Wonderful recognizable artists' "quirks"...

DC Universe [all categories]

DC Universe Archives

Wonderful recognizable artists' "quirks"... (Page 4)

profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Wonderful recognizable artists' "quirks"...
GreatBear Member	posted February 05, 2003 06:14 PM quote: Originally posted by KryptoSuperDog: I could always tell a Ditko drawing by the posing of the hands and thumbs....The secret of his so-called "genius." And I say so-called because I have never been a fan of the man, have never understood the big deal about his art, and have never heard it explained to me by someone who does. Yeah, yeah, he's the Sacred Cow of Marvel, so inventive and popular blah blah blah, but whyyy??? And every time I complain about Ditko's art people tell me to shut up... Shut Up! No just kidding. I've always immeddiately recognized Ditko and disliked him. Not only are the poses straight from a wooden model, the heads are all shaped like eggs! Everybody in Ditko art has a head shaped like Spiderman's mask, it seems. Gene Colan tended to draw characters without pupils in their eyes and with over sized heads - but then again I know him mainly from his work at Harvey....Alright now I'm but being a goof. Seriously, I always thought Joe Kubert's gritty style was just right for war comics and worked well for Tarzan. Gil Kane's differing weights of line art always seemed very dynamic to me and worked well for action oriented comics like Marvel's John Carter of Mars. IP: Logged
KryptoSuperDog Member	posted February 06, 2003 03:54 AM quote: Originally posted by GreatBear: Shut Up! No just kidding. I've always immediately recognized Ditko and disliked him. Not only are the poses straight from a wooden model, the heads are all shaped like eggs! Everybody in Ditko art has a head shaped like Spiderman's mask, it seems. Yeah, I wonder about that wooden model, I really do. Actually, I quite enjoyed the prof's post on the last page. I think that is actually the first time I've ever heard a fan actually articulate what it is he likes about Ditko. (Though I've read a snobbish Ditko "analysis" or two in Comics Journal). Thank you, prof, for making some things clearer to me. (I still don't like Ditko, though). lol I also have to add some more artists to this thread: I could always recognize Joe Sinnott's inking a mile away. He used such a clear, steady line, and I always loved the way he made women's eyes look. And Sal Buscema...especially around the time he was drawing Rom, he would put these laugh lines around faces, usually women's. I don't know if it looked good or bad, but there it is. I think I really preferred clean art styles as a youngster,and still do. Sinnott, the Buscemas, Gil Kane, Romita Sr. and many others were my gods back in those days. Other, murkier styles didn't float my boat as a kid. Maybe they still don't. I don't know. I'm kinda sorta open to new art styles. IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 06, 2003 04:37 AM I'm just the right age (16 in 1962, just like Peter Parker) for Ditko to be the only real Spider-Man artist--I've really had almost no interest in the post-Ditko versions. Doctor Strange has fared better, but despite Adkins, Colan, Brunner, et al., I still think of Ditko as definitive there, too. I think of his career as falling into three periods (with fuzzy delineations, just like everything in the real world): First, the pre-superhero, which includes all those great monster stories for Atlas and a lot of Charlton work too. This period was characterized by fine linework, dramatic lighting effects, and amazingly textured backgrounds, and as illustration, I like it the best. It reminds me of the wonderful Meskin/Robinson work on the later Black Terror stories. Second, the Marvel, Charlton and DC superhero period (the earliest Captain Atom stuff really belongs to the earlier period, and the DC stuff shows signs of evolving into the later one), characterized by simpler drawing but more sophisticated and dynamic storytelling. Third, everything since the late '60s, during which period his drawing has become even simpler, almost diagrammatic, and often omits both blacks and backgrounds. His writing has also become almost unreadably didactic--I might find it easier to take if I agreed with him, but I seldom do. Nevertheless, his art is completely (and effectively, if the writing were only better) at the service of his story, and I admire that. In all periods, his people are all individuals. He does great old people, for instance. He was one of the first--maybe the first comics artist to put in black characters as part of scenes where there was no element in the story that required them to be black--cops, onlookers, whatever. There is nothing of the romantic in his view of the world--his women aren't idealized, and neither are his heroic figures in his best work. I don't think it's because he can't draw conventionally pretty women, for instance--I just think he sees the world as he draws it. I wouldn't rank him among the immortals--Caniff, Kirby, Barks, Foster et al., but I'd put him on the next level with Kane and Infantino and Kubert and Meskin--and that's good company. IP: Logged
Carlo Member	posted February 06, 2003 10:57 AM Certainly, I can understand Ditko being an acquired taste of sorts... I don't enough "art" to put my feelings into words, but James, YOU did! Ahem...'course I was only 7 in '62, but Ditko was "my" Spidey-artist. And Steve D. convinced me that magical realms DID look like his artwork! Another reason I have a soft-spot for Ditko's work was that, as I grew from that "7 year old" to the 10,11,12 year old reader, I could "recognize" his work! Pouring through my monster/creature-related comics, I "knew" Ditko had drawn "CCARLOO - THE SECESH THAT WOULDN'T DIE" -even though their were no creator credits listed. Was really miffed a few year ago when a black/white Ditko Batman tale never appeared as solicited! Never heard what ever happened to that... best... Carlo IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 06, 2003 05:21 PM Isn't it odd how newspaper comic-strips tend to maintain a certain "look" whenever they replace their artists (TARZAN being a rare exception with wildly varying stylists over the decades) while comic-books almost never even TRY to maintain a "look" (DC in the 50's & 60's being the exception of course). As a result, AMAZING SPIDER-MAN went from the unique Steve Ditko to JOHN ROMITA; and IRON MAN went from Don Heck to GENE COLAN (could ANYTHING be more jarring than that?? heehee). Or how about when X-MEN went from Werner Roth to NEAL ADAMS?? The closest comparison to old DCs that come to my mind would be LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, which went from the generic DC "house style", absolutely the best of which was Curt Swan, to DAVE COCKRUM. Whoa! I think in each of these cases, I have a great love & appreciation for the later, more "dynamic" artists-- but there's something to be said for the earlier styles as well. In the case of IRON MAN, I tend to feel the same about Don Heck as I do about Ditko on DR. STRANGE. Because of the "Marvel Style", the artists were effectively writing the bulk of the stories, so changing artists had a far bigger effect than, say, on the 60's SUPERMAN titles where Mort Weisinger was dictating the kind of stories that got told, and "writers" and "artists" were viewed as just interchangable "hired help". (Meaning, Gene Colan's work always makes me go "WOW!!!!!"-- but IRON MAN was just simply never the same series once he replaced Don Heck...) IP: Logged
Leah Member	posted February 06, 2003 09:01 PM I'm surprised no one's mentioned Nick Cardy yet. The almond shaped, upturned eyes on his female characters with those sweeping, dark eyelashes that emphasized the outer corners of their eyes....the full lips that no other artist of his era could capture.... The bold dynamism of his inks -- the way his line weights would vary over the sweep of long, curved lines.... The layouts, unusual for the time, breaking out of the standard 'box style', with panels deliniated by rippling lines, or boxes that angled in a wide variety of shapes... He drew young characters realistically -- and get this! He allowed them to age! (I'm specifically referring to his work on Teen Titans here) As the title progressed, if you look, the characters aged and grew physically -- especially the boys -- the musculature changed from leaner young teen lines...the boys got more defined and bigger -- their faces became more mature (and he paid attention to things like sideburns and longer hair and modifications in hairstyles). Yet, at the same time, he could capture the lean lankiness and smart-@ss quirk of the mouth that typified Bat Lash. He could draw babies and the elderly equally well, and often injected a bit of humor into his character designs. I have to admit, Nick holds a very special place in my comics' reading heart. As a little kid, he was the first artist I could recognize as being a separate artist from anyone else and when I was about 6 or so, I wanted to draw just like him. Leah IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 06, 2003 09:17 PM And speaking of eyes, how about Frank Thorne? All his female characters, even in the Hyborian Age, applied eyeliner with a broad tipped magic marker! Cardy is a wonderful artist, I'll agree. I always thought that he was misused on superhero books--westerns, crime stories, romance, even war would be great for his slightly fuzzy style, but I always found it alittle jarring in superhero comics, where I at least always wanted everything delineated very sharply and clearly. But nobody ever designed better covers. And all the nice things you say about his storytelling and handling of the characters are dead on target, Leah. I didn't appreciate him properly in the '60s. IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 06, 2003 09:34 PM quote: Originally posted by profh0011: Isn't it odd how newspaper comic-strips tend to maintain a certain "look" whenever they replace their artists (TARZAN being a rare exception with wildly varying stylists over the decades) while comic-books almost never even TRY to maintain a "look" (DC in the 50's & 60's being the exception of course). As a result, AMAZING SPIDER-MAN went from the unique Steve Ditko to JOHN ROMITA; and IRON MAN went from Don Heck to GENE COLAN (could ANYTHING be more jarring than that?? heehee). Or how about when X-MEN went from Werner Roth to NEAL ADAMS?? The closest comparison to old DCs that come to my mind would be LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, which went from the generic DC "house style", absolutely the best of which was Curt Swan, to DAVE COCKRUM. Whoa! Let's see... Green Arrow going from George Papp to Jack Kirby to Lee Elias. Hawkman going from Joe Kubert to Murphy Anderson to Chuck Cuidera. Swamp Thing going from Berni Wrightson to Nestor Redondo. The complete disconnect that happened to X-Force when Mike Allred took over the art. The earlier, similar disconnect in Doom Patrol between the superhero revival and the Grant Morrison stuff--I forget who drew those. And of course,Aquaman going from Ramona Fradon to Nick Cardy. IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 07, 2003 03:07 PM "...Green Arrow going from George Papp to Jack Kirby..." I think that may have been part of why the DC editors didn't like Kirby's work. They didn't like change back then! (Of course, there was probably the long-standing resentment of Kirby. First, some guys didn't like his coming from Timely, getting a huge rate increase & being treated like royalty. After the war, even more resentment arose when he & Joe Simon had the nerve to LEAVE for better deals eslewhere, "showing no company loyalty". When he & Jack Schiff wound up in a court case of kickback payments, I'm sure they looked down at Jack as a "three-time loser". NO WONDER they resented Marvel in the 60's so much!) IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 07, 2003 03:10 PM "The complete disconnect that happened to X-Force when Mike Allred took over the art." This was funny, as I NEVER read the damned book before Allred came along (and still wish he was doing MADMAN instead). When they did X-STATIX #1, they admitted it was what they "should" have done in the first place! IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 07, 2003 03:23 PM quote: Originally posted by profh0011: "The complete disconnect that happened to X-Force when Mike Allred took over the art." This was funny, as I NEVER read the damned book before Allred came along (and still wish he was doing MADMAN instead). When they did X-STATIX #1, they admitted it was what they "should" have done in the first place! Yeah, I never read it after #1 either. What a surprise for it to become a good comic! IP: Logged
India Ink Member	posted February 07, 2003 07:11 PM Although I might have a greater affection for some artists (probably because of their quirks which endear them to me all the more), I have to say that eversince I "discovered" Joe Kubert doing Tarzan he has been the ultimate top talent in my mind. Other artists aspire to such perfection but usually fall short (restrained by their own quirks). However I always wondered why Kubert's heroes seemed to put weight on around their mouth--it was like they had pouches below and on either side of their lower lip. IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 08, 2003 01:05 AM "...could ANYTHING be more jarring than that??" Oh, God, I just trhought of one... TOMB OF DRACULA-- from Gene Colan & Tom Palmer to STEVE DITKO. (I'm NOT making this up!!!) Call it a "thing", but with the ability to do "cut & paste" on my computer, I've been compiling cross-reference lists by certain artists, one of them Ditko. And I ran across the oddest thing. Can ANYONE "explain" how or why he suddenly got so busy around 22 years ago? Dec'79 cover dates-- MACHINE MAN #12, TOMB OF DRACULA (b&w) #2 Jan'80-- DETECTIVE #487 (The Odd Man), ADVENTURE #467 (Starman), SPOTLIGHT #4 (Captain Marvel) Feb'80-- MACHINE MAN #13, ADVENTURE #468 (Starman) Mar'80-- ADVENTURE #469 (Starman), SPOTLIGHT #5 (Dragon Lord) Apr'80-- MACHINE MAN #14, ADVENTURE #470 (Starman), PREVIEW #21 (The Shroud) Earlier he did 3 episodes of The Demon, later 3 episodes of Captain Universe. Starman ran 12 episodes, I'm not sure how long MACHINE MAN ran (I dropped it after one story by Tom DeFalco, who convinced me in a 17 pages that he was the WORST writer to ever work for Marvel up to that date.) Notice Steve usually seems to be on the outer fringes of both the Marvel & DC Universes? (Maybe that's a good thing...!!) IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 08, 2003 02:56 AM Had he just left Charlton at the time? IP: Logged
Vandal Savage New Member	posted February 08, 2003 08:12 AM quote: Kirby's blocky hands. Everyone from the Hulk to Sue Richards seemed to have squared-off fingers. Why? Can't say! And those hands got worser and blockier to the day he died![/B] Not quite accurate - the hands of Sue Richards and all the other Kirby women ended in needle sharp tips, whether gloved or not. IP: Logged
Vandal Savage New Member	posted February 08, 2003 08:28 AM Jarring transitions: Adam Strange - Carmine Infantino to Lee Elias the Shadow - Michael Kaluta to Frank Thorne John Carter in Weird Worlds - Murphy Anderson to Sal Amendola Artists Quirks: Grell always did heads too large and waists too thin. Heck made everyone look oriental the way he drew eyes. Colletta inked in a style that looked like an amalgamation of thin black wires and ruined every title he ever touched. Colan's art looked distorted at times like it was on stretched Silly Putty. Even with that I liked his Daredevil, Doc Strange and Iron Man. IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 08, 2003 01:23 PM Gene Colan always seemed to have trouble with the relative sizes of things, particularly characters that were larger than usual If Iron Man and Titanium Man, for instance, were fighting, in one panel Titanium Man would be around 8 feet tall, and in the next he might be crushing Iron Man in one hand, something he'd have to be about 30 feet high to do. IP: Logged
Steven Utley Member	posted February 08, 2003 02:41 PM James, I'm surprised that you're surprised by the phenomenon of size-shifting characters, given that they inhabit a universe also populated with shape-shifters. I think the most frustrating thing to be in the comic-book universe is a physicist. IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 08, 2003 03:53 PM "the Shadow - Michael Kaluta to Frank Thorne" You mean Frank ROBBINS, right? (A Frank thorne SHADOW might have been a lot more interesting...) CAPTAIN AMERICA-- Sal Buscema to FRANK ROBBINS (augh!!!!!) If only Herb Trimpe had done more than that one fill-in issue in the middle of the mess... I noted recently when updating my comics indexes to include EDITOR credits that C.A. had an extremely stable run almost the entire time Roy Thomas was editor, with Sal only missing one (or two?) issues. The MONTH Len Wein took over as editor, he went and hired Frank Robbins. GOD KNOWS WHY!!! I never noticed is as a teenage, but looking back, I've seen numerous instances when an entire book's creative team changed when a new editor came along. It never occured to me back then-- the editor was the guy who did the HIRING and FIRING!! (One more "crime" to dump on poor ol' Len... heehee) IP: Logged
Carlo Member	posted February 09, 2003 12:30 AM Whoa! Somewhat changing my own subject, but... rereading JLA Archives #7, looking at the cover for JLA # 59... geez, is that a Wayne Boring-face on Superman, or is that a Wayne Boring-face on Superman! No foolin' - take a moment and check! best... Carlo IP: Logged
Steven Utley Member	posted February 09, 2003 10:34 AM Yes, Carlo, that not just merely but most sincerely is a Wayne Boring Superman face. IP: Logged
Carlo Member	posted February 09, 2003 03:29 PM As Gabe Byrne said in Miller's Crossing (movie), "What's the rumpus?" Boring with a last minute "touch-up"? A "tip of the hat" to ol' Wayne? Any "story" behind this? Best... Carlo IP: Logged
Vandal Savage New Member	posted February 10, 2003 03:31 PM quote: Originally posted by profh0011: "the Shadow - Michael Kaluta to Frank Thorne" You mean Frank ROBBINS, right? (A Frank thorne SHADOW might have been a lot more interesting...) Yes, Robbins not Thorne, thanks prof. Another jarring note; from Kirby/Shores to Steranko/Sinnott! Not a bad jar but an extreme one! Then back to Kirby/Tuska for one issue then to Steranko/Palmer to Romita/Sal Buscema for one issue then the brothers Buscema for one before Gene Colan started a run. I was subscribing at that time (damn those folded copies!) and never knew what to expect! IP: Logged
James Friel Member	posted February 10, 2003 03:34 PM quote: Originally posted by Vandal Savage: ...Another jarring note; from Kirby/Shores to Steranko/Sinnott! Not a bad jar but an extreme one! Then back to Kirby/Tuska for one issue then to Steranko/Palmer to Romita/Sal Buscema for one issue then the brothers Buscema for one before Gene Colan started a run. I was subscribing at that time (damn those folded copies!) and never knew what to expect! We're talking about Captain America here? IP: Logged
profh0011 Member	posted February 10, 2003 08:45 PM I have ALL of those! It was still easy to get cheap originals in the late 70's-early 80's. I sure wish I'd spent more money on 60's Marvels than on all the "new" stuff coming out then. By the time I got out of art school in the late 80's, prices had SKYROCKETED to an INSANE level. I never realized how many issues had Jack Kirby / Joe Sinnott. Joe must have been FAST, as far as I can tell he was inking at least 2 full books a month! Bringing back Syd Shores (the main CAPTAIN AMERICA artist in the 40's) to ink Kirby was either inspired or utter madness (depending on how one feels about the rather perculiar mix of styles). As he did with Kirby, Sinnott gave fans possibly the BEST Steranko art ever. I've only recently learned that Jim DID NOT blow the deadline on C.A. #112-- he turned the pages in on time, and then Stan SAW what he was doing, and INSISTED he rewrite-- and redraw-- the finale of the 3-parter! As a result, Kirby had to draw a rush fill-in issue (OVER THE WEEKEND!), the 3rd chapter came out a month late-- and Steranko WALKED off the series, when he had apparently intended to stick around a lot longer. (His sense of anatomy, to a degree, was inspired by Kirby's 1940's art more than his 1960's art.) Gene Colan must be one of the most stable, dependable guys to ever work for Marvel. Just like his IRON MAN run in SUSPENSE, when he took over, he never missed an issue-- until he left altogether. Colan / Sinnott may SOUND like an odd mix, but I was shouldn't have been surprised by HOW GOOD they looked, as did the one issue inked by Wally Wood. Some (including Colan himself) have complained over the years about how much of Gene's pencils are lost in the inking stage, but in superhero books with primitive coloring & printing, really SHARP inkers like Sinnott, Wood, Abel & Giacoia were capable of working wonders despite drastically different art styles. (Whereas inkers like Dick Ayers, Vince Colletta, John Tartaglione & Bob Smith (at DC) tended to MURDER poor Gene's work. IP: Logged

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | DC Comics