So I have a bunch of stuff that I need to get off my chest and I didn't know where to put it. There's a good chance this thread will sink to the bottom really fast, but let's see what sticks.
The point of this thread is to just spout off a bunch of personal opinions and see what like-minded or antagonistic response I get. Being a comic book forum, I figure I'll lead with a comic book related topic.
Olivier Coipel vs. Jim Lee
As you can see from my sig, I'm a huge fan of Olivier Coipel. I get books just for his art. I mainly got House of M, Siege, and the first collection of Fraction's Thor just for his art alone. The man is an amazing talent. If you have a chance to read his run with JMS on Thor, you will not regret it. I think Thor is a fairly lame characters, but man did JMS grab my attention with his interpretation of Thor and Coipel just knocked the art out of the park.
Then we have Jim Lee. Really, Jim Lee represents my first comic book love. I read a comic here and there, but the day I became a comic book fan was when I bought a copy of X-Men #1 by Chris Claremont and Jim Lee. His art featured characters that were larger than life, powerful and beautiful. With Claremont turning the drama up to 11, Jim Lee's art caught on more fire. Obviously, all of this was reinforced by the inclusion of some of the greatest characters to exist in comics...the X-Men.
My problem is...as good as Jim Lee was and still is, I feel that his art has plateaued. At the same time, the same amount of vibrant energy and powerful illustration has been elevated to the levels of astonishing by Coipel. So why is it that Coipel does not get the same amount of acclaim that Jim Lee is getting?
Is it because the comic book fans of the 90s are the ones that still determine which comics are in and which comics are lame?
Is it because art is subjective, but subjectively...Jim Lee is better than Olivier Coipel?
Is it because Jim Lee is working on characters that more people want to read about than what Coipel is doing?
What is it?