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

**Jim Thompson** · 05-08-2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by petesake

This is like arguing with a religious zealot.

I can make specific criticisms to specific pieces of art that I'd say are pretty much objective criticisms of where an artist fails. I'm not going to go through a whole issue of Liefeld or Bobillo for you.

Just cause you say something is objective doesn't make it so.

The "religious zealot" in this conversation isn't me.

**Jim Thompson** · 05-08-2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by petesake

liefeld's art lacks that base standard of perspective and anatomy.

he doesn't convey actions well either.

Maybe. This piece of Liefeld art seems to basically follow perspective, anatomy, and conveys an action.

**petesake** · 05-08-2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by marshal99

Same could be said about your POV. You like what you like and you hate what you hate. At the end of the day , it's just an opinion , your opinion.

No, but see, you're wrong. I judge whether art is good or bad separately from whether I like it or not.

IE: I like bacchalo's art a lot, his style is cool, but it often comes at the expense of storytelling as his layouts can get confusing.

On the flipside, I don't really like Steve Epting's style and I think he has a few weaknesses, but overall he's a pretty good artist despite me not liking his art.

**petesake** · 05-08-2012, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson

Maybe. This piece of Liefeld art seems to basically follow perspective, anatomy, and conveys an action.

It's pretty good for liefeld but no it is not totally successful at any of those.

**Jim Thompson** · 05-08-2012, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by petesake

It's pretty good for liefeld but no it is not totally successful at any of those.

Okay, so how is this:

successful (good) by your criteria, but this:

is not?

**SteveGus** · 05-08-2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson

Maybe. This piece of Liefeld art seems to basically follow perspective, anatomy, and conveys an action.

It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination --- Cap's face makes him look like an emaciated, female runway model; and he must have forearms like Popeye. But it is much better than the typical Liefeld "bad example". So to that extent it succeeds.

Personal taste plays a major part. I never thought that Michael Turner was much better than Liefeld, especially at anatomy.

**petesake** · 05-08-2012, 07:26 AM

Do you really not get the difference?

**FanboyStranger** · 05-08-2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson

What's "proper" story-telling? What's that standard?

Proper storytelling is actually pretty easy to understand and critique. Storytelling involves pacing, transitions from scene to scene, choreograqphy of action, etc. If a story is hard to follow (unless its intentionally obscured for the sake of atmosphere), it's poor storytelling. There are as many "good" storytellers as there are individual styles, but each story they tell can be judged by the effectiveness of their pacing, transitions, choreography, etc. Without getting into the issues of Liefeld's anatomy-- something that doesn't concern me very much-- his transtitions between individual panels are atrocious, especially when transitioning between scenes; his action, whie occasionally bombastic, is frequently stock and cliched (although one might argue that he invented those particular cliches); and the stories have little sense of flow.

**Jim Thompson** · 05-08-2012, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by petesake

Do you really not get the difference?

I get I like them both. I don't think you can demonstrably prove either is "good" or "bad".

**petesake** · 05-08-2012, 07:30 AM

How about liefeld's poor anatomy and perspective around the legs totally ruin the effect he was going for, which was captain america running headlong towards us?

**Jim Thompson** · 05-08-2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by FanboyStranger

Proper storytelling is actually pretty easy to understand and critique. Storytelling involves pacing, transitions from scene to scene, choreograqphy of action, etc. If a story is hard to follow (unless its intentionally obscured for the sake of atmosphere), it's poor storytelling. There are as many "good" storytellers as there are individual styles, but each story they tell can be judged by the effectiveness of their pacing, transitions, choreography, etc. Without getting into the issues of Liefeld's anatomy-- something that doesn't concern me very much-- his transtitions between individual panels are atrocious, especially when transitioning between scenes; his action, whie occasionally bombastic, is frequently stock and cliched (although one might argue that he invented those particular cliches); and the stories have little sense of flow.

Do you take into account cultural differences?

BTW -- you seem to be using this as the objective standard:

**FanboyStranger** · 05-08-2012, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson

Okay, so how is this:

successful (good) by your criteria, but this:

is not?

Well, they're doing two very different things. The first piece (is that Bachalo?) is meant as a piece of sequential art used to tell the story, and despite the exaggerations, I do think it's clear what it going on and how the story progresses, although I'd like to see a few more pages to see if that continues. The Liefeld cover is a singular image used as an enticement to pick up the book-- covers are meant to be suggestive of the story within, but in this case (and more and more frequently), it's more of a character study meant as a teaser. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that Cap figure other than I find it a somewhat bland and generic cover.