Behold! The House of Byrne!
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/2007-07-17_162615_Studio.jpg)[/spoiler]
There's almost enough room for his ego.
Ba-dum dum! Thank you thank you. Just one show a night folks!.
Ren with the burn on Byrne! :lol:
Byrne may have a big ego, but he's hit the nail head on with his views on the state of the comics industry today. And he hates Joe Q, so that's a serious plus in my book.
JB posted that picture in a thread about a comic that a fan is paying him to do. The art there with the gorilla on it is from that comic.
(For those who don't go to Byrne Robotics, one of the posters there who apparently has his own mint commissioned an actual comic by John Byrne; the person who commissioned it either wrote it or at least gave JB a plot line, and Byrne is paying for the lettering out of his own pocket because he suggested the letterer (John Workman), and the person commissioning it plans on actually publishing the comic once its done)
If I ever win the lottery, I've got AT LEAST a dozen ideas for commissions I'd get from Byrne alone. (Him and George Perez are my two favorite comics artists that are still alive)
QuoteByrne may have a big ego, but he's hit the nail head on with his views on the state of the comics industry today. And he hates Joe Q, so that's a serious plus in my book.
Hear hear!
I would love to get an Alpha Flight commission (Guardian, Sasquatch, and Puck) from him someday!
I kid about Byrne only out of love. I know some folks take issue with him, but I'm not one of them. I have great admiration for his work. No one nails Wolverine better than Byrne. No one.
Haven't really looked at much of Byrne's current stuff, the last time I seriously followed his work was when he was doing Namor during the early 1990s (I remember my mum seeing a copy with Namorita in it and she thought it was a nudie magazine :lol: I had to explain to her that most superheroines dressed in tight-fitting bikinis). The thing I remember from his run back then was that I thought that his work looked better when he was collaborating with an inker on the level of Ordway or Austin (he had a tendency to over-render things when he inked over his own pencils), and that his lettering often came out smeared and blurry (this was before the advent of digital printing technology).
Still, he's one of the artists who laid the foundation for modern superhero art, and it's great that he's got the following that he has based on the strength of his work.
Quote from: Renegade on July 17, 2007, 07:50:42 PM
I kid about Byrne only out of love. I know some folks take issue with him, but I'm not one of them. I have great admiration for his work. No one nails Wolverine better than Byrne. No one.
Amen. He also does a darn good Batman, and me and some of the other posters over at his forum have been practically begging him to do a run on the character - even if he's only the artist and not writing as well - and unfortunately he has valid reasons for refusing to do so. (He said he's turned down offers to do a Batman book on a few occasions) It kills me every time he does a Batman or Captain America commission, because I'd love to see him do a decent length run on either character. A run on Cap...or any Marvel book, for that matter, isn't likely to happen with Joe Quesada as Marvel's Editor In Chief. (The run Byrne did with Roger Stern he did on Cap back in `80s was painfully short, and the two-parter in #253-254 is one of my favorite two part stories of all time; he did a pencils only commission once based on #254 that had me drooling......Byrne has since changed his policy and no longer accepts pencils only commissions. Again, he has a valid reason why.)
Byrne does have an ego, but he pretty much acknowledges that he does, but you also have to understand he's a bit jaded due to being screwed over several times (Joe Q pretty much killed X-Men: Hidden Years for no good reason, for one thing - it was selling well despite not getting much advertising beyone word of mouth and was cancelled, while some books that weren't selling nearly as well weren't) and isn't too thrilled with the state of the industry today, and you can't really blame him.
Anyone who is a Byrne fan should visit Byrne Robotics to check out the forum; he answers questions a lot, unless they are really stupid. Only thing is, you can't access the other sections of the forum (Movies, TV, Star Wars, Music, Sports, etc) beyond the main area unless you register, and you have to use your real name; screen names aren't allowed. There's weekly discussions of his runs on Fantastic Four and West Coast Avengers (Namor has already been completed) with one of the regular posters scanning in pages from the printed comics and Byrne offers some interesting insights on the stories and artwork. Plus, he posts pics of the commissions he does on the forum, and they are usually jawdroppers (anyone who says Byrne has lost it as an artist definitely hasn't seen the commissions he's done lately....).
I've always enjoyed Byrne's work, I just enjoy it more when he doesn't do his own inks. ;)
That's one hell of a studio.
:eek2:
-MJB
You should see the pics Byrne has posted of other parts of his house, and some fairly decent shots of some of the original art (by other artists, natch) he has on his walls.
He owns a life-size Gort, from the Day The Earth Stood Still!
One of the things I admire most about John Byrne is the respect he gives the characters. He would never do anything that would permanentaly damage them. He loves comics plain and simple.
Unlike certain writers today that thrive on bashing the genre...taking lame pot-shots whenever they can.
As for my "studio". It's a desk in a corner of my living room at the moment! I should post a pic. :lol:
And speaking of Byrne's Wolverine...
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/2007-07-12_124307_WolverineMontageA.jpg)[/spoiler]
I've drifted by Byrne Robotics a few times over the years, but only briefly. And yeah, his commissions are fun. That commissioned comic is a heckuva idea. I wish I had that kind of cash to burn (or is that Byrne?). Of course, since the guy plans on selling copies, maybe it's just plain innovative.
Coincidentally, I was flipping through the Batman/Captain America book Byrne did. What a wacky concept: An out of continuity tale of a WWII era Bats and Cap team up that is actually in continuity with Byrne's out of continuity Generations mini series! I don't know who greenlit that project, but I'm awful glad they did!
Quote from: Renegade on July 17, 2007, 10:14:01 PM
I've drifted by Byrne Robotics a few times over the years, but only briefly. And yeah, his commissions are fun. That commissioned comic is a heckuva idea. I wish I had that kind of cash to burn (or is that Byrne?). Of course, since the guy plans on selling copies, maybe it's just plain innovative.
Coincidentally, I was flipping through the Batman/Captain America book Byrne did. What a wacky concept: An out of continuity tale of a WWII era Bats and Cap team up that is actually in continuity with Byrne's out of continuity Generations mini series! I don't know who greenlit that project, but I'm awful glad they did!
Its sad that DC never collected Generations 3 into a TPB (or two). JB said that he had ideas for a Generations 4 and another Bat/Cap crossover in mind, but that they'll likely never happen. (Due to DC and Marvel not doing any more crossovers and DC putting a kibosh on Elseworlds type stories for the forseeable future).
Bit of trivia I found out from Byrne's forum: there's an image of Darkseid's face hidden in the covers of all the issues of Generations 3 (that is, you can see the image once you put all the covers together in a grid), but someone forgot to tell the colorist, so its hard to find. (I don't have any of the issues, anyway; I'm going to look for a set on eBay or somewhere else eventually)
Forgot to mention another reason to visit Byrne Robotics: A few of Byrne's past collaborators (Like Howard Mackie and Joe Rubenstein) and some other comics professionals (Andy Smith, for instance) post there from time to time. Anyone read the Flash series that just ended? Marc Guggenheim visited Byrne's forum and named one of the people killed by Zoom in an issue (#10, I think) after one of the posters there! (Not me, unfortunately.....)
There's also a new section of the forum just for commissions that was added recently; the commission threads start in the regular forum then get moved to the new section after a while. So even if you don't want to post, you should consider registering just to check out the commission discussion threads.
John Byrne was (unknowingly) the first artist I became a fan of. I was young and didn't realize what an artist was or why the comics looked different. Then one day I figured out all the comics I had labelled as "good" were actually drawn by the same guy, John Byrne! Luckily he drew alot of Marvel books at the time.
His art has definitely evolved over the years. Some people don't like it, but as I've mentioned before, I like it because it has a more organic look to it. If you haven't seen his "new stuff", check out "Blood of the Demon". I missed it the first time around and am hunting down back issues. The art is so visceral and has the energy of a Kirby comic. It's also one of the darkest comics I've seen him do (sadly, can't recommend it for the kiddies).
What I like about John Byrne the most, is his respect for the creators who pioneered comics. He is heavily influenced by Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Neak Adams, Joe Kubert, Curt Swan, etc. He really is a fan of their work, and doesn't just pay "homage" by adding a cheesy line like the inside of an Image cover ("This comic is dedicated to some guy I don't really know, but I hope you'll buy the comic if I mention their cool name!"). The first time I realized this was during his run on She-Hulk. He would keep adding these weird aliens and monsters (most were Kirby creations) and I had to wonder where he got these guys? This actually got me to look back at older comics before my time. Soon I was discovering why people thought Kirby was so great, reliving the magic of Ditko, and discovering others along the way like Herb Trimpe. It's been a great ride and I really have to thank John Byrne for including all the little hints in his comics to "Take a trip through that old wax museum there, boy. You won't be disappointed!".
He's a good artist in comic books, but a lot of those very expensive commission pieces look sloppy to me, ie characters with the wrong number of fingers, awful foreshortening of limbs, inexplicable perspective, ugly faces, etc. All forgivable as one panel amongst hundreds in a comic book where you are drawn on by the story, not forgivable in stand alone pieces on a wall, In my Opinion.
As to his forums, although I don't think him quite the buffoon others do, he does himself no favours by deleting many threads in which he is less than wholeheartedly agreed with, or by banning those who simply disagree with him. OK, its "his house", as people never tire of saying, and a Troll is a Troll, and nobody should have to tolerate them, but his almost Stalinist revisionisim of any thread where his views are successfully challenged is beyond Moderation, in any of its meanings. And he is much ruder than he needs to be, in an arena where any comeback can be edited out by him, he is reminiscient of the nauseating and cowardly "shock-jock" with his finger on the cut-off button any time he starts to lose an argument.
As for his "respect" of characters, who was it who had Superman kill again? Who was it had Superman and Big Barda film a porno together? Who had spider-man snogging an underage admirer? Who dismantled the Vision, and set up the Dreck that is Bendis' take on the Scarlet Witch? Whose fixation with "bad girls" has many a female superhero turn "dark" which seems to equal sexual predator (ie Scarlet Witch, Invisible Woman, etc). I think that his respect is no greater than any one elses in the industry, if he thinks going against a fundamental part of a character will add to a story (as in "Superman Doesn't Kill. Period"), he'll do it.
But, on the plus side, he is a classically good superhero artist, he isn't quite the idiot that a selective choice of his online posts would make him seem, and he hasn't done many worse stories than most other creators.
I neither revere nor loathe him. He is a human being, whose art should perhaps be regarded separately from his personality.
Byrne's work is the reason why I started collecting comic books again in the 80's. I was never a fan of the Hulk or Sub Mariner till Byrne took of their books.
Byrne doesn't have a habit of banning those who disagree with him. There have been a few people banned from there since I started going, but just about all of them were trolls to begin with or eventually became trolls, and most of them were banned by one of the moderators, not JB himself. There are a LOT of artists with bigger egos than JB, and some of them who really overestimate their worth (go look and see how much Marc Silvestri charges for a commission - and make sure you're not eating or drinking, so you don't choke when you start laughing - then go look and see what Bob Layton charges. Bob Layton, while not active in comics and mainly known for his work on Iron Man back in the 80s, is a LOT more reasonable with his pricing). However, I will admit he rarely ever admits he's wrong when someone really does challenge him and proves their point, but he does sometimes.
He does ban conversations about most super hero movies, but its because quite frankly today none of them are done right and I can see why he doesn't like people talking about them. He really disliked the first Fantastic Four movie and there was a discussion about why he and some of the other posters (me included) had problems with it, but its one of the subjects that is taboo right now.
Oh, and there's only been three commissions I've seen any real problems with; he did an Invisible Woman commission and accidentally gave her six fingers on one hand, a Black Queen and White Queen where the faces could have been better, and a Batman rescuing a woman from muggers where the shape of the victim's head seemed off, but that's about it.
If you want to see some of what I think are his best commissions, check out just about any of them featuring Batman (there's one where I swear he was channelling Neal Adams AND Dick Giordano at the same time!), the Captain America #254 pencils only commission I've mentioned before and look up the Jay Garrick Flash character pose.
Even his worst stuff is still pretty good, and the only reason I'd nitpick it is because these are commissions, not panels within a page within a comic.
Theres a huge thread at the joequesada forums devoted to people picking the "worst" bits out of Byrne's forums, so I've seen a fair few of his commissions there (good and "bad"), not to mention them picking out every possible fault of Byrne. Now, 90% of these I think don't warrant notice or repetition, we can all be a bit rude, or opinionated, or just wrong. But sometimes he is just a git. The "filesharing = defile" thread was about the worst of these, that I bothered to read.
But the bottom line for me is I don't know ANY comic creators personally, and by and large I don't care whether they are saints or sinners, so whether Byrne is a great guy or full time git is of little interest to me.
Other creators can be high handed on their own sites, as much as Byrne (like Warren Ellis, for instance) if not moreso. I still enjoy their comics. If they stray into racism, homophobia or Ayn Rand-ism, I tend to avoid their work from then on, but even though I dislike Ditko's politics, his Spider-man and Doc Strange are close to genius.
Tommyboy, I don't mean to start an argument or be insulting, but in my opinion a thread nitpicking people's work at a Joe Quesada forum is like having a civil rights forum on a KKK website. Joe Q is easily the worst EIC Marvel has had, and the way Civil War went, he and his fans have pretty much lost any credibility to be nitpicking or critizing anyone else's work for a while in my book. (If I had my way, Joe Q would be fired as EIC but kept on as a writer as long as there's someone around to reign in his bad ideas, and Mark Millar would be run out of the business completely, because he's a third rate hack) Quesada is a pretty good writer, when he has someone around to keep him in check, but he's a fanboy and fanboys should NEVER be running the show.
I don't agree with Byrne's politics (he's a Republican, and I'm a person who votes for the person, not the party, but am currently leaning toward the Dems) and he's an atheist while I used to be an agnostic when I was in my teens but now believe in God but not organized religion (I'm *supposed* to be a Baptist), but I don't hold that or his character flaws against him as a creator. I definitely don't agree with John Romita Jr's politics after hearing him talk some at Adventurecon this year, and he's my third favorite artist (behind Byrne and George Perez) who is still active.
QuoteAs for his "respect" of characters, who was it who had Superman kill again? Who was it had Superman and Big Barda film a porno together? Who had spider-man snogging an underage admirer? Who dismantled the Vision, and set up the Dreck that is Bendis' take on the Scarlet Witch? Whose fixation with "bad girls" has many a female superhero turn "dark" which seems to equal sexual predator (ie Scarlet Witch, Invisible Woman, etc). I think that his respect is no greater than any one elses in the industry, if he thinks going against a fundamental part of a character will add to a story (as in "Superman Doesn't Kill. Period"), he'll do it.
Didn't the golden age Superman kill from time to time?
I never read the Action Comics storyline in which this happened but Byrne's response from his own FAQ was this
" If you want it to be a porno flick, it was a porno flick. If you don't, it wasn't!". I'm not entirely sure what that means since...again... I never read the storyline. If anyone knows the circumstances of this please fill me in. :P
Byrne's believes that when you write a character you can change things obviously...but make sure you undo what you did before you stop writing that character, putting the "Toys
back into the Toybox" as he calls it. How many of these changes that you listed would he have reversed if he was on the titles longer (due to cancelations, being forced off a book, etc)?
Do you think Byrne would've warped characters like Spider-Man, Ironman, Mr. Fantastic, and Wolverine so badly, like current Marvel writers have? These characters are so far gone...only a complete reboot can save them now.
I don't care about his politcs, ego, or how he runs his forum. He knows how to write and draw superhero comics...which is what is most important to me.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
QuoteAs for his "respect" of characters, who was it who had Superman kill again? Who was it had Superman and Big Barda film a porno together? Who had spider-man snogging an underage admirer? Who dismantled the Vision, and set up the Dreck that is Bendis' take on the Scarlet Witch? Whose fixation with "bad girls" has many a female superhero turn "dark" which seems to equal sexual predator (ie Scarlet Witch, Invisible Woman, etc). I think that his respect is no greater than any one elses in the industry, if he thinks going against a fundamental part of a character will add to a story (as in "Superman Doesn't Kill. Period"), he'll do it.
Didn't the golden age Superman kill from time to time?
Yep, and Batman carried a gun. But both those things are not really relevant to the characters as they have been portrayed for the majority of their time, in my opinion.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
I never read the Action Comics storyline in which this happened but Byrne's response from his own FAQ was this " If you want it to be a porno flick, it was a porno flick. If you don't, it wasn't!". I'm not entirely sure what that means since...again... I never read the storyline. If anyone knows the circumstances of this please fill me in. :P
I have read it, and from the context of the story, and the characters' reactions and comments, it's obviously a porno. If he wants to play the coy, "nudge nudge, wink wink, its whatever you want it to be" card, then he has no faith in his own work. If not a porno, what was it? What possible explanation for what "Sleeze" filmed could explain what Barda and Superman say and do afterwards? Did he make them do push ups? Eat hundreds of boiled eggs? Drink bad milk? If he said, "yes I wrote a story with sex in it, so what?", I could respect that. But to hide behind innuendo and "I didn't do it" seems a bit pathetic to me.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
Byrne's believes that when you write a character you can change things obviously...but make sure you undo what you did before you stop writing that character, putting the "Toys back into the Toybox" as he calls it. How many of these changes that you listed would he have reversed if he was on the titles longer (due to cancelations, being forced off a book, etc)?
Yeah, sure, if he was writing them forever etc etc etc. Doesn't hold up for me. If it's not a change that he undid, then it's a change, period. I'm not interested in hypothetical comics that he might have written IF he had stayed on, only with those he actually wrote in reality.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
Do you think Byrne would've warped characters like Spider-Man, Ironman, Mr. Fantastic, and Wolverine so badly, like current Marvel writers have? These characters are so far gone...only a complete reboot can save them now.
I don't think he would have done the same as current writers, but yes, based on his treatment of Wanda and Vision, and their kids, I think I'd be as displeased with his version as any current one.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
I don't care about his politcs, ego, or how he runs his forum. He knows how to write and draw superhero comics...which is what is most important to me.
Well, I agree that he can draw. And others enjoy his writing (though I don't personally) so it can't all be bad.
And I agree that his Forum, Politics or anything else shouldn't be relevant to his comics, for the most part.
He's a good artist. Maybe even a great one. And has some good ideas too. But like Jack Kirby, I prefer his work when he has a writer working with him, just like I prefer Stan lee when he doesn't draw the comics as well as write them..
Quote from: tommyboy on July 18, 2007, 06:31:57 PM
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 18, 2007, 05:59:49 PM
I never read the Action Comics storyline in which this happened but Byrne's response from his own FAQ was this " If you want it to be a porno flick, it was a porno flick. If you don't, it wasn't!". I'm not entirely sure what that means since...again... I never read the storyline. If anyone knows the circumstances of this please fill me in. :P
I have read it, and from the context of the story, and the characters' reactions and comments, it's obviously a porno. If he wants to play the coy, "nudge nudge, wink wink, its whatever you want it to be" card, then he has no faith in his own work. If not a porno, what was it? What possible explanation for what "Sleeze" filmed could explain what Barda and Superman say and do afterwards? Did he make them do push ups? Eat hundreds of boiled eggs? Drink bad milk? If he said, "yes I wrote a story with sex in it, so what?", I could respect that. But to hide behind innuendo and "I didn't do it" seems a bit pathetic to me.
Hmm, I'm not getting the same vibe here. First off, both characters are shown to be mind-controlled.
At the start of that story (the vhs revelation) ...yeah, it's very much a nudge, nudge, wink, wink..."guess what they are doing?" shocker. However, in the middle of the story, Superman is actually resisting the mind-control and can't be forced (due to his strict moral fiber) to play out the acting. Thus I get the feeling the first tape is probably something more benign and perhaps Mister Miracle and Oberon are a little more naive (as most superheroes tend to be) about these things. That might sound far-fetched but not necessarily if you take into account that things that were risquee in the 50s, people wouldn't even bat an eyelash at nowadays.
At any rate, I think I'm pretty much of the same mind as C6 about Byrne's handling of characters. Some of the more modern writers have no concept of the personality of the characters they are working with, nor do they care. They also have no interest in researching characters. I get the impression that Byrne does quite a bit of research on any comic he is taking on. He might not have the same ideas that I would after researching them, but I think he comes pretty darn close.
Just out of curiosity tommyboy, which writers do you enjoy?
Quote from: psychopanda on July 18, 2007, 07:28:51 PM
Just out of curiosity tommyboy, which writers do you enjoy?
Do enjoy/have enjoyed:
Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Paul Chadwick, Mike Baron, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek, Steve Englehart, Joss Whedon, Mark Waid, Roy Thomas, Stan Lee, Will Eisner, Scott McCloud, Eric Shanower, Judd Winnick, Jim Starlin, Warren Ellis, Robert Kirkman, Dan Slott, Joe Casey, Mark Gruenwald, Peter David, James Robinson, Bill Willingham, Ed Brubaker, los Bros Hernandez, Darwyn Cooke, Steve Gerber, Garth Ennis, Frank Miller, and others. Those are the guys who spring to mind. There are others who I'll kick myself for forgetting.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 17, 2007, 10:10:24 PMAnd speaking of Byrne's Wolverine...
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/2007-07-12_124307_WolverineMontageA.jpg)[/spoiler]
I'm not a fan of Wolverine but that pic is awesome.
-MJB
Thanks for answering tommyboy. I was curious to see if you knew some writers that were quite different from my tastes. It looks like we have a lot in common though.
Dark. Phoenix. Saga.
<3 Byrne
Here's my "studio" for comparison :lol:
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/my_studio_lol.jpg)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 23, 2007, 11:00:07 AM
Here's my "studio" for comparison :lol:
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/my_studio_lol.jpg)[/spoiler]
Cool, C6! Love the black and white "seat cushion"! ;)
I have to seriously laugh at that last comment by IPS, considering some of the artists working today are a LOT worse on their best day than Byrne on his worst day. Frank Quitely gets work, and his characters tend to be downright fugly at times. For example:
This is supposed to be the White Queen, but looks more like some ugly asian chick to me, and the facial proportions are off, amongst other things:
http://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/xmen/xmen116.jpg
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 23, 2007, 12:33:34 PM
I have to seriously laugh at that last comment by IPS, considering some of the artists working today are a LOT worse on their best day than Byrne on his worst day. Frank Quitely gets work, and his characters tend to be downright fugly at times. For example:
This is supposed to be the White Queen, but looks more like some ugly asian chick to me, and the facial proportions are off, amongst other things:
http://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/xmen/xmen116.jpg
It is called style. Frank Quietly has an European approach to draws while Byrne's is simple straight forward anatomy. Quietly's work has a lot of French influence (heavily yet simple details) so saying she looks like an "ugly asian" is sort of flaming because you don't agree with the style.
BTW Chris Bachalo and a few other very detailed is also consider a "bad artist" because of his style but all art is subjective.
Quote from: psychopanda on July 23, 2007, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 23, 2007, 11:00:07 AM
Here's my "studio" for comparison :lol:
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/my_studio_lol.jpg)[/spoiler]
Cool, C6! Love the black and white "seat cushion"! ;)
Me too! It's very comfy...but a little noisy at times :P
Quotethat's actually very true. i should have qualified the statement by saying something like he wouldn't be able to compete with the talented young illustrators of this generation. but i conceed... if liefield and linda medley could be employed... anyone can.
Wow...I actually find this more insulting than your first post.
QuoteIt is called style. Frank Quietly has an European approach to draws while Byrne's is simple straight forward anatomy. Quietly's work has a lot of French influence (heavily yet simple details) so saying she looks like an "ugly asian" is sort of flaming because you don't agree with the style.
BTW Chris Bachalo and a few other very detailed is also consider a "bad artist" because of his style but all art is subjective.
I dunno, I've seen quite a few bad artists who claimed that it was their "style" to draw like that. And I have to admit that, although I've seen Frank Quietly art, I can't remember it, and am not familiar with Chris Bachalo (gonna have to look him up).
As for bad, ever see any 1960s-vintage Jerry Grandinetti art?
Quote from: daglob on July 23, 2007, 02:17:01 PMI dunno, I've seen quite a few bad artists who claimed that it was their "style" to draw like that.
The thing about having a distinct "style" is that many artists immediately jump into a very stylized rendition of the human form without first gaining a solid grasp of fundamentals.
Grossly exaggerating the human body while maintaining a believable sense of anatomy, movement, and perspective is just as hard, or sometimes even more difficult, than creating a relatively straightforward rendering. Guys like the aforementioned Quitely and Bachalo as well as Mike Mignola (http://www.lambiek.net/artists/m/mignola/mignola_zombieworld.jpg), Kyle Baker (http://michaelmay.us/temp/1013_bakerplasticman.jpg), Skottie Young (http://www.alphaflight.net/news_archives/af7_bw_cover.jpg), and even Jack Kirby have all, at one time or another, been labeled as "bad" artists because of their tendency to distort and re-interpret the human form. I suspect that those who consider these guys "bad" artists are actually just not receptive to the artist's particular style of artistic re-interpretation so it's actually just a matter of taste and opinion. What differentiates Kirby/Mignola/Quitely/Bachalo from your Rob Liefelds, Whilce Portacios (and I'm a Portacio fan), and Todd McFarlanes is that they know which rules to break and when to break them to achieve a desired effect.
You can liken it to playing music... good musicians know how and when to improvise within the confines of a structured song. A great lead guitar player, for example, can totally go away from what the sheet music calls for and come up with something new and unexpected, but for the most part, he still stays in tempo with the rest of the band, is in key, and doesn't let his solo overshadow the whole song. Starting artists, whether in music or comic book illustration, often confuse "rule-breaking" for innovation, and tendency for technique or style.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 23, 2007, 11:00:07 AM
Here's my "studio" for comparison :lol:
[spoiler](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/my_studio_lol.jpg)[/spoiler]
I aint seen that much drafting equipment in 15 years. Those were the days when draftsmen actually had to know how to draw by hand. Man, am I old. Next thing you know I'll be telling you how I killed a T-Rex with my straight edge and compass.
Quote from: AfghanAnt on July 23, 2007, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 23, 2007, 12:33:34 PM
I have to seriously laugh at that last comment by IPS, considering some of the artists working today are a LOT worse on their best day than Byrne on his worst day. Frank Quitely gets work, and his characters tend to be downright fugly at times. For example:
This is supposed to be the White Queen, but looks more like some ugly asian chick to me, and the facial proportions are off, amongst other things:
http://www.uncannyxmen.net/covers/xmen/xmen116.jpg
It is called style. Frank Quietly has an European approach to draws while Byrne's is simple straight forward anatomy. Quietly's work has a lot of French influence (heavily yet simple details) so saying she looks like an "ugly asian" is sort of flaming because you don't agree with the style.
BTW Chris Bachalo and a few other very detailed is also consider a "bad artist" because of his style but all art is subjective.
AA, its NOT flaming when I (and most people) expect a character to be recognizable by more than their costume when they don't wear a mask. You can't honestly tell me that the character on that cover looks ANYTHING like Emma Frost except for the costume and hair color. As for the "Ugly Asian" comment, I distinctly remember seeing that issue on the stands and actually thinking it was an asian character with white hair until I took a look at the costume. From what I've seen of his most recent work on All-Star Superman, his art has improved somewhat, but I did not like his work on New X-Men at all, as a lot of the characters didn't look right and he even made most of the female characters look mostly unattractive. I do agree taste is subjective, however.
The ONLY artist I will ever accept accusations of flaming is Rob Liefeld, because I still to this day can't figure out how the man ever got a job.....
I actually like Chris Bachalo's work, by the way.
First there was Byrne's.
dunnnh-dunnnh..
Then there was C6's.
dunnnh-duhhnhnnnnhh...
And finally there was PsychoPanda's.
dunh-dunh-dunh-dunh-dunhhhhh....
Introducing the Studio-Matic 2001*!
[spoiler](http://www.psychopanda.net/images/desk.jpg)[/spoiler]
*Studio-Matic 2001 is copyright 1961, Studio Plastic inc.
That almost looks like my set-up 'panda, except I also have a pane of frosted glass that I put on my lap and use as a light table (I have a small LED lamp that I place between my legs for the actual light source) :lol:
Actually, I seldom draw there. I have painted on that table several times (still some items from my last class, scattered there). Usually I just curl up on the couch or use the dining table. I almost bought a drafting table at a garage sale one day, but I don't really like the idea of being chained to one room to do my sketching. If I found a really nice table with a sliding ruler and everything though...who knows?!