|
I don't believe I've ever read any Thor comics from before Walter Simonson's run, but this Kirby page from #161 is pretty cool. His work on Thor never seems to get the same attention as his work on FF, even though he worked on it for about as long.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:This will answer your question. So she ate his face, but his face is still there? Did she just swirl it around in her mouth or something? Jesus Christ I hate everything about this whole thing. I can take a poo poo once a day reliably, maybe I should write/draw comics, too. How do these people find work? It just makes me so internet mad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
They get work because drawing quickly, consistently, and extensively is really loving hard and while it bugs me I can't really tear apart the actual art on those pages despite how gross the content is. By mainstream comic standards it's not that bad, hell it's arguably pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
You know 40 odd years ago the idea of "Joker's Daughter" would have been some silly lighthearted silver age fluff, probably with an over the top cover of Batman and Robin in a three-legged race against Joker and his daughter for the prize of the key to Gotham or some such thing. Man how far we have come.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Madkal posted:You know 40 odd years ago the idea of "Joker's Daughter" would have been some silly lighthearted silver age fluff, probably with an over the top cover of Batman and Robin in a three-legged race against Joker and his daughter for the prize of the key to Gotham or some such thing. Man how far we have come.      edit: As an aside, J's D on the cover of Batman Family up there looks just like singer Chantal Claret and now I want her to rock that outfit on stage. redbackground fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:They get work because drawing quickly, consistently, and extensively is really loving hard and while it bugs me I can't really tear apart the actual art on those pages despite how gross the content is. By mainstream comic standards it's not that bad, hell it's arguably pretty good. The one shot was written by one of Snyder's protegés by the way, this is her third work on DC, the first one was the introduction of NuLobo and one filler on Talon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
redbackground posted:You are closer than you know. Wow. I didn't know those existed. So we have this character becoming dark because we are in a more "mature" comics zone right now. Sigh. ^^^^didn't she also right a Batman annual. I remember quite enjoying that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Wow. I didn't know those existed. So we have this character becoming dark because we are in a more "mature" comics zone right now. Sigh. Yeah the Joker's Daughter has been a character that has never quite worked but for some reason DC writers keep bringing her back and trying to make her work. Dark_Tzitzimine posted:The one shot was written by one of Snyder's protegés by the way, this is her third work on DC, the first one was the introduction of NuLobo and one filler on Talon. Much as I hate NuLobo and feel indifferent about Talon I've got to admit she's not bad. I just wish she had better material. Oh well, knowing how mercurial comics can be she may yet get a chance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Yeah the Joker's Daughter has been a character that has never quite worked Harley Quinn is pretty much the same idea done better anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Much as I hate NuLobo and feel indifferent about Talon I've got to admit she's not bad. I just wish she had better material. Oh well, knowing how mercurial comics can be she may yet get a chance. You know, there's some glimpses of a really interesting story about this "joker's daughter" buried under the shocking and grim nonsense than filled the one shot. However, it seems than she (and Tynion) can't write anything but horror and have some weird quirks on their writting. Working away from Snyder's influence would do wonders for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
So Joker has no face. That is a thing now? They saw the Heath Ledger scars and said, "We gotta top that." I like grim and gritty but Christ there is a point where it is so over the top and DC seems to love throwing it out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
grim and gritty overdone that way always comes off as embarrasing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
It's that old chestnut about trying too hard to look mature just makes you look juvenile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Joker's Daughter? Did they not give her an actual name back then? Would have expected Jokerella or Ms. Joker or something at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Joker's Daughter? Did they not give her an actual name back then? Would have expected Jokerella or Ms. Joker or something at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
No she was always just the Joker's Daughter as a handle because she claimed to be the Joker's Daughter and no one could get a straight answer to that question. IIRC she had some business with the Teen Titans back in the 70s before the Perez/Wolfman run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I almost wish that was a more common phrasing for comic book characters; then we could have had a legendary moniker like Superman's Cousin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Joker's Daughter was, after a few mischievous appearances, actually a good guy. All of her pranks were attempts to get Robin's attention so she could join the Teen Titans, which she did. But she didn't always go by Joker's Daughter. She was also Penguin's Daughter, Riddler's Daughter, Catgirl, and Scarecrone. Perhaps needless to say, the fact that her real name was Duela Dent probably tells you she wasn't actually the daughter of the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, or Scarecrow. She also went by the names Card Queen and Harlequin during her heroic career.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Then there was this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Wow wikipedia says that one was weird:quote:A costumed anarchist in the city of New Atlantis uses pranks to highlight the failings and hypocrisy of those in power. Ugly costume though. Combining the Purple/White/Green of the Joker with the Red/White/Black of Harley Quinn does not a good design make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:From the Joker's Daughter oneshot: I don't think that art is that bad. The idea and concept, eh, but the art in itself is decent. Especially as we just came off a discussion about tracing everything from bodies to faces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:I don't think that art is that bad. Probably you're right, but there's something about the pose and the perspective than make her look really weird plus, she's prime material for Escher girls. Her spine 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Since we're talking about tracing, photo referencing and poo poo like that, where does collage fall in to this discussion? Think of the sorts of things Bill Sienkiewicz started to do towards the middle of his career and once he moved past aping Neil Adams. this argument about "tracing" and "borrowing" things reminds me of a couple of things. First, I think of artists like Warhol, Max Ernst and DuChamp who used "found objects", photos and collage and things like that and made them into art. When I used collage, I found my pictures in the trash so I always justified what I did by saying "Hey, I'm making my art out of garbage here". Second, I think of rap artists who sample riffs and beats to create something new. What's the difference between someone like the Beastie Boys or Public Enemy loping a beat or sampling a track as opposed to someone straight up stealing a riff or a beat even if they're playing it on an instrument? Musicians do it and admit to it all the time ("borrowing" a riff/beat/back end from here and there). Third, I remember my art teachers telling em that even if you trace, you still have to know how to draw and it's true. There's a difference between what works in a photo and what works as a drawing. If you see it in a photo, you automatically believe it, but if you draw it in a way that looks wrong, people know it. When I was in school, I used the xeorox machine and magazine references all the time but I was careful about what I used (no National Geographic). Lastly, doesn't the "tracing" argument compare in some ways to the same sorts of criticism people leveled at artists that used computers to color or refine their work, those that used manufactured things like Zip-A-Tone shading and press type or even Lucy projectors to enlarge their sketches into larger illustrations? Musicians that suddenly "plugged in" and went electric? Musicians that used synthesizers and drum machines? I suppose the real trick and the fine line artist's walk is to make it your own and not a straight up rip off. No one cares that Paul's Boutique blends Johhny Cash, Bob Dylan, Joe Walsh, James Brown, Hendrix, John Williams and John and Artie Mitchell because they use all that poo poo to create something new. But they care when Vanilla Ice (Under Pressure), MC Hammer (Super Freak) or Mariah Carrey (Genius of Love) straight up steals a song and sells it as fresh. Then again, Lady Gaga is totally ripping off Madonna and Tom Petty straight up sued the Red Hot Chile Peppers for "Dani California", and I don't think either of the latter artists were blatantly trying to steal those songs. No one seems to care that Led Zeppelin straight up stole at least half the poo poo that made them stars. A: because they played it themselves and B: because no one ever heard of the people they stole it from. TL/DR The difference between "tracing" and "drawing", "copying" and "referencing", "sampling" and "stealing" all seems to come down to how much the artist doing it makes the work resonate in a way that's uniquely his or her own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
This is Greg Land https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0hEi8zhmg
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The difference between "tracing" and "drawing", "copying" and "referencing", "sampling" and "stealing" all seems to come down to how much the artist doing it makes the work resonate in a way that's uniquely his or her own. And I never heard Warhol going "Oh uh, no, that's totally a can of soup I designed and made myself!" He was specifically commenting on commercialism. He was using the fact that it was Campbell's. If we were to give Land a LOT of credit I guess we could make the argument that he's making a comment on the sexuality and/or fetishism of superhero comics by depicting them all as barely-disguised porn actors but it seems much more likely he's just cutting corners and his work suffers for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Tom Petty straight up sued the Red Hot Chile Peppers for "Dani California" He didn't, though. In fact, he was pretty chill about it, saying "I seriously doubt that there is any negative intent there. And a lot of rock & roll songs sound alike." Though he did get his publisher to send a C&D letter to George W. Bush for using one of his songs without permission,
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
On the other hand, Roy Lichtenstein is revered in fine art world, despite the efforts of respectable comic book creators - he applied Warhol's principles of recontextualizing "garbage" and treated comics like disposable products that are ripe for remixing into High Art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Phy posted:He didn't, though. In fact, he was pretty chill about it, saying "I seriously doubt that there is any negative intent there. And a lot of rock & roll songs sound alike." Though he did get his publisher to send a C&D letter to George W. Bush for using one of his songs without permission, Yeah, the former bit doesn't seem like something Tom Petty would do. BiggerBoat posted:TL/DR While not dealing with artists specifically, I think this best explains the difference between a reference / homage and rip-off, as the lines often tend to get blurred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Lobok posted:If we were to give Land a LOT of credit I guess we could make the argument that he's making a comment on the sexuality and/or fetishism of superhero comics by depicting them all as barely-disguised porn actors but it seems much more likely he's just cutting corners and his work suffers for it. In any case, it would be hard to make that argument when the same laziness appears in every aspect of his artwork, not just the depiction of women like, what would he be commenting on by populating his space battles with poorly-Photoshopped stock images of F-15s? Sci-fi's love affair with martial themes being inextricably linked to the genre's historically close relationship to the western military-industrial complex? It rapidly reaches the point of absurdity if you try and give him the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:On the other hand, Roy Lichtenstein is revered in fine art world, despite the efforts of respectable comic book creators - he applied Warhol's principles of recontextualizing "garbage" and treated comics like disposable products that are ripe for remixing into High Art. That's not all he was interested in though. Comics, cartoons, and illustration in general have abstract shapes and images that are commonly understood as symbols and he was fascinated by those a lot of the time. Something like Kirby Krackle would have been immensely interesting to him, how people understood the use of Kirby's negative space dots to denote power or energy. Likewise with the parallel lines on a surface to denote reflectiveness, or how one draws flame or explosions in simplified forms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
Lobok posted:That's not all he was interested in though. Comics, cartoons, and illustration in general have abstract shapes and images that are commonly understood as symbols and he was fascinated by those a lot of the time. Something like Kirby Krackle would have been immensely interesting to him, how people understood the use of Kirby's negative space dots to denote power or energy. Likewise with the parallel lines on a surface to denote reflectiveness, or how one draws flame or explosions in simplified forms. Yeah, I mean people love to get mad at Lichtenstein for "ripping off" comic book artists but his work wasn't nearly as simple as that and the recontextualization of the work made a huge loving difference, and it was always presented as nothing more than it was. Comparing what he did to what Greg Land does is like saying a guy who draws a square in his notebook during class is just like Picasso. It's a long way to go to try to absolve a hack of blame for being so hacky.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
I'd say if you turn any popular exposé of Land's hackery into a museum exhibition and call a pic of surprised Sue Storm something clever you would get a kitcsch art sensation on your hand - with people praising his work as a fascinating critique of female objectification in popular culture. Chinese knockoff merchandise has more art value and thought material in it than Lichtenstein at this point. Lichtenstein did not credit his sources, which, with his elevation to pop art pantheon, contributed immensely to the refusal of accepting comic book art as worthy of any look without a cynical ironic detachment. Which, in my opinion, led to literary critics embracing comics instead, with Maus winning Pulitzer, comics being reviewed in the book sections of magazines and classic works getting second chance in big book reprints. History of American comics is the history of comic book artists being shat on, sadly. Something on the topic from Jamie Hewlett and Brendan McCarthy    (Hewligan's Haircut)      (Solo #12)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Since we're talking about tracing, photo referencing and poo poo like that, where does collage fall in to this discussion? Think of the sorts of things Bill Sienkiewicz started to do towards the middle of his career and once he moved past aping Neil Adams. this argument about "tracing" and "borrowing" things reminds me of a couple of things. This strikes me as funny since Neil Adams himself just talked about people who refuse to trace as a way of improving their art as morons on a recent Fat Man on Batman (Kevin Smith podcast number 20million. - but seriously Neil Adams spins an amazing story).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
 There is something off about this page, but I'm not exactly sure what. Is it the perspective on his lower legs? I'm pretty sure Luthor is down on his knees, but there is no floor  edit - Forever Evil #1, drawn by David Finch and written by Geoff Johns. Discount Trombones fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
There's not enough depth or perspective given to this portal and the energy emanating from it, coupled with a confusing sense of scale. The energy bolts in orange-white go kind-of underneath Luthor's feet but not really, and while the energy bolts in orange-white are clearly meant to be drawn in a manner similar to a tunnel they're far too short to properly convey the right amount of depth. If the portal was smaller or Luthor was bigger then it might have worked. Then the portal itself is colored a matte black, which can work as an expression of the alien in a universe where almost everything natural is a mish-mash of various shades, depths, and subtleties but here just appears flat at this size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
I think the angle of his arms and shoulders makes it appear as though he's bending backwards at an impossible angle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:There's not enough depth or perspective given to this portal and the energy emanating from it, coupled with a confusing sense of scale. The energy bolts in orange-white go kind-of underneath Luthor's feet but not really, and while the energy bolts in orange-white are clearly meant to be drawn in a manner similar to a tunnel they're far too short to properly convey the right amount of depth. If the portal was smaller or Luthor was bigger then it might have worked. Then the portal itself is colored a matte black, which can work as an expression of the alien in a universe where almost everything natural is a mish-mash of various shades, depths, and subtleties but here just appears flat at this size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Holy gently caress that's meant to be an eclipse!? I mean that does explain the matte black a bit more but holy gently caress someone needs to teach that artist about scale and stat. It's like a reverse of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
No, it's right. He was on a transparent platform about five feet in front of an electric spark shooting mini eclipse. It's a completely literal image. e: Oh and the New 52 rebooted speed lines as tangible real world objects, as they are depicted here. Damian Wayne was impaled on one. RIP. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
Ok that makes more sense, although I'll maintain that the orange-white bolts underneath him don't really work at all. I'm not well-versed enough in fine art to know if that's a mistake of perspective or not, but it seems like one to me. Even with a transparent platform causing some level of refraction it seems to me that the artist can't decide if the energy bolts are akin to a tunnel (which doesn't quite visually work given how close Luthor is), or more of a classic 2D starburst pattern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:12
|
|