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

[Jim Thompson]

It's not simply because one doesn't personally enjoy it. That's not what art critics do. Although it's impossible to remain totally objective, on just about anything, there are standards on which you can judge art just like everything else.

I think what you're saying is what some people like to tell themselves so they can feel good in their opinion about their feelings with regard to art, but, yeah, basically art is about personal reaction to it. There's a difference between being able to distinguish between technical abilities to produce a particular kind of art and that art being definitively "good" or "bad".

[petesake]

I think what you're saying is what some people like to tell themselves so they can feel good in their opinion about their feelings with regard to art, but, yeah, basically art is about personal reaction to it. There's a difference between being able to distinguish between technical abilities to produce a particular kind of art and that art being definitively "good" or "bad".

Funny, I was gonna say something very similar about people who say art can't possibly be criticized.

[Jim Thompson]

Funny, I was gonna say something very similar about people who say art can't possibly be criticized.

I haven't said it can't be criticized. I've said it can't be objectively defined as being "good" or "bad".

[petesake]

well great then, i never said perez was bad. I just think he's worse than a lot of current artists :P

[Jim Thompson]

well great then, i never said perez was bad. I just think he's worse than a lot of current artists :P

Certainly clear you don't enjoy his work as much as you do others.

But you can't prove he's "worse", either.

[Darrell D.]

I haven't said it can't be criticized. I've said it can't be objectively defined as being "good" or "bad".

I think if anatomy is bad, perspective is bad, and the textures and shadows of a piece of art that is trying for all of that, it can objectively be labeled as 'bad'.
Now, someone like Picasso, who understood anatomy, perpective, textures, etc, breaks those rules for a specific reason, in showing the result of that, that's a different matter.
But, yeah, looking at a LOT of the people Marvel and DC hired in the 90s for filler on books, you can tell their art was objectively bad from a technical standpoint.

[petesake]

Well you won't accept it...

That's not quite the same.

[Jim Thompson]

I think if anatomy is bad, perspective is bad, and the textures and shadows of a piece of art that is trying for all of that, it can objectively be labeled as 'bad'.
Now, someone like Picasso, who understood anatomy, perpective, textures, etc, breaks those rules for a specific reason, in showing the result of that, that's a different matter.
But, yeah, looking at a LOT of the people Marvel and DC hired in the 90s for filler on books, you can tell their art was objectively bad from a technical standpoint.

I disagree. I don't enjoy Liefeld art, for example, in part because his ability to accurately draw anatomy seems off, but that doesn't make his art objectively "bad". Just means I don't like it.

[petesake]

no, liefeld's art is objectively terrible.

[Jim Thompson]

no, liefeld's art is objectively terrible.

It surely elicits strong reactions and opinions.

[Darrell D.]

I disagree. I don't enjoy Liefeld art, for example, in part because his ability to accurately draw anatomy seems off, but that doesn't make his art objectively "bad". Just means I don't like it.

No, if a perspective is completely wrong and devoid of proper technique, or anatomy isn't exaggerated for effect, but just completely outright wrong, then, yes, 'bad' is a term that can be applied.

[SteveGus]

I disagree. I don't enjoy Liefeld art, for example, in part because his ability to accurately draw anatomy seems off, but that doesn't make his art objectively "bad". Just means I don't like it.

Let's look at this differently. Suppose I wanted to draw a picture that looks like something Liefeld would draw. I try and fail; the anatomy is too realistic, and as a result the picture doesn't look like Liefeld. Have I done a bad job with it? I think so.

[Jim Thompson]

No, if a perspective is completely wrong and devoid of proper technique, or anatomy isn't exaggerated for effect, but just completely outright wrong, then, yes, 'bad' is a term that can be applied.

That's certainly an opinion. It's still your reaction to the work.

[Darrell D.]

And, I am speaking in the realm of super-hero books at this juncture; perspective is needed for proper story-telling, and while I am aware that anatomy is usually exaggerated for effect, it's a good idea to know PROPER anatomy before exaggerating, as ignorance can lead to very bad habits that can be very hard to break.

[Jim Thompson]

Let's look at this differently. Suppose I wanted to draw a picture that looks like something Liefeld would draw. I try and fail; the anatomy is too realistic, and as a result the picture doesn't look like Liefeld. Have I done a bad job with it? I think so.

Which will work for you, certainly -- but what if someone else enjoys your work and thinks it's "good"? Are they "wrong"?