GABRIELE DELL OTTO vs LEE BERMEJO

[Movieartman]

WHAT ARTIST DO YOU PREFER BETWEEN


GABRIELE DELL OTTO (secret war, x-force: sex and violence)



and

LEE BERMEJO (joker, lex luthor: man of steel, batman noel, before watchmen: rorschach)

[Movieartman]

LB

[thwhtGuardian]

I honestly don't see a lot of difference between their art, I certainly wouldn't have been able to tell them apart if you didn't label the images and personally its not a style I enjoy.

[Slam_Bradley]

You mean they aren't all by the same person?

[thwhtGuardian]

You mean they aren't all by the same person?

I know, I certainly could have been fooled.

Shame on us I guess.

[Johnny P. Sartre]

I choose Moebius.

Where's the Moebius option/

[aNamored]

Gabriele for me. Not a fan of Lee at all (his WS covers are very disappointing - don't like the faces at all.)

[Hulk_Is]

GABRIELE DELL OTTO 'cause his work is smoother.

[Artycool8or]

Give me a choice.
They are both great artists.

[Spike-X]

Neither of them appeal to me that much. I can't stand Bermejo's work, as a rule. It's so dark and ugly.

[kalorama]

Are we talking about just for covers? Or interiors as well?

[Kees_L]

For stuff like this I get the feeling I'm looking at what publishers such as Marvel would think to appeal to audiences.

Just all out overdone and hyper movie-still oilpaintinglike mish-mashy digitally effectified detail-laden genericness which may be seen at any movieposters or computer game or toy box art wherever.

Which can be called well done or meticulously executed, if it is, but it doesn't appear unique or personal to artists and more importantly it doesn't strike me as very creative all that much.

Publishers could have asked 5000 different artists who could pull this off if they would want to. Whereas having a unique style or making cover art innovative or intricate both as any proving actually creative will be a different thing altogether. I'd say.

[kalorama]

For stuff like this I get the feeling I'm looking at what publishers such as Marvel would think to appeal to audiences.

Just all out overdone and hyper movie-still oilpaintinglike mish-mashy digitally effectified detail-laden genericness which may be seen at any movieposters or computer game or toy box art wherever.

Which can be called well done or meticulously executed, if it is, but it doesn't appear unique or personal to artists and more importantly it doesn't strike me as very creative all that much.

Publishers could have asked 5000 different artists who could pull this off if they would want to. Whereas having a unique style or making cover art innovative or intricate both as any proving actually creative will be a different thing altogether. I'd say.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of photorealistic, digitally painted art in comics, but to say there's no creativity or talent involved in the execution is just untrue. It's a style just like any other. Whether or not it appeals to any particular individual is a matter of tase, bu it's no more or less a valid mode of expression than the styles of Darwyn Cooke or Frank Quitely.

[Kees_L]

I'm not necessarily a big fan of photorealistic, digitally painted art in comics, but to say there's no creativity or talent involved in the execution is just untrue. It's a style just like any other. Whether or not it appeals to any particular individual is a matter of tase, bu it's no more or less a valid mode of expression than the styles of Darwyn Cooke or Frank Quitely.

I'm clearly not saying any of those things 'though.

What I'm saying is, that stuff like this lacks creativity if it gets made to be so uniformly over-effectified and over-detailed and overkilled due to publishers thinking this would score.

So much superhero cover art gets made into looking like just movie-stills with lighting effects both as explosions both as motion-blurriness or such going on all at the same time, as pointing to mainly overkill, taking away from any styles or comic art as doing its thing in ways of itself. So much and so usually that it can be called generic.

Since comic art doesn't need to look like movie stills, but more rather like speaking or striking artwork in some or any ways as being crafted and compositioned and stylised in order to be telling a story or create promise onto something. Which can be either pretty or moody or dark or harsh or ugly stuff.

Since comics could be made to look like everything and anything whatsoever.

But only if there isn't too much overkill, if stuff remains functional only then can it really become to function. And only as such can comics artwork become or be truely a thing of itself. As being something different to movies or movieposters or toy box art or any non-sequential art.

From my point of view, that is.

[kalorama]

I'm clearly not saying any of those things 'though.

That wasn't really clear at all.