Mike getting pissed?

[yo go re]

Been thinking about this. In his last blog post, Mike said:

I frequent many message boards on comics news sites, creator sites and general fan sites, and I've seen some of these guys get blasted simply for having a "cartoony" style. Frankly, in an American market that seems increasingly to gravitate toward artists who trace photographs and call them comics, it's very frustrating and angering to me to see artists with unique vision and a strong personal style get shunted aside.

I can't help but read this as a defensive statement. I know how much I hate it when I go to an FF or Spidey fansite and read their reviews and have to read issue after issue where all they say is "Oh, I'm tired of this manga-influenced trend, and I don't like Mike Wieringo." Ringo's manga-influenced and part of a trend? I guess that's why he's been working in the industry regularly, on some of its biggest books, for ten years now? Geeze!

But anyway, if it pisses me off to read this, then I can only imagine how Mike feels reading the same things. So reading that bit above, I see a certain and specific biographical tinge to the words, but one that he tried to hide. He never seems to include himself with the artists who are getting shunned, even though he's certainly among them.

So basically, my question is am I nuts or did anyone else notice the same thing? Oh, and if you're not reading the blog, you should...

--yo
just wondering

[mgs]

thanks for the info yo go re. very interesting.i have a feeling that mike may have been saying what you are suggesting, tho i don't really know, cause i haven't read the whole thing yet. i guess i can partially agree with him on this.

i mean, i am not enough in the know to tell when comics are photos or not, but when you look at a great artist (I'm leaving mike out of this) like Timm and then you look at the recent Marvel comic, Phoenix:Endsong. I think this may be something he is referring to. The phoenix book, while pretty, has no interest for me, I checked it out and it looked good, but the characters had the 'photo' lok that i think was referred to and hence, i didn't get it. I used to get Red Star, but the lateness of the comic drove me away, but I think that's one that was basically photos but used well and interesting. dawn brown is another who openly admits to using photo references and it works well.

but sometimes, just sometimes, there are comics, lots of times, all ages types, that need that certain non-reality quality that REALLY works well. Mark Oakley's Thieves and Kings is an example.

i have to admit, i used to really really be on his side on this one, but as i see more and more comics, the only thing i care about is originality (or at least the ruse of it) and quality. Does it tell the story well, is the art fluid and not static?

I think Mike's current art is very fluid and kinda loose, he should not worry so much about what publishers say and some net criticisms, there are those who enjoy his work, but maybe they are not vocal enough about it.

[Figaro]

This reminds me of an interview with Rick Burchett I once read at Toon Zone, where he was asked about his art style on the now-cancelled "Batman: Gotham Adventures." Among other things, he said the following:

"But as far as I'm concerned everyone this side of Alex Ross is "cartoony"."

Here's the whole interview:

Rick Burchett interview (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=41180&highlight=gotham+adventures)

By thy side,

Figaro

[Deathstroke]

I prefer my art to resemble a real person. Now, if someone can do a "cartoony" style that works for me, I'm all for it.

I think 'Ringo's stuff on the Fantastic Four is spectacular.

[diegojourdan]

Well,why shouldn`t he ? I mean,so much good talent wasted because it isn`t "realistic" enough for the "Big Two"!

...but then again,there`s plenty of companies out there who don`t feel the same way,and pay a lot better rates than DC and Marvel do,so why focus talent on the superhero crap exclusively ?

[artist2b]

I think as long as Greg Land's not literally tracing, I'll enjoy his art. And he might be one of my favorite artists. But Mike Wieringo's definitely one of my top favorites and I think the more cartoony styles probably have avantages that photorealistic art doesn't. I think for one thing, cartoony art probably looks more animated. It looks more in motion.

[Huh?]

I prefer my art to resemble a real person. Now, if someone can do a "cartoony" style that works for me, I'm all for it.

I think 'Ringo's stuff on the Fantastic Four is spectacular.You liked calvin and hobbes didn't you? (That is a wild guess BTW).

[Renecarol27]

Is that an insult? About Calvin and Hobbes?

[Huh?]

Is that an insult? About Calvin and Hobbes?No, I was just trying to think of a cartoony book that everyone I have spoken with likes. That one came to mind. I really like it.

Just trying to see why a true cartoon and a true realistic style can't meld if someone enjoys both types of art on their own.

[Extreme_too]

I like the more cartoony art. I always have. I think it goes back to watching the BATMAN animated series all the time when I was younger.

I didn't really know why I liked the art so much, though. Then Mike said something in his blog that totally layed it all out for me. He said that cartoony artists CREATE. They design everything. They make entire universes'. You become immersed in that artist's vision and that's an incredible thing.

-Aaron

[G. Wayne]

is it a crime to like both? :o

i like land's stuff (would jim lee and co. count on that end?) but i do prefer the "cartoony/anime" style. big fan of wieringo, joe mad, ed mcguiness, etc.

[Renecarol27]

alright.. I don't know anybody who doesn't like Calvin and Hobbes.. that's why I was confused.
Rene

[marklar from marklar]

Hi all,

as an artist,not a great one,but an artist nonetheless,I can appreciate good art when I see it. I love mike's stuff,as well as alex ross' more realistic stuff. Sometimes I wanna do cartoony,sometimes realistic(sometimes,all in one day). Theres enough room for all styles,but most people who are not familiar with all art styles would tend to think that the alex ross style would be better,as it is more realistic. Thats just from my experience

I feel for you mike,my style is definitely not realistic...

R'john

[Winslow]

I prefer a cartoony style.

I read comics to escape, and the cartoony style helps (for some reason).

I think the Big 2 Superhero fandom is probably slanted towards realism, but the Indy and small press market surely isn't.

And Mike's one of my favorite artists.

[Hombre]

I am familiar with a lot of Mike's Marvel work. In particular the Sensational Spider Man and Fantastic Four runs.
I am a big fan, and, if anything, I believe he could adapt his style to convey a variety of atmospheres. Sometimes, it's the plot and script that may leave an impression of lightness, which is itself reflected in the art. A different kind of script, more taut and realistic, may offer him a chance to shine even more.
One thing is for certain, his style was never a liability for any book he was assigned that I know of. It's a treat, and richly detailed too, just look at all those great covers!

[Kangaroo-kid]

§ have always loved the cartoony styles… sometimes i like the realistic ones, too :D … §

[GOT]

Interesting. I didn't realize there was an anti-toon movement going on... and here I've spent my entire life tooning myself and my work :eek:

I say if its good design, whether or not realistic, then its in!!! Beauty and good design are TIMELESS! Find out what you want to say and create what you see with your mind's eye, do your best, and get better then next day, and things should be good... I think :cool: