"Image" Artist Era

[Dizzy D]

This page looks awesome. How long did his Daredevil run last? I'd have loved to see more of this kind of stuff at Marvel back when I was reading them.

I think it was just the one issue, original Graphic Novel.

I do remember one issue of Moon Knight (don't know if it was in the main series or not) where he already started going more abstract. "Hit it!" IIRC, the main story itself was still his older style, but the backgrounds were children's drawings.


There is a nice thread on the Marvel board right now BTW on artists with more stylized styles (Even though there is no discussion, just posting lots of pictures of different artists).

http://forums.comicbookresources.com...sts-Discussion

Back on topic:

All in all, I think the "Image" Artist Era was an important piece of comic evolution. The very first Image comics did lack substance and pushing other artists to draw in a style aping Liefeld or Lee (though again, I think that the styles of Liefeld, McFarlane and Lee are not comparible, not even speaking of the relative talents of these individuals which also differs greatly.) was a stupid idea, it finally lead to some fine comic companies and seeing early 2000s Wildstorm or the current line-up at Image Comics, I think it was worth it.

[Shellhead]

I was a Moon Knight fan back then, and I remember that Hit It! issue. Apparently Sienkiewicz had an abusive father, and doing the art for that particular story struck a personal chord, with Bill unleashing his new art style in response. I think it's great that he went from a Neal Adams imitator to a popular artist with a very dramatic and original style, but as a Neal Adams fan I really missed the old Sienkiewicz artwork.

[berk]

I never really liked Sinkiewicz's artwork during his Neal Adams phase. The best it ever looked to me during that time was in the Moon Knight stories that appeared as back-ups in the Hulk magazine - maybe the first MK stories he ever drew, come to think of it. But by the time Moon Knight got his own solo series both Sienkiwicz's artwork and Moench's writing for MK had taken a turn for the worst, to my taste. Not that it was all that bad, just not all that great either.

At any rate, I stopped following the character and never have read much of that series, though I did pick up most of it in cheap back issues a few years ago. One of these days I'll read the whole thing from start to finish to give it more of a chance, but the few issues I have tried so far haven't changed my opinion.

[Dizzy D]

I love this board BTW. We went from Liefeld to Sienkiewicz in 2 pages.

[verslibre]

I was huge into comics during the McFarlane/Liefeld and company were all working on their respective Marvel comics (Spiderman, XMen, XForce, New Mutants etc etc). I for one enjoyed the over exaggerated muscles, guns and boobs.

I got out of collecting comics for about a decade (though kept popping in and out of the stores to see what was going on)

Recently got back into collecting about 6 months ago and to get to my point........why all the hate on these guys and their work? I look at some of the art these days, especially on the books I read (ASM, XForce, W and XMen, Batman) and other than the occasional Ramos work and Greg's work on Batman, I just don't see the same quality of work

What am I missing?

You don't see some of the "same quality of work" from the likes of JH Williams III, Steve Pugh, Lee Bermejo, Andy Clarke, Frank Quitely...?

I for one enjoyed the over exaggerated muscles, guns and boobs.

Maybe that's why.

Liefeld's the master of chicken-scratch and grotesque, unintentionally hilarious anatomy and gritted teeth. I'm not sure whatever happened to Platt, but his stuff looked nearly like Liefeld's. And those two wanted to be Art Adams and Jim Lee. At the same time. Only neither's as good, and IMO Lee's not as good as Art Adams. His art had a different look, sure, but I hate the way he draws women. He also renders Batman as big as the Hulk, which is annoying. Never cared for McFarlane or Larsen, sorry.

I do like Greg Capullo's art a lot, but it may have something to do with his style not really looking like those guys. He's a vastly better artist, overall.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

On the issue of the McFarlane\Gaiman clash, I have commented that I come down more in favor of McFarlane in that case. Simply put, McFarlane hired Gaiman to write a few stories for him. Now, McFarlane said openly that he was not averse to "sharing" when it came to certain issues or perhaps "credit"-- this was all during a general conversation\interview discussing creator rights.

From my understanding, which it is little regarding that specific case, Gaiman was claiming that McFarlane wasn't "allowed" to use those characters, perhaps without Gaiman's permission. To me, that on the face of it that was the biggest load of crap I had ever heard--(before Mitt Romney's presidential run, that is!) Gaiman had to be living in a dream world if he thought he could dictate that kind of nonsense to a guy like Todd, who actually thrives on confrontation. Gaiman was doing work- for-hire and those characters belonged to Todd; he wasn't publishing a novel through a publisher, where he would retain most if not all the rights. HOWEVER, if McFarlane had given Gaiman his contract when he asked for it at the beginning, if Neil was some sort of a "primadonna" Todd would have seen it coming and just not hired him. Simple as that.

As far as liking "bad" art, again, the eye is always in the beholder. I had a friend in high school who said flat out "Steve Ditko can't draw" and that wasn't just in referring to Steve's 80s output but the Spider-Man and Dr. Strange stuff that was being reprinted in paperbacks at the time.That's why I have always objected the mindset of someone being "smart enough" to know what's "good". That's just an expression of arrogance that I really don't care for. Knowledge plays a part in that one can comment on the virtues of one artist over another; like how Michelangelo used his knowledge of anatomy, for instance but that doesn't dismiss the fact that with the possible exception of the Delphic Sybil, he simply painted ugly women with breasts that looked as if they were "glued" on male figures!

I just don't buy the blanket dismissal of Image Comics or their artwork. The beautiful comics we now have is largely due to the innovations Image made in terms of better printing and paper. They also made great strides in terms of creator-owned books and better deals made by Marvel and DC; while a lot of the veterans of the era kept coming up with excuses as to why they couldn't unionize or start their own "creator owned" imprint.

As for their artwork, again, just at Marvel and DC, some artists were better at certain skills than others: some were all surface and no more--others like McFarlane, Larsen, Kieth and even J.Scott Campbell started out as awkward but decent but who later evolved into storytelling GIANTS!

[dan bailey]

others like McFarlane, Larsen, Kieth and even J.Scott Campbell started out as awkward but decent but who later evolved into storytelling GIANTS!

Man, they sure make giants a lot shorter than they used to ...

[Slam_Bradley]

Man, they sure make giants a lot shorter than they used to ...

Maybe it's like they size soda and coffee nowdays. No small or medium. The starting point is large, even for a tiny cup.

[dimo1]

You've got to love this forum, always full of hate for whatever is published;)

I am not too shy to admit my love for Image. I've stated it in the 90's thread that, coming from European comics, Image was just great. The art was different and exciting, story wise there is of course not much substance, but looking back it was pure and fun entertainment. After the umpteenth graphic novel it feels great to let your mind be spoiled by pure, stupid superhero clashes, mixed with soap opera ingredients.

To this day I love most of the art by the founders, with the exception of Liefeld, which never grabbed me that much. And no, I'm not a Liefeld hater, I just don't enjoy his art that much.

[pakehafulla]

I think its harsh to lay all of the ills of the past 20 years at the feet of Lee, Liefeld and MacFarlane. Isnt your great American dream to be able to make it big on your own, to use your god given talents to better your own life?

I also seem to recall these forums decrying Marvel and DC for the shoddy way they have treated the likes of Jack Kirby, Joe Simon and Jerry Schuster, or Bob Kane etc not to mention the hundreds who have ridden their coattails(cloaktails) over the decades. Yet a group of creators assert their right to create what they want, people throw money at them for it, and we crucify them for it... How fucked up is that? (excuse my language).

Im not here to defend some below par work from certain creators, art is purely subjective to my mind, but to point out that they all put crap into the market. Look at "The Crossing" storyline in the Avengers titles, the early Mike Deodato art being the HIGHLIGHT believe it or not.
For me, I like MacFarlanes style, as aped for so long by Capullo(better than his own original style), his Spawn work being vastly superior to his wooden work on Infinity Inc, and so it should, you cant compare a his starting work with his more established pro work.
I never liked Lee on X-Men or the Image stuff, but find his work for DC over the past 10 years or so vastly more appealing.
Larsen hasnt changed much, and neither has my opinion, no longer hate his art, just dont like it either. Has always looked rushed to me.
Liefeld...not for me...even the new is as bad as the old...BUT...some do like him, so to each their own.
Never a fan of Keith.
Liked Keown, never read Pitt, but thought he always drew the Hulks head too small.
Used to like Portacio, absolutely ambivalent now.

Hasnt Todd pointed out (fairly recently too) that he felt unfairly criticised for his writing on Spider-Man and early Spawn. He had got to the stage after 5 or so years of being a decent artist, but everyone expected him to be a world class writer with his first book. Yet we all STILL sit here and dog on them about what they did 20 years ago. I think good on them for taking the bull by the horns and riding that fucker for all hes worth. God Dan, doesnt that appeal to your punk sensibilities...you know...screw the system...

[hoopsguru]

Not gonna lie..........no idea who any of the names below are........googled em and they are all British artists.

You don't see some of the "same quality of work" from the likes of JH Williams III, Steve Pugh, Lee Bermejo, Andy Clarke, Frank Quitely...?




Maybe that's why.

Liefeld's the master of chicken-scratch and grotesque, unintentionally hilarious anatomy and gritted teeth. I'm not sure whatever happened to Platt, but his stuff looked nearly like Liefeld's. And those two wanted to be Art Adams and Jim Lee. At the same time. Only neither's as good, and IMO Lee's not as good as Art Adams. His art had a different look, sure, but I hate the way he draws women. He also renders Batman as big as the Hulk, which is annoying. Never cared for McFarlane or Larsen, sorry.

I do like Greg Capullo's art a lot, but it may have something to do with his style not really looking like those guys. He's a vastly better artist, overall.

[berk]

I can only speak for myself, but I'd be very surprised if most of the other posters here who, like me, have expressed a negative view of the quality of the comics Image produced wouldn't also, like me, say that they wholeheartedly support and applaud their effort to free themselves from Marvel and DC and to retain ownership of their own work. There's no conflict between these two attitudes.

Maybe we need a list of Image artists - I saw Art Adams mentioned somewhere above, was he considered an Image guy? Because I do like his style, for the most part.

[Aaron King]

You've got to love this forum, always full of hate for whatever is published;)

I think a good number of the posters here read all sorts of modern comics. I know dan does, at least, and I'm pretty sure jezebel does, too. Other Aaron, our former moderator, still reads monthlies. I'm a pretty omnivorous comic reader myself, and I love a number of current Image series: Prophet, Orc Stain, Chew, Saga, and so on.

After the umpteenth graphic novel it feels great to let your mind be spoiled by pure, stupid superhero clashes, mixed with soap opera ingredients.

Man, I hate the term "graphic novel." It's like "literary fiction." It means too many different things to different people.

As for clashes and soap opera, I go to books like Claremont's X-Men/New Mutants, Lee/Ditko Spider-Man, Dan Slott's Spider-Man, the Hellboy/BPRD universe, and many more for that fix. I like these a lot more than the Image founder stuff, and I think they're a lot less "stupid."

To this day I love most of the art by the founders

For berk, here are the founders:
Whilce Portacio
Jim Valentino
Marc Silvestri
Rob Liefeld
Erik Larsen
Todd McFarlane
Jim Lee

I like Larsen well enough and I think McFarlane is okay, but I could live without the rest. This isn't to say that they shouldn't be making money doing what they do. They obviously have a fan base. They're just not my style.

On the other hand, I'm a big fan of the aforementioned Maxx by Sam Keith. I also really liked what the Wildstorm imprint eventually became after DC bought it.

[dupont2005]

I can only speak for myself, but I'd be very surprised if most of the other posters here who, like me, have expressed a negative view of the quality of the comics Image produced wouldn't also, like me, say that they wholeheartedly support and applaud their effort to free themselves from Marvel and DC and to retain ownership of their own work. There's no conflict between these two attitudes.

Maybe we need a list of Image artists - I saw Art Adams mentioned somewhere above, was he considered an Image guy? Because I do like his style, for the most part.

I agree. And as far as the "Image artists", I think the negative stuff is aimed at the 1992 roster, and not so much what's come since, although they had that style well into the mid-90's, they also published other stuff.

[dan bailey]

God Dan, doesnt that appeal to your punk sensibilities...you know...screw the system...

The principle was fine. God knows, I have no particular love for the Big Two & haven't in decades; most of what I read now is about 95 percent more likely to come from Image or Dark Horse or IDW or Oni or Boom! (to name the extant indies that I've amassed enough titles from to warrant their own short boxes; I read quite a few others as well) than those creatively bankrupt conglomerates.

The execution, though ... Unfortunately, in my eyes the original Image stuff was -- to use the comparison you invoke -- tantamount to how I'd have felt if the early punk bands had confined themselves to turning out warmed over heavy metal. I'd have been out the door at the start, rest assured.