Thor Pitt
The art of mainstream comics (heck, even the medium itself) has been of a generally cyclical nature. Back in the 90's, the flashy style of art was the predominant one, a fact which made people like Rob Liefled, Jim Lee, and Todd McFarlance into superstars. However, the rise of artists like Bryan Hitch and John Cassaday over the past few years has influenced a more realistic trend to sequential art. Now you've got guys like Trevor Hairsine, Steve Epting, and Adi Granov being built into the stars of tomorrow. Realistic art isn't simply defined by a more realistic way of rendering faces, or of drawing the human figure.There's also been a marked downtrend when it comes to the symbols and shorthands that have been part of comic lore for many decades. You don't see too many sound effects these days, simply because you don't REALLY see a big "POW!" appear out of thin air when someone throws a punch. Also being seen less and less from mainstream US comics are action lines, dynamic panel borders, and other storytelling convetions that "just don't look real." Personally, I'm not so sure if you can say that comic art has evolved over the last ten years, as many people seem to believe. It seems like there's a movement to turn comics into movies on paper. Blame the success of Marvel's Ultimates, i suppose. Or blame the success of movies like "X2" and "Spider-Man."
Comics are so much more than that, though. Cinema is just one half of the media that comics can draw from. But I digress. Back to the art.
Whenever I see comics drawn realistically, I always remember the part of Scott McCloud's excellent Understanding Comics that says how doing photo-realistic art actually loses the reader, as it serves to distance them from relating to a particular character by making that character's face too specific. Indeed, sometimes when my buds look at art, what they notice immediately is that "Hey, Tony Stark looks like Tom Cruise!" or "Gee, Thor kinda resembles Brad Pitt, doesn't he?"
It moves them out of the story, stopping their involvement cold. (My friends are actually comic artists, so I think its okay that they notice/analyze things like that... but what about casual readers?)
Another thing I don't like about realistic art is a tendency towards stiffness. Check out Granov's work, or even Travis Charest or Steve McNiven. The figures look like mannequins being posed for a picture. Compare that with the work of Marc Silvestri or Adam Kubert-- their figures are always very dynamic, very fluid. In terms of being better illustrators, man, the realists will always win out. But the expressionists make better storyellers, in my opinion.
Note that I'm not saying one style of art is better than another. As of the moment though, the realistic school is probably more marketable to publishers and fans alike. Although I feel that it doesn't make the most of what comics can do, the art itself is very "pretty" and certainly more appealing to the eyes. And that's why many developing artists are pursuing that style of art, including myself.
Down the road, however, I think there's going to be another shift towards more dynamic, adventurous styles. It could be a long ways off though, as there are going to be big budget movies based on comics for at least three more years. But when it all dies down, I've got a hunch that we're going to see another wave of Quesadas and Liefelds.
posted by butch @ 3/19/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home