In praise & defense of George Perez: the man who transformed DC Comics

[dancj]

You really think art improves that much?

Since the golden and silver ages yeah.

In those days the artists were often not particularly talented, but just happened to fall into the right job. There were some very talented people there as well, but they were often under immense deadline pressures and on very low page rates.

Modern artists are generally people who actively sought out a career in comics and have enough time to draw the pages to a higher standard. They also have better access to reference material (the good kind not the Greg Land kind).

Obviously there were some incredible artists back in those days (Eisner, Toth, Wood, Kurtzman, Kubert, Wrightson, Frazetta) who produced great work, and there are some terrible artists somehow getting work now - but generally if you compare a random page from then with a random page from now the modern page is going to look better.

[big al]

I just saw this thread. I've been reading comics for about as long as I can remember. Now I know this doesn't really make me an expert on comic book art but IMHO Perez is the gold standard. I hold him in very, very high regard. In fact I would say that for the most part if Perez draws a character I pretty much consider that the definitave version of that character.

A few years ago I was very much into the red circle characters, just the history behind them and the fact that they had been around for so long and were a pretty much forgotten entity in comics. I honestly wanted to see George draw them just because I could not think of a better artist to make these characters look the way I think they should.

He's just fantastic. I have NEVER walked away from a comic he has drawn let down in any way, shape or form (in terms of art). I mean you can go back to the old adventure comics when they were doing dial H for Hero stuff and George was only doing the covers and they are great.

THE BEST comic book artist of our time.

in my opinion of course.

[asiansupes]

Since the golden and silver ages yeah.

In those days the artists were often not particularly talented, but just happened to fall into the right job. There were some very talented people there as well, but they were often under immense deadline pressures and on very low page rates.

Modern artists are generally people who actively sought out a career in comics and have enough time to draw the pages to a higher standard. They also have better access to reference material (the good kind not the Greg Land kind).

Obviously there were some incredible artists back in those days (Eisner, Toth, Wood, Kurtzman, Kubert, Wrightson, Frazetta) who produced great work, and there are some terrible artists somehow getting work now - but generally if you compare a random page from then with a random page from now the modern page is going to look better.

I think what helps a comic book artist currently is the presentation. The photoshop coloring, the glossy and sturdy paper, and like you said, better reference resources aide the current comic book penciller to have a more professional look. If we go with just on a fundemental art aspect and ability to story-tell, I think the past has the slight edge.

[finfangfool]

I also like the way highly detailed linework shows up on crappier paper stock, like they used until the early '90s, over how it shows on glossy paper. Looking at an Art Adams, BWS, or George Perez in the original comic form from back in the day vs a newly printed trade (while the colors are better and the art less faded oftentimes in a trade) just looks better to me. I think storytelling has been de-emphasized for modern artists, probably not by choice but by demand. The posing, splash-page shot catches the eye better and I'm sure it's easier to just have people standing around in bad-ass poses rather than drawing each individual background character to tell a story like Perez and Buscema used to do (especially when most don't take the time to appreciate it, and you're getting paid the same). I'm sure modern artists can do this (Liefelds aside), and some like Quitely often do, but it doesn't seem to be worth their time.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

I think what helps a comic book artist currently is the presentation. The photoshop coloring, the glossy and sturdy paper, and like you said, better reference resources aide the current comic book penciller to have a more professional look. If we go with just on a fundemental art aspect and ability to story-tell, I think the past has the slight edge.

I agree. At the beginning of the comic book industry, sure, some of those pioneers were artists and cartoonists who "couldn't cut the mustard" in the big leagues of daily newstrips or advertising, but a lot of that changed after about 1942, when the "pulp" heroes started losing young readers to comic books. Slowly, the quality of the artwork improved when more talented illustrators started drifting into the field.

Whenever you read interviews with a lot of veterans, what you consistently hear is that many of them didn't attend what one would consider "traditional" art schools but schools either at the H.S. level or afterward that trained them in the commercial arts, with the specific intention of getting a job. Many fell into comics as a temporary measure until they managed to score a position with an Ad agency, hopefully on Madison Avenue. Jerry Robinson learned how to do comics from Bob Kane (and later Mort Meskin) but his intention was always to become an illustrator.

I'll bet even the most "average" comic book artist back then was better or at least as good as some of the "superstars" of today simply because the drawing standards back then were so much higher.

[asiansupes]

I agree. At the beginning of the comic book industry, sure, some of those pioneers were artists and cartoonists who "couldn't cut the mustard" in the big leagues of daily newstrips or advertising, but a lot of that changed after about 1942, when the "pulp" heroes started losing young readers to comic books. Slowly, the quality of the artwork improved when more talented illustrators started drifting into the field.

Whenever you read interviews with a lot of veterans, what you consistently hear is that many of them didn't attend what one would consider "traditional" art schools but schools either at the H.S. level or afterward that trained them in the commercial arts, with the specific intention of getting a job. Many fell into comics as a temporary measure until they managed to score a position with an Ad agency, hopefully on Madison Avenue. Jerry Robinson learned how to do comics from Bob Kane (and later Mort Meskin) but his intention was always to become an illustrator.

I'll bet even the most "average" comic book artist back then was better or at least as good as some of the "superstars" of today simply because the drawing standards back then were so much higher.

I dont think today's standards aren't any less than they were back then. The criteria is looking for different things now. It's also a different type of audience today. it's funny that you mention illustrators though. Many artists have become more illustrative and less storyteller over the years. the paper quality and printing lets artist become more ornate. Also, more artists find themselves going to art school or have had some formal training. Don't use superstars at the bar to measure today's best. There are many artists that go under the radar and produce at a high level. Some of them aren't neccesarily doing superheroes either.

[wildcat71]

I think George Perez is one of the best artists working in comics today, and he's been one of the best since the 70's. His Avengers was great, his New Teen Titans was great, his Crisis on Infinite Earths was awesome (who else could draw all those characters like he did?) But, it was his Wonder Woman that I thought was SPECTACULAR. The amount of detail he put into every issue was just incredible, and he WROTE it too! No one does that nowadays, that makes him all the more awesome to me. George is still THE MAN!