Jordan7hm posted:

Random art from stuff I’ve been reading lately:

BiggerBoat posted:

Man, I was reading a comic book art thread somewhere and people were bagging on Bill Sienkiewicz for some unknown reason.

I went down a Moon Knight rabbit hole and holy poo poo look at these covers

https://www.google.com/search?q=bil...iw=1496&bih=686

Sienkiewicz is just sick. Transcended the medium which is hard to do.

Darthemed posted:

Batman/Punisher: Lake of Fire (1994)
Barry Kitson and James Pascoe are the credited artists.

Rotten Red Rod posted:

Apparently this is the current cartoon incarnation:



I'm not really sure what to think, but I'm gonna go with "it's not aimed at me so whatever".

Flesh Forge posted:

going back to this, in contrast I love it, in part because of the, well, the contrast
both the negative space use so you have a clear idea of who is where, and in the bottom right panel where the protags are very clearly differentiated from their opponents, you know exactly who is who and where they are, what they are doing

Begemot posted:

The average comic book artist has the same ability to draw a child as a medieval monk, apparently.

SacrificialGoat posted:

I know the thread title discourages Liefieldposting, but here's 3 and a half minutes of Stan Lee making GBS threads on his art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLFGWAyajU

Action Jacktion posted:

That was not long after the first live-action movie came out and they were trying to make the comic characters look more like the movie characters. I think they realized pretty quickly how horrifying they looked and dropped it.

funtax posted:

Basically, every Surfer image Tradd Moore has ever produced.

El Gallinero Gros posted:

Folks, gimme your coolest Silver Surfer art

Halloween Jack posted:

BiggerBoat posted:

I really like Simonson's kind of loose, weird blocky style. It seems like it shouldn't work but he really pulls it off and I find his stuff is just so...I dunno...interesting to look at. He'd be fun to ink. I used to have that "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" book way back in the day and me and my friend used to take turns inking the pencil drawings in it. You might be surprised to see how different they came out and, doing that exercise, I really learned a lot back then about how much an inker really contributes.

david_a posted:

Oh poo poo

I read episodes 1, 2, and 6 of that when I was a kid and ended up tracking down the TPB like 20 years later because the art stuck with me (and I wanted know what happened!)

Lobok posted:

Beyond the shading choices you can see how much the inks make and define Bane's neck.

I follow Francis Manapul on Instagram and he's a triple threat because he'll do pencils, inks, and colours sometimes and he posts a lot of process videos so you can see a piece go from basic breakdowns all the way to finished product.

How Wonderful! posted:

I think a lot of Yoshitako Amano stuff is really beautiful and lovely.



That Harley Quinn illustration is maybe not him at his best nor really playing to his strengths but I think he puts a number of charming personal touches on it. The detailing on her pipe and bat, the superhero bubbles coming out... I dunno. I like it well enough!

Flesh Forge posted:

nextwave was so good

Flesh Forge posted:

I love the little shrinky pop lines that get across the Beyonder disappeared her boobs

Lobok posted:

The main thing I don't like about that is the sunglasses. Without those I think it would be a lot better.

Chinston Wurchill posted:

I'm not sure what to make of the edgy new Ennis Batman joint yet, but Liam Sharp is fun on art:

Alhazred posted:

If anything it's toned way down:

BiggerBoat posted:

^^^alcohol^^^

Here's a page by page breakdown of a Sienkiewicz New Mutants book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6n03LrflT8

I never get tired of looking at this guy's stuff and how creative he is. He breaks a lot of rules but is the textbook example of having to know the rules first. Nothing he does would work without him actually knowing how to draw and the results are just fantastic.

Even when he fails, the stuff is still just so loving fun to look at.

Edit:

Guys like Kirby, Romita, Sr. and even Frank Miller's early stuff are other perfect examples of this too. I'm forgetting a few artists here as well but the difference is as vast as the gap between what some of these guys do and what, say, Liefeld does where "breaking anatomy" doesn't work if you can't draw in the classic traditional sense already. John Buscema, Alex Ross and Neal Adams are fantastic but having everything look like that gets boring. On the opposite end, you get your Liefelds and McFarlanes where everything is just all "action" because you can feel the fact that Rob and Todd REALLY LOVE drawing this poo poo, except it's still not good. Or Jim Lee, who I like, but whose work isn't improved with more lines. Miller's stuff in particular is better with fewer lines. All the skinny pens in the world don't make a bad drawing good.


People rag on Ramos but you can tell he knows how to draw similar to John Buscema if he wanted to do that. He just layered an exaggerated graffiti style on top of it, for better of worse.

It's strange how often comic art critics (like myself) ignore a lot of the lessons of art history, how often rules were broken centuries ago and how reluctant we are to accept new ideas. And I think a measure of it is unique to American audiences too - taste wise anyway - to where everything has to look real and to american Comic Book connoisseurs in particular.

Traditional anatomy, perspective and even lighting and contrast are not everything but you HAVE to know them, like learning chords in music or physics in architecture. The idea being that I can start with a hosed up drawing of Wolverine but I can ink my way out of it or color my way out of it or cross hatch my way out of it just means you can't draw but comics allow it. Everyone look at Bernie Wrightson for How to Add a Million Lines.


It's a rather "I'll fix it in post" sort of thing but the layout has to work FIRST.

It's a LOT like the practical effects vs CGI argument in film and like adding starbursts, drop shadows, Photoshop filters and gradients onto basic magazine, business card, or postcard layouts or on top of a "logo", where noise is only added because one can. Or how musicians will "fix" bad songwriting or recording with Pro Tools.

..

Sorry....I'm an "illustrator/graphic designer" barely making a living as a production artist who fixes graphic designers' art in ways that make it print and who moonlights on evenings and weekends re-doing other illustrators' and cartoonists' stuff to make it look better so I have strong opinions on this stuff.

Just felt like writing and apparently have things on my mind so here, thread. Have some chum.

Brazilianpeanutwar posted:

Suleman posted:

I considered posting this in the Funny Panels thread instead.
The art is obviously bad on many levels, but the composition and lack of background just make everything worse.

Lobok posted:

Not sure if the years are always correct (Venom comes later than '84 was the one I noticed) but those are really cool. I feel like you can just tell that's Harry Goblin.

Edge & Christian posted:

No value judgments on anyone's reading habits here, but both of the recent shittily-colored Spider-Man Unlimited pages aren't being helped by what seems like a bad scan of a print copy. Here's a side-by-side of the pages posted here vs. the ones on Marvel Unlimited/Comixology





Not to say either page is not without multiple issues, but either the initial print job or someone cranking the contrast way up on their scan are doing it zero favors.

BiggerBoat posted:

Well, obviously. I just meant that back then that reference was far less available than it is now and I think what they pulled off with limited resources was remarkable, even though MAD artists don't really get brought up all that much when we talk about great comic book art. I'm an illustrator myself and doubt I could do as good a job even with Google images at my disposal.

I'm a and when I was an illustration major, one of the main things they taught us was to build a photo reference library. Obviously, this was before computers took over. I still have boxes and boxes of poo poo I tore from magazines that i occasionally use for collage. Stuff as rudimentary as hair dryers, flowers and all sorts of dumb poo poo. I used to gather up magazines that people would toss in the trash to help build my reference material.

The change is part of why you can use reverse image searches to bust artists "stealing" material. They've always done it but back then it was harder to tell that that drawing of Richard Dreyfuss was from a People Magazine article or whatever.