Humberto Ramos

[Chris Wallace]

There's been a lot of debate & controversy over this guy, particularly in the "Bad Comic Art" thread. Every time one of his images gets posted, out come his defenders. They say he doesn't draw badly, with his misshapen heads, distorted faces, oversized hands and enormous feet, but rather that we can't appreciate his cartoony style. So I thought I'd open up this thread & put it to a poll to get the overall general opinion of his style. So what say you; bad artist or harshly misjudged cartoonist?

 

[Addendum]

If an artist draws in a "cartoony" style, it'd make a lot of sense for them to be in animation

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'd agree with that. And with your sig. It supports a belief of mine, that the only difference between treason & revolution is who wins.
Anyways, back on topic. Maybe Ramos' style would work better in animation. It sure as hell doesn't work in stills.

 

[JackIvyGB]

I have ALWAYS loved Ramos' style ever since the first time I saw it. Honestly, the re-launch of Spectacular Spider-Man comics a few years back was one of the comics I've most anticipated in my entire life, mostly for his art. In the first issue of his Venom arch, the 2 page spread of Spidey swinging through NY is still one of the most incredible images I've ever seen. Because of the SSM Venom and Doc Ock stories, I sought his Return of the Goblin story in PeterParker: Spider-Man, which again, became one of my favorites. His exaggerated features and expressions are very obviously elements of his style. If they weren't, he'd be Rob Leifield, who is basically Jim Lee after skipping anatomy class.

I adore his art for the way Spidey's expressions show through his mask. His ability to convey movement and emotion is one that I have seldom seen rivaled since I started reading, and his stylized methods only enable him to push that farther, and it ABSOLUTELY works in a still form medium like comics. His scenes in the rain are absolutely astonishing, his flashbacks are awesome, he draws the best webs I've ever seen, and his renditions of the classic spidey villains are hands down the best I have ever seen. His versions of Ock, Gobby, Venom have become the definitive ones in my mind, moreso than the movie versions. It only enforces that in my opinion when the designs were used by Terry Dodson in his Marvel Knights Spidey run with Mark Millar.

I appreciate both very realistic AND very stylized art. If I had my way, Batman comics would always look like they were done by Christopher Nolan (I love the Joker graphic novel)! I think Bryan Hitch and Mark Millar should be inducted into the hall of pimps for their run on the first 2 volumes of the Ultimates! It was like a freaking movie! Marko Djurdjevic is also down right majestic!

At the same time, I think Alex Ross' art is beautifully executed, but alot of times I feel he takes his stylistic tendancies too far. Often times his women look unattractive and his philosophy on giving his characters the "weight of age" is something I disagree with, not to mention my tendancy to like movie style story telling is something that clashes with his tendancy to put his heroes in very classically designed costumes that look like semi-decent cosplay as opposed to something to really fight crime in.

Would I love a Spidey-comic that looked like a movie? Absolutely! But at the same time, I can very much appreciate an artist that can put a stylized touch on Spidey, as he is one hero where an exaggerated style really works, due to his often humorous tone. However, Spidey is also an acrobat, a fighter, and wears his heart on his sleeve, and the artist has to be able to carry that kind of dramatic weight, which I think Ramos is able to do 10-fold, better than ALOT of other artists I know.

And yes, from time to time he does produce a wonky image or 2, but I ask you WHO HASN'T?!

 

[Mad Ones]

He's completely hit or miss with me. There are some things that he's drawn that I think look totally atrocious, but other times I don't mind him. And I sometimes confuse him with Bachalo for some reason.

 

[SuperFerret]

I love Ramos' style. When the day comes that I finally write a Superferret comic, he's my first choice of artist.

 

[El Bastardo]

I've liked Ramos's style since first being exposed to it. On one hand, it's a personal bias of mine - depending on character or subject - to like that cartoony, almost-caricature kind of style. On a similar note, I love Joe MAD's artwork (which is different, thank you for understanding, than to say I think he has a glorious grasp on the intricacies of the comics medium), and I love Frank Quitely's artwork (which has a slight lean toward the cartoony end of the spectrum than the stark-realism side of the spectrum), and Francis Manapul's artwork on Iron and the Maiden.

Nobody has to like the guy's artwork or style, but to say it's bad is quite silly. It's a certain style. What would be bad is if he took work which his style would not suit, which would certainly produce a bad comic. There's room in comics for any type of style, assuming it fights the subject material. Of those sample pics above, Ramos fits. If Marvel tried putting Ramos on Ultimates, it wouldn't fit, for the same reason Joe MAD didn't fit the third volume (and, I say again, I like Joe MAD). It's all about tone.

People who don't like it, fine - that's an opinion. People who don't understand it should try and figure it out.

 

[Addendum]

But if someone doesn't like a particular thing: a band, a movie, a game, or in this case an artist and his style, having that person "understand it" is simply wasting time

 

[Drz]

I like his art style personally. =) I read his Spider-man comics back when the spider-man movies were coming out.

 

[batpawn]

I really like him. I'm overall a huge fan of "cartoony" artist's. He isn't my favorite among those, Scott McDaniel and Damion Scott steal the cake for that matter, but I'm definitely not turned off to read a comic with his art inside of it. He is quite a good man, absolutely.

 

[Manic]

I wouldn't mind his art if he did a lot of comedic/humorous comics, but I just can't take him seriously when he does all these action-packed and dramatic comics. I don't want to see him drawing comics where mercenaries and religious fanatics are hunting down babies and killing everyone who gets in their way, but he'd be my first choice if Marvel ever relaunched "What The--?!"

Okay, Stuart Immonen would be my first choice, but that's because he's the most versatile artist in the industry right now.

 

[Blindfighter]

I say bad artist but I am a bad judge of things.

 

[El Bastardo]

But if someone doesn't like a particular thing: a band, a movie, a game, or in this case an artist and his style, having that person "understand it" is simply wasting time

I don't see how this statement makes any sense.

 

[SuperFerret]

If they don't like it, an "understanding" won't change that.

I don't see how the "you just don't understand it" argument holds any water.

 

[El Bastardo]

I say bad artist but I am a bad judge of things.

You shouldn't discount yourself like that.

If they don't like it, an "understanding" won't change that.

I don't see how the "you just don't understand it" argument holds any water.

I didn't say that someone would change their opinion of liking his art upon an understanding of it. That's a rather lofty ideal and assumption in general.

Understanding something doesn't even bring with it any judgment or value of worth. I'm not even getting into the whole of whether he's a good artist or a bad artist. Rather, and this is to clarify with the matter above as well, understanding something brings with it a matter of knowledge, and the ability for one to explain why they have a given opinion of something, that is, whether they like or do not like something.

To say "I don't like his art because he's a bad artist," without being able to explain why the belief is that he's a bad artist, exhibits a lack of understanding and breeds ignorance.

In other words, people should figure it out and not be ignorant. That doesn't mean they have to like the artwork, though.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I wouldn't mind his art if he did a lot of comedic/humorous comics, but I just can't take him seriously when he does all these action-packed and dramatic comics. I don't want to see him drawing comics where mercenaries and religious fanatics are hunting down babies and killing everyone who gets in their way, but he'd be my first choice if Marvel ever relaunched "What The--?!"

I agree. I do think he'd be a better fit for less serious subject matter.

 

[SuperFerret]

To say "I don't like his art because he's a bad artist," without being able to explain why the belief is that he's a bad artist, exhibits a lack of understanding and breeds ignorance.

In other words, people should figure it out and not be ignorant. That doesn't mean they have to like the artwork, though.

If they don't like the artwork because they don't like the artwork, there's nothing to explain, there's nothing ignorant about it.

 

[El Bastardo]

...which does not go against anything I've said. Yes, okay.

 

[bunk]

I'm not really into his style, but I can appreciate certain things he does. He could draw everything "normal" looking if he wanted, it's not his thing. I would guess he probably did at some point. He most certainly is not a bad artist.

 

[Yodaman]

I voted bad artist. While I don't think Ramos is utterly terrible, where he tries to go for loose and animated and whimsical (which is what I think his general style tries to convey) I think he just hits grotesque.

 

[CConn]

Neither poll option is correct, IMO. He's not highly misjudged. A lot of his stuff does suck horribly. At the same time, he has been able to do some good looking stuff when properly motivated (his recent Runaways run is the first thing that comes to mind). I don't think he's either a bad nor a good artist. He's a mediocre artist that could be much better if he didn't prescribe to such a bizarre and exaggerated style.

 

[Addendum]

To say "I don't like his art because he's a bad artist," without being able to explain why the belief is that he's a bad artist, exhibits a lack of understanding and breeds ignorance.

In other words, people should figure it out and not be ignorant.

You do know that it has no effect on your life at all, so why get all worked up if someone doesn't like an artist and doesn't bother to "understand" him or his "work"

 

[Chris Wallace]

Most of us, I think, are quick to dismiss something if it doesn't appeal to us. Why seek a "deeper meaning" or some such thing? It's like deciding against seeing a movie because the trailer looks stupid, or when I say I don't like a particular singer, rapper, band, etc., & I often get this argument:
"Have you listened to the whole album?"
Why would I do that if I don't like what I've heard thus far? Your singles are supposed to be the cream of the crop-the best that your album has to offer and the driving incentive for people to buy it. Now there are exceptions, of course. Sometimes I buy an album on the strength of the singles & the rest of it is WAY better. But if the singles (read: the ADVERTISEMENTS of the album) sound like crap, I'm not going to explore any further.
But I digress. Most people do not seek to further analyze something that they don't initially like.

 

[[A]]

I voted bad artist but I don't know if he's one--maybe he's really neat with his pencils and stuff

But I effin' hate his work

 

[Lobo]

I don't think he's great or anything, but I dig his style quite a bit.