still draw today, the artistic styles of the great Romita Sr, Andru, Kane, Pollard, etc... have that ability to make any story shine...

And likewise to any of your NEW modern day artists, they all have the ability to draw a bad story... nobody's perfect.

But feel free to disagree...

 

[random_havoc]

Because these artists all had the great ability to tell a story with their art... and that's an ability that's timeless... many of us were witness to many "splash page" artists in the 90's and while there are some great NEW storytellers that still draw today, the artistic styles of the great Romita Sr, Andru, Kane, Pollard, etc... have that ability to make any story shine...

And likewise to any of your NEW modern day artists, they all have the ability to draw a bad story... nobody's perfect.

But feel free to disagree...

Many artists of today still have the ability to tell a story, but also have improved on the artwork itself.

And as for nobody's perfect, that's actually a shot against Dan Slott's previous comment, not mine

 

[CConn]

In general, I find Spider-Man fans more than any other segment of fans, seem to dwell constantly on the past. It's like listening to a WW2 vet.

What we should be talking about is how 57% of Amazing Spider-Man's artists right ow suck. There hasn't been a big name o the book since Romita did his run last year, which is ridiculous. They need to have some serious guns on their most popular character's most popular book.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Is there anyone whose art would fit in with the 80's? Because that'd be a PERFECT match for today's stories

 

[CantThinkOfAName]

In general, I find Spider-Man fans more than any other segment of fans, seem to dwell constantly on the past. It's like listening to a WW2 vet.

What we should be talking about is how 57% of Amazing Spider-Man's artists right ow suck. There hasn't been a big name o the book since Romita did his run last year, which is ridiculous. They need to have some serious guns on their most popular character's most popular book.

Most of the big guns can't even produce a book on a monthly basis, let alone illustrating three books in a month.

Most of ASM's artists are very good, they don't suck at all and I appreciate the fact that lesser known talents get to show their stuff on Spider-Man.

If by dwelling on the past you mean knowing how great the classic Spider-Man stories were, then I don't really see the problem. All I get from that is Spidey fans actually take the time to get into the characters history. And I'm not complaining about Spider-Man these days, I'm enjoying this stuff a lot. But I'll admit, there are a lot of people, (like random_havoc), who seem to dwell on the Spider-Man stories before these last three years.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

In general, I find Spider-Man fans more than any other segment of fans, seem to dwell constantly on the past. It's like listening to a WW2 vet.

What we should be talking about is how 57% of Amazing Spider-Man's artists right ow suck. There hasn't been a big name o the book since Romita did his run last year, which is ridiculous. They need to have some serious guns on their most popular character's most popular book.

The lack of a big-name (by your standards) artist doesn't seem to be hindering the book's sales. I love seeing lesser known artists on big books. If they're good, it's usually a means of catapulting them to stardom. I imagine Marcos Martin's profile has gotten much higher since becoming one of the go-to artists for ASM.

 

[runawayboulder]

Is there anyone whose art would fit in with the 80's? Because that'd be a PERFECT match for today's stories

Ron Frenz.

 

[Themanofbat]

Many artists of today still have the ability to tell a story, but also have improved on the artwork itself.

So will your opinion of these great artists of TODAY be diminished in 25 years when the newer artists of the FUTURE can tell stories with their art and have also improved the standard of artwork?

In my opinion, the artistic ability can make most work timeless, but if you want to think that artwork has improved based on computer colouring, heavier inks adding detailed lines, and better paper quality... be my guest

And as for nobody's perfect, that's actually a shot against Dan Slott's previous comment, not mine

Slott would agree with me that many of yesteryear's great storytelling artists have laid an egg once in a while... that's being honest... but I guess that we feel that you think that all those stories, in spite of their greatness "back in the day", somehow lacks nowadays... which I would say is rather "ignorant" on your behalf...

But feel free to "correct" me if I'm wrong... which I know you will...

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Come on, TMOB. You know you're wrong!

Like that cute little death of Gwen Stacy story was fine for it's time. But now? Come on! Absolutely nothing compared to the modern masterpiece: One More Day!

 

[Themanofbat]

Get off my lawn!!!

 

[CantThinkOfAName]

Slott would agree with me that many of yesteryear's great storytelling artists have laid an egg once in a while... that's being honest... but I guess that we feel that you think that all those stories, in spite of their greatness "back in the day", somehow lacks nowadays... which I would say is rather "ignorant" on your behalf...

random havoc's favorite Spider-Man story is Torment