Modern comic book artists: Pushing the boundaries?

[kguillou]

I just read this very very interesting article on CBR and man this guy brought up an excellent point. While yes, comic art has come a LOONG way and there are many many pretty looking artists working in the industry today,(Epting, Lafuente, Cassaday, Granov, Quietly, JH Williams, Marcos Martin, Lark etc etc.) there needs to be much more of an artistic push on lower selling titles.

I mean the majority of books that get canceled these days have very mediocre and boring artists. Heroes for Hire’s artist is bland, the artist who followed David Aja on Immortal Ironfist was bland, Avengers Academy’s artist is boring, Spider-Girl’s artist is mediocre, Power man and Ironfist’s artist is…well you get the point. I dont understand why Marvel and DC dont go outside the box for these lower sellers and get an artist that really pops out and looks different and unique? Whats the worst thats going to happen? The book will get tremendous critical acclaim?


Look at Greg Rucka and JH Williams’ Batwoman run on Detective Comics. Yeah, the book’s sales weren’t exactly stellar but the book received IMMENSE critical acclaim and Batwoman is getting more attention than ever. (Hell, if you pick up the Batwoman Elegy hardcover, there's an intro written by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow).


I mean i know that art is very subjective. The guy who's responsible for hiring artists over at Marvel could very well think that the guy who draws Spider Girl is stellar in his opinion but.....come on. It cant be that hard to pick out the next JH Williams or Frank Quietly or Adi Granov, guys who's art really really sticks out. And there's millions of artists out there looking for work so i feel like it cant be that hard to find those types of guys. I dunno, im ranting, what do you guys think?

Here's the link: http://goodcomics.comicbookresource...ck-in-the-butt/comment-page-1/#comment-836737

 

[bored]

I think Humberto Ramos gets work, and that's a travesty.

 

[Dread]

I think Humberto Ramos gets work, and that's a travesty.

Ramos at least draws his own stuff. The real travesty is that not only does Greg Land get work, but he gets work on high profile titles for long stretches of time like UNCANNY X-MEN (which was only the title many an artist made a career on, like Jim Lee or Joe Mad or even, to a degree, John Romita Jr.).

As for the overall point, art is always subjective. I happen to like the artwork on AVENGERS ACADEMY and POWER MAN & IRON FIST. I like clean lines, recognizable figures and being able to figure out what is going on. For every one trend setting artist, there are a dozen who overthink simple panels and even a simple action sequence becomes a Picasso sort of abstract piece - Chris Bachelo at his worst sometimes is akin to that.

The fact of the matter is Marvel is not going to invest in smaller selling titles. They never have and never will, least in that regard. I mean, they invest in that many beloved writers work on them, and it isn't like all the artwork on them is terrible. Greg Land, again, traces UNCANNY X-MEN and that's a Top 25 seller, yet more people complain about him than Tom Raney or Sean Chen on AVENGERS ACADEMY (who have to follow up the launch run by Mike McKone). The logic behind this is the same behind promotions; the theory is that if you promote a marginal to low selling title, at best you pick up a few hundred or thousand extra copies, which is about the same boost a variant cover sometimes brings. But promote a decent to good selling title properly, and it has the potential to see greater gains of 25% and up.

Proof? Believe it or not, a lot of soon-to-be-superstar artists worked on NAMOR THE SUB MARINER and DOCTOR STRANGE in the 80's and 90's, and the moment they were on the verge of recognition they were yanked from it and put on more vital material. Some titles are the trenches and others are the bigger leagues. But if you find a good enough talent, sometimes you skip ahead. When the Yankees acquired A-Rod all those years ago, should they have sent him to work his way up in the minor leagues for months as if he was just some kid out of nowhere?

I mean if we're nitpicking artists, I think writers are fair game. I think a lot of Marvel comics are playing things too safe and employing the same old tricks. Who lives, who dies, oh, look, more Maguffins to tie into a movie. Another new #1, another triple digit. You could argue a lot of boundaries aren't being pushed in Marvel comics. Instead of giving some faded B and C listers a rest to build up demand, we get endless relaunches of the same characters while others go untested. Would a CLOAK AND DAGGER ongoing series by a decent creative team last more than a year? I don't know, but I have a better idea of how well the latest BLACK PANTHER relaunch will do. Is "I don't know how this will sell" a better option than "relaunch with a new #1, it falls to cancellation by issue 7-10, repeat"?

But the dilemma is that everyone's taste in art is subjective. I can't stand Bachelo since the 90's, but some people love him. Some are dazzled by Mike Norton while others consider him "house style". Some people marvel at the texture of a Frank Quietly piece while others whine he draws everyone's face like they're 80 year old mummies. If all artists were equal, then all art would be uninteresting. And who decides who are better than others is always subjective, and always has been.

That isn't to say there aren't artists, or writers, who are clearly in another league than their peers. But who they are can vary from editor to editor and fan to fan. As for Marvel, they never had a VERTIGO line like DC does so to a degree they don't appreciate advancing comics for the art of it or investing too heavily in a franchise that hasn't already been invested in for at least 5 years, if not longer. DC's cancellation line is much lower than that of Marvel's.

It's a bizarro sort of situation. I think companies allow some more experimentation on bigger titles that have a larger defined audience (see: Bendis's Latest New Idea of _______), while for the lesser selling ones, they try to play more conservative. Or just go with a premise that is really for something else but stick on a sagging franchise. Namor's selling poorly so let's shove him into the mutants/X-Men thing again. Nobody buys New Warriors, let's make it a reality TV show. One man's risk is another's ****y idea.

It also is easy to advocate "double or nothing" gambles at the comfort of an armchair and not when its your quota and your department and your paycheck and real people you know are on unemployment if another _____ quarters do this poorly. I mean I'm a fan and I advocate those gambles a lot, but I get it. But, again...art is very subjective. With a lot of those "lower tier" titles, you have the choice between doing it straight and nobody bothering, or being artsy-fartsy creative and nobody bothering. It is harder for Marvel, because they don't really want things to become critically acclaimed in trade, even when it works for them sometimes (SHE-HULK, RUNAWAYS) and DC makes a killing at it selling evergreen Vertigo books. I honestly and truly believe Marvel would rather go bankrupt again than have to adapt to embracing trade waiters instead of suckering them with needless hardcover prices.

I do agree, though, that some more experimentation could be done with panels and layouts, and the best writer/artist teams put film storyboarders to shame when they're clicking. There was that old drawing guide, "HOW TO DRAW COMICS THE MARVEL WAY!" by Stan Lee and Sal Buscema, I think, and it spotlighted generic and "flashy" wants to draw various panels. The irony is quite a few times I have seen professional artists go with more generic stuff. But maybe its me, and like I said, its all subjective. One man's artiste is another man's scribbler.

Of course, it is worth noting that Marcos Martin got to draw big books like ASM and will be behind the relaunch of DAREDEVIL.

 

[kguillou]

I agree with everything you said Dread and yes it all comes down to the fact that art is very subjective. However, i do think that there is a difference between artists with a more straightforward, superhero-y style and those "artsy fartsy" guys that really stand out. Alex Maleev for example really brought Daredevil to new heights with his gritty, realistic, noir tone, and at the time it was an art style you didnt see in mainstream superhero books and it worked wonders.

But my point is, why NOT be artsy fartsy with the lower tier books? What do they have to lose if nobody is going to care anyway? I could understand wanting to play it safe with a Spiderman or Avengers or Xmen books, but whats the worst that could happen if you got a weird, unique looking artist to draw a Moon Knight book? I feel like that could only draw attention to the book and at the end of the day isnt that what its all about? (well that and raising sales). I mean i know there's nothing wrong with perfectly competent artists like the guy who draws Avengers Academy, but the problem is the book isn't standing out visually and its just well...competent. If a book's visuals can get people saying "whoa this is a weird looking book", it gets people talking and brings attention and that cant be a bad thing.

 

[Dread]

I prefer "competent" to "scribble", but again, my tastes are my own. Filipe Andrade on ONSLAUGHT UNLEASHED I think we can all agree is "experimental". He certainly isn't David Baldeon. Yet I prefer Baldeon. On the other hand, I love how Andrade usually draws Onslaught himself. If we could get Baldeon to draw the human figures and Andrade to draw Onslaught and some of the head-trip psychic panels I think it'd look great, but that's way too much effort for a low selling mini.

We can all cite examples of break outs like Maleev. DAREDEVIL is a special case because that was the title Joe Quesada and Kevin Smith took from the dumps, because nobody expected better, and really made it shine and revitalized both their careers. Joe became EIC because of how well he ran Marvel Knights. So to that degree I think so long as Joe has SOME pull, Marvel will always prioritize DD and make sure certain talent gets there, or gets a try, rather than, say, for SLEEPWALKER or NEW MUTANTS.

Joe Casey had a similar rant a few months ago - he felt in so many words that the "resiliency" of comics wasn't being tested and now was the time to go bat **** crazy, like at the top of the decade. The dilemma from an editorial perspective is a disaster that doesn't bounce back. Again, you could easily claim having the New Warriors be a reality TV comic with a cartoonist's style was "risky", yet it flopped and the older or newer fans didn't come.

Sometimes I think the "riskiest" thing of all would be bringing back some older titles and letting them do what they did best. Don't make the New Warriors reality TV stars or a bunch of spare X-Men with new outfits; while both were risky ideas. Let's see the NW's we knew and loved doing newer things, maybe with a new artist and a writer with vision. Namor and Atlantis is always a realm I thought artists never played with too often. Why does everyone walk? How do normal machines function down there? Don't just draw normal people and just add a fish a few bubbles, man!

And yes, there is a place for playing with angles and camera shots and pacing. Again, when done well it can put cinema to shame, we just see it done averagely a lot.

I'll say this, though...I bet a SLEEPWALKER relaunch could benefit from a real head trip artist.

 

[runawayboulder]

Avengers Academy’s artist is boring

Um, no.

I'll say this, though...I bet a SLEEPWALKER relaunch could benefit from a real head trip artist.

The current Deadpool MAX artist, Kyle Baker, would be a perfect fit for that. His stuff is like looking at a MAD Magazine parody after smoking a bucket load of Salvia.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Well, I definitely thought this was going to be about something else with the thread title

But, yeah, artists are a big deal for sells, but just putting a huge artist on a low selling book isn't going to be any kind of guarantee of sells. I've said several times, and something I'll stand beside saying, is that creative teams are not the end all of sales like a lot of people apparently think they are. You do actually have to have characters people want to read about, too. I mean, look at Spider-Woman. That book had the biggest selling writer that Marvel has, along with a top artist, and it sold weak, not even lasting a year. Mark Millar, whom seems to be able to turn anything into success, along with Bryan Hitch didn't bump the sales of Fantastic Four significantly. A lot of it is creative team, sure, but you have to have characters that go along with it.

The way around this, it seems to me, is that you have to make it seem like these lesser selling characters are a big deal. Like a lot of the characters in Brightest Day, that series is big not just because of Johns and co., but because it's an event; DC is making sure that we understand that is important, that this is the place you need to be for the DCU right now. And, similarly, with the FF, they created a sort of mini-event with the 'Three' storyline. They built it up on the hype and, hell, they didn't even have a mega-tega superstar writer for that one. Batwoman is somewhat exception, I admit (though for the record, I'm pretty sure her stint in DC sold within the Top 20-25 pretty consistently), but even in that case, all of the Batbooks were getting a bit of a boost on the whole 'Batman Reborn' stuff. It's as much about characters and hype than it is about creative teams.

 

[JewishHobbit]

While I don't like the guy's artistic style, I think David Mack would do an amazing Sleepwalker series.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I prefer "competent" to "scribble", but again, my tastes are my own. Filipe Andrade on ONSLAUGHT UNLEASHED I think we can all agree is "experimental". He certainly isn't David Baldeon. Yet I prefer Baldeon. On the other hand, I love how Andrade usually draws Onslaught himself. If we could get Baldeon to draw the human figures and Andrade to draw Onslaught and some of the head-trip psychic panels I think it'd look great, but that's way too much effort for a low selling mini.

We can all cite examples of break outs like Maleev. DAREDEVIL is a special case because that was the title Joe Quesada and Kevin Smith took from the dumps, because nobody expected better, and really made it shine and revitalized both their careers. Joe became EIC because of how well he ran Marvel Knights. So to that degree I think so long as Joe has SOME pull, Marvel will always prioritize DD and make sure certain talent gets there, or gets a try, rather than, say, for SLEEPWALKER or NEW MUTANTS.

Joe Casey had a similar rant a few months ago - he felt in so many words that the "resiliency" of comics wasn't being tested and now was the time to go bat **** crazy, like at the top of the decade. The dilemma from an editorial perspective is a disaster that doesn't bounce back. Again, you could easily claim having the New Warriors be a reality TV comic with a cartoonist's style was "risky", yet it flopped and the older or newer fans didn't come.

Sometimes I think the "riskiest" thing of all would be bringing back some older titles and letting them do what they did best. Don't make the New Warriors reality TV stars or a bunch of spare X-Men with new outfits; while both were risky ideas. Let's see the NW's we knew and loved doing newer things, maybe with a new artist and a writer with vision. Namor and Atlantis is always a realm I thought artists never played with too often. Why does everyone walk? How do normal machines function down there? Don't just draw normal people and just add a fish a few bubbles, man!

And yes, there is a place for playing with angles and camera shots and pacing. Again, when done well it can put cinema to shame, we just see it done averagely a lot.

I'll say this, though...I bet a SLEEPWALKER relaunch could benefit from a real head trip artist.

As is the case I think with all big characters, including low A tier or B grade tier characters.

As for the argument that poor or boring artists hurt comic sales or cause runs to be stopped or canceled, I think the marketing and writing has much bigger effect than the artist's. I mean look at how well the big events sell, Civil War, World War Hulk and so on.

Was it really amazing art, great writing or tons of marketing? Granted these are short term events but marketing certainly has a greater impact on how well/poorly a comic is going to sell.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I mean the majority of books that get canceled these days have very mediocre and boring artists. Heroes for Hire’s artist is bland, the artist who followed David Aja on Immortal Ironfist was bland, Avengers Academy’s artist is boring, Spider-Girl’s artist is mediocre, Power man and Ironfist’s artist is…well you get the point. I dont understand why Marvel and DC dont go outside the box for these lower sellers and get an artist that really pops out and looks different and unique? Whats the worst thats going to happen? The book will get tremendous critical acclaim?

Wowzers, I do not agree with any of that. Well, maybe Wellington Alves on Power Man & Iron Fist, but the others? Tom Raney's art on Avengers Academy's last few issues has been excellent, Travel Foreman's art on The Immortal Iron Fist and elsewhere is very dynamic, and Heroes for Hire's artist, Brad Walker, packs more detail into each panel than most artists do per page. So, really, it seems like this isn't so much an issue of the publishers putting bad artists on comics; it's an issue of your not liking the artists they've got on some titles. Which is fine, since art is largely subjective. But none of those artists are actually bad; they can tell a story effectively and they've all got other strengths on top of that.

 

[The Morningstar]

The current Deadpool MAX artist, Kyle Baker, would be a perfect fit for that. His stuff is like looking at a MAD Magazine parody after smoking a bucket load of Salvia.

YES! I love Kyle Baker's art. It's surreal and cartoony... but at the same time he is amazing at facial expressions and getting emotion out of his characters.

 

[kguillou]

Wowzers, I do not agree with any of that. Well, maybe Wellington Alves on Power Man & Iron Fist, but the others? Tom Raney's art on Avengers Academy's last few issues has been excellent, Travel Foreman's art on The Immortal Iron Fist and elsewhere is very dynamic, and Heroes for Hire's artist, Brad Walker, packs more detail into each panel than most artists do per page. So, really, it seems like this isn't so much an issue of the publishers putting bad artists on comics; it's an issue of your not liking the artists they've got on some titles. Which is fine, since art is largely subjective. But none of those artists are actually bad; they can tell a story effectively and they've all got other strengths on top of that.

Well, I'm not by any means saying the artists on those books were bad..maybe my wording was a bit harsh. But the argument here is that those artists arent anything...different than your standard superhero artists. The argument is that if your trying to push a lower tier character book like Avengers Academy or Power Man and Ironfist then why not get an artist who's visual style really stands out? Thats how Quesada used to do it back in the day with his Marvel Knights line, he put artists on there who had a very different visual style to them than you saw on standard comics. Thats how Alex Maleev and Jae Lee broke out. The argument that the guy in the article was trying to make is whats the risk in the end? If the book's gona get cancelled anyway why not use those books as a platform to try new visual styles?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Who's to say whether really visually distinctive artists are going to catch on? If visually distinctive styles were a surefire bet to stir up interest, SWORD should've been a massive success story. Steven Sanders' art is certainly distinctive. Only problem is that a lot of people felt it was distinctively terrible. Again, the subjectivity of art in general makes it a gamble either way. There's no formula for instant success besides having really, really popular characters in the books, and even that fails sometimes.

 

[kguillou]

Heh, sometimes? Notice how these days whenever a book's about to get cancelled, Spiderman and wolverine make a sudden guest appearance? And people still don't care enough to buy the books. I think Marvel keeps trying to replicate the fluke of New Avengers' success.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Goes way back before New Avengers. I remember in the early '90s, Spider-Man showed up in virtually every first issue. Doesn't matter whether it made sense or not.

 

[kguillou]

Ugh..the days where in order to read the next part of a story in Amazing Spiderman, you had to read the next issue of New Warriors or some random other book. Oh the 90s.....