"Image" Artist Era

[LEADER DESSLOK]

No, his style has remained pretty consistent. The funny Cap pin-up is simply an example of him at his worst, i.e. most excessive in terms of anatomical exaggeration. His overrendered chickenscratch style is pretty much a cue from Jim Lee, who I'm also not a fan of, but (Rob's) stuff is really offensive. His recent work on Deathstroke was nothing special. I know, just my opinion. The dude's still making money. Whatever.

"The dude's still making money. Whatever."

And THAT is the key to this in my opinion. I think there are a LOT of people, including his fellow professionals, who may be JEALOUS of his success. Because I rarely hear people say that an artist's work is "offensive" unless they are talking about someone who engages in producing deliberately insulting material like say, a D.W. Griffith.

Liefeld's work "offends" them? Or his SUCCESS?

Trust me, I've seen a LOT worse than Liefeld, one of them is still drawing a top selling book--rather than mentioning him by name, I just choose not to buy his book! And how about that "bouncing Catwoman" drawing that popped up on the web a few weeks ago? Normally, that gentleman does good work but even he sometimes mines the same "offensive" territory from which Liefeld is often accused of tapping.

Liefeld ISN'T my choice of the best pro working today-- but he is far from being the worst. Let's not forget all of those "Adam Hughes-clones" out there who actually make Liefeld look like DaVinci! Heck, even with his "pidgeon-chested" Captain America, I don't think he's ever given a character TWO LEFT FEET! I'm not kidding, it was actually on the splash page of an otherwise nicely rendered book!

[Ish Kabbible]

Let's not forget all of those "Adam Hughes-clones" out there who actually make Liefeld look like DaVinci! Heck, even with his "pidgeon-chested" Captain America, I don't think he's ever given a character TWO LEFT FEET! I'm not kidding, it was actually on the splash page of an otherwise nicely rendered book!

The worst artist in the world will never make Liefeld look like DaVinci. And talking about feet-thats the body part Liefeld tries to avoid drawing because they look like TWO LEFT HOOVES.
Try as you may, you'll never convert anyone into a Liefeld lover, or early Image comics lover for that matter. The company has morphed since then into a publication house that gives self-publishers an opportunity and I give them credit for that. But early Image-tons of over-rendered garbage driven by two artists whose personalities are despicable by the names of Liefeld and McFarlane

[AZBarbarian]

"The dude's still making money. Whatever."

And THAT is the key to this in my opinion. I think there are a LOT of people, including his fellow professionals, who may be JEALOUS of his success. Because I rarely hear people say that an artist's work is "offensive" unless they are talking about someone who engages in producing deliberately insulting material like say, a D.W. Griffith.

Liefeld's work "offends" them? Or his SUCCESS?

Trust me, I've seen a LOT worse than Liefeld, one of them is still drawing a top selling book--rather than mentioning him by name, I just choose not to buy his book! And how about that "bouncing Catwoman" drawing that popped up on the web a few weeks ago? Normally, that gentleman does good work but even he sometimes mines the same "offensive" territory from which Liefeld is often accused of tapping.

Liefeld ISN'T my choice of the best pro working today-- but he is far from being the worst. Let's not forget all of those "Adam Hughes-clones" out there who actually make Liefeld look like DaVinci! Heck, even with his "pidgeon-chested" Captain America, I don't think he's ever given a character TWO LEFT FEET! I'm not kidding, it was actually on the splash page of an otherwise nicely rendered book!

I thought we were just answering the question asked in the thread. Why the disdain for the Image Artist Era? Those were my reasons. Anatomical correctness or even anatomical closeness in art is important to me. The story is important to me. The Image artist era was neither about anatomy nor story. I didn't like it.If I am spending money on a comic, it needs to appeal to me, and these types of comics don't.

BTW - Liefeld doesn't give characters two left feet. He usually hides feet behind something like a rock. Hrm, wonder why? Hands aren't exactly a strong suit either. Try googling worst Liefeld art, it is pretty funny.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

I'm neither trying to "convert" any body to become Liefeld fans nor am I ignoring the short comings of SOME of the early Image comics. Story is important? I agree without question. But was Image the ONLY one cranking out bad stories? Definitely NOT! (Byrne's dreadful West Coast Avengers immediately springs to mind) Were all the Image stories bad? Again, definitely NOT. If you didn't stay with them for long or never read them at all--how would you know if they were good or lousy?

Is anatomy important? Yes and no. It always comes down to the story for me. Chester Gould was a stranger to anatomy but his DICK TRACY gets my vote for being one of the best--if not THE BEST comic strips of all time! And I'll take a guy who struggled with anatomy, like Steve Ditko, over the plaster cast emulating work of the Burne Hogarth School of Cartooning, any day of the week and twice on Sundays! (Gil Kane excluded--his cover designs for 70s Marvel were fan-tabu-lous!)

[T Hedge Coke]

I'd love to see evidence Liefeld's trying to expand or develop in his art, but I don't care if he doesn't, really. I've liked some Liefeld art and writing; I've not liked some other Liefeld work. Not a huge fan, but the dude loves doing comics, that much is clear, and as long as nobody"s being forced to buy his work, and no one is being forced to laud him against their will, and he's not proving himself excessively bigoted in the work, I don't see how he's offending anyone with drawings of superheroes.

Is anatomical accuracy important to art? To representational, realist artwork, maybe. But Liefeld's never tried to be a realist, has he? He's not a photorealist, certainly, and he's not a naturalist. Could he be if he wanted to? I don't know. I've got my suspicions, but I don't know. I do know his work is consistently Liefeldian, even when he's copying a pose from another artist or pastiching an entire panel or figure. Liefeld is always identifiably Liefeld, so on some level, at least that style has to be deliberate. And if people like it, they like it. But to judge it on artificially constructed terms that have nothing to do with his intent or the audience to whom it is aimed, seems just plain pointless, except to have something to be offended by.

[Shellhead]

(Byrne's dreadful West Coast Avengers immediately springs to mind)

You are mistaken. Byrne's run on West Coast Avengers is generally considered one of the best of that series. And I say that as somebody who was a big fan of Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas and can't stand any of Byrne's modern work. I didn't enjoy what Byrne did to Vision, but his arc was better than anything that Englehart or Thomas wrote for WCA. Too bad Byrne's story got cut short by editorial meddling.

[T Hedge Coke]

You are mistaken. Byrne's run on West Coast Avengers is generally considered one of the best of that series. And I say that as somebody who was a big fan of Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas and can't stand any of Byrne's modern work. I didn't enjoy what Byrne did to Vision, but his arc was better than anything that Englehart or Thomas wrote for WCA. Too bad Byrne's story got cut short by editorial meddling.

Who did Daaaark Wanda? Seriously, being the best of WCA isn't a really prize. It was not, for my money, a particularly good title at any point. And it was full of characters I love, and had talent I generally like all over it, so I'm not saying that to bash any person or character. It was an ancillary title and it always read, to me, like an ancillary title.

[Shellhead]

Who did Daaaark Wanda? Seriously, being the best of WCA isn't a really prize. It was not, for my money, a particularly good title at any point. And it was full of characters I love, and had talent I generally like all over it, so I'm not saying that to bash any person or character. It was an ancillary title and it always read, to me, like an ancillary title.

I agree on all counts. As for Dark Wanda, we first caught glimpses of her in Avengers #128, #134 and #187.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

You are mistaken. Byrne's run on West Coast Avengers is generally considered one of the best of that series. And I say that as somebody who was a big fan of Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas and can't stand any of Byrne's modern work. I didn't enjoy what Byrne did to Vision, but his arc was better than anything that Englehart or Thomas wrote for WCA. Too bad Byrne's story got cut short by editorial meddling.

I am not "mistaken"-- I say it was a dreadful run on a mediocre book. He didn't write ONE story that was decent and I have been very vocal about how he messed up The Vision in particular, who STILL hasn't recovered from it! And I say that as a fan of the character who I took an instant liking to when I bought my first "official" AVENGERS comic (#143)!

[Shellhead]

I am not "mistaken"-- I say it was a dreadful run on a mediocre book. He didn't write ONE story that was decent and I have been very vocal about how he messed up The Vision in particular, who STILL hasn't recovered from it! And I say that as a fan of the character who I took an instant liking to when I bought my first "official" AVENGERS comic (#143)!

I started with Avengers #114 and Marvel Triple Action #15 (reprint of Avengers #21), and Vision was one of my favorite Avengers, too. But he was eventually written into a corner. His marriage with Wanda was awkward and boring, and brought his quest to be human to an effective end. Then Wanda gave birth to their magical twins, and that was also awkward and boring. Bringing back Simon Williams created some interesting tension for a while, but without anyway to resolve that tension or move onto some other idea, it became tedious until writers decided to just ignore it. Then Roger Stern had an interesting idea about Vision conquering the world to make it a better place, but there was no long-term potential to that idea either, short of turning Vision into a villain. Byrne seems like a guy who is obsessed with keeping characters exactly the way they were when they were first introduced, and so he reduced Vision to his original creepy android status, but at least it was something interesting to do with Vision that didn't involve a ludicrous imitation of suburban tranquility.

[verslibre]

I think there are a LOT of people, including his fellow professionals, who may be JEALOUS of his success.

I think it's more like mystified. Mystified as to how the guy keeps getting gigs with his erratic behavior and bridge-burning antics (like his recent Twitter meltdown).

Because I rarely hear people say that an artist's work is "offensive" unless they are talking about someone who engages in producing deliberately insulting material like say, a D.W. Griffith.

Liefeld's work "offends" them? Or his SUCCESS?

No, I meant offensive as in how it looks. His artwork, that is. Not the subject matter. At best, his original creations are bland if not unintentionally funny superhero knockoffs of Marvel and DC characters.

Liefeld ISN'T my choice of the best pro working today-- but he is far from being the worst. Let's not forget all of those "Adam Hughes-clones" out there who actually make Liefeld look like DaVinci! Heck, even with his "pidgeon-chested" Captain America, I don't think he's ever given a character TWO LEFT FEET! I'm not kidding, it was actually on the splash page of an otherwise nicely rendered book!

Have a look at the Cyber Force 2-page spread where you can see the archer character Shaft's head and torso faced this-a-way and his legs and feet pointed that-a-way.

[berk]

Comics artists play with human anatomy for artistic effect all the time, but to draw parallels between how that was done by Liefeld and how it was done by an artist like Kirby is misleading to say the least.

[AZBarbarian]

... Story is important? I agree without question. But was Image the ONLY one cranking out bad stories? Definitely NOT! (Byrne's dreadful West Coast Avengers immediately springs to mind) Were all the Image stories bad? Again, definitely NOT. If you didn't stay with them for long or never read them at all--how would you know if they were good or lousy? ...

I hope I didn't imply that Image was the only company putting out crappy comics in the early 90's. I think that early Image was a case study of what was occurring in comics industry overall. I agree that problems were scattered throughout the industry. There were some positives around this time as well; what comes to mind is the Legends imprint at Dark Horse and Vertigo at DC. Back then, however, I was more of a super-hero guy.That is why I quit collecting at the time. John Byrne is one of my favorite comic book writers/artists. However, I do think he has issues as well. Many of his characters have identical faces, etc. But the OP was about the 'Image Artist Era' not 'Image Comics.'

[dr chimp]

i heard ethan van sciver talk about rob liefeld and his story was pretty tragic. Appparently his dad was very ill with big medical bills and at 16 Rob was working at DC to pay them. He then started inking his own work to get some extra cash in for the family but obviously had to cut some corners to get it done in time every month. Hence a style was born which became popular. How many people fundamentally changed comic book art and at such a young age? It's pretty impressive. I think last year comic book sales were 36 million. Rob has probably quite easily sold that many alone himself. In the 90s he had every marvel exec telling him he was the second coming, people fawning over him left right and centre and now he is seen as just a joke - that would def. mess you up a bit. I never liked his style - but he's a pretty interesting guy.