Options
Where do you see comics heading?
electric_mayhem
Posts: 641
Mr. Steve Bryant gave his opinion on the the topic of the Pendulum swinging away from artists to now Editors and writers and it was quite interesting: "http://bullpenbulletinspodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=15238.0"
Is that what is happening?
Are artists valued as much as the writers or have they been pushed out?
Is that what is happening?
Are artists valued as much as the writers or have they been pushed out?
Comments
A writer usually has a much bigger output (i.e. Hickman) or does writing outside of the comics (i.e. Kirkman). So naturally a writer's name is better known. Only comic geeks like us see it different.
The whole world knows Stan Lee.....
Fact is, without the artist, it's not a comic. It's prose, or a script.
And I'm as guilty of what he's talking about as the next guy. I'm constantly praising Paul Cornell's Demon Knights, when it's Diogenes Neves' artwork that makes his words explode on nearly ever page.
Really, I think it's Marv Wolfman's fault. He was the first artist to get a creator credit on a comic book back in the 70s, and it's been downhill ever since. If only we could go back to the days when it was the character and the story that mattered, not the person creating it.
That last sentence is meant in jest, but there's a granule or two of nostalgic seriousness in it. I miss the days when I would rush to the stand and say "Yes! A new Supergirl book! A new Batman book! A new Teen Titans book!" as opposed to "Oh wow, look at that Adam Hughes cover on that Grant Morrison book! I wonder what that's about?"
Cully Hamner is one of the people I respect the least for his views on art and the future of the medium so I disregard pretty much anything he has to say on it even here where he is quasi pro artist. Scott Snyder writes in a very academic/formulaic fashion but he is the darling right now along with a few other key writers and he puts out solid work that rarely pushes any envelope or treads new ground but people can't praise it enough and he is in demand.
Admitted old-timer.
Toby
The first and only time I ever bought it for the art was Madame Mirage.
I try my best to not disregard the opinion of other artists—especially those who have carved out a career over a couple of decades.
One of my greatest learning experiences came from an anecdote about critically-acclaimed, award-winning illustrator/comic-artist Gary Gianni. Well into his career, Gary began taking painting classes from a highly-regarded Chicago portrait artist. When asked about his painting experience, Gary told the instructor that he paints "a little." The instructor acknowledged this by saying, "Excellent. We'll start with mixing a pallet."
As the story goes, Gary never corrected the teacher and started all over at the beginning.
I keep this in mind whenever I'm inclined to disregard the opinions of those who have gone before me.
(Those of you unfamiliar with Gianni's work, visit this site: http://occamsbroadsword.blogspot.com/2010/05/frazettas-artistic-heirs.html Scroll down past the Frank Cho images.)
But when I'm looking at that wall of comics, that's the criteria I go with.
Other writers/artists currently at DC (or currently sacked) have highlighted this problem and similar ones that all point to this mentality and culture. I, personally, do not think that is the right path for comics to head in which was the question posed. But it is cheaper, faster, and lessens the need to pay or find skilled talent. That is not the future *I* want. I do think it is the future of mainstream comics though.
So let's say I like...the Blackest Night story in the Green Lantern books I'm getting. And I see R.E.B.E.L.S has a Blackest Night banner on it. I'd pick it up for the story without even seeing the writing. ;)
LOVE me some Rocafort art.
Even if you take Cully out of the equation you can see the budding hints at this future right now when you flip through both DC and Marvel books. As I mentioned, Sketchup, stock images, re-using images or effects, etc. all heading in that direction. Digital comics, photoshop, and "assets" all make this an easy move that I can't see not happening when the bottom line is stock prices and shareholders and everything else taking a back seat.
I am not even saying this is right/wrong for DC or Marvel, all I'm saying is that it might very well be the future direction for them and it is not in line with what my future holds for comics or art and I'll just continue to go elsewhere. For many it might be perfectly acceptable and fine and they may be very successful at it, they are a business and that is their choice and if they can pull it off successfully why wouldn't they? Even if they don't go full-bore, I think it will continue to trend that way with more and more creeping in as time goes by so they can test the waters and gauge reaction or a single book that goes that route as a toe in the water. It just isn't for me. I think the future for me will be more independent and creator-owned work and books from Drawn and Quarterly, Archaia, etc. I think they will continue to fill a niche and hopefully resist. Although, I saw the preview art from Planetoid upcoming from Image and it uses slapped in stock photo skies that are jarringly bad so I think it is going to spill over to some extent and be where things head. I don't have a crystal ball so this is just my educated guess.
At DC, it's becoming more and more clear that it's editorial that drives the car, and everyone sits in the back seat and does what they are told. This doesn't surprise me in any way based on their hires over the last few years. I don't even see any of the special projects that were driven by specific artists or writers showing up in Previews any more.
At Marvel, they are writer driven, but that is what brought them out of bankruptcy. They had an artist as EIC as it happened, and it is working for them. For all of the people who complain about how their writers are all Hollywood people, their art is very story driven and does a solid job of going back to simple mechanics of driving people from panel to panel.
I will say that over the last 15 years, we've seen STORYTELLING return to comics after a decade where artists cared more about selling their original art than telling a story that made any sense. I don't know if that was driven by artists become "rock stars" so much as a generation of artists who didn't know anything about how to lay out a page, how to pull the eye through a page or how to build to big moments. It was ALL about big moment, the huge figure drawing, etc... I know for a fact that Marvel pays artists from before the 90's generation to come in and give lessons on storytelling and page layout to newer artists.
One other factor that I don't think most people think about is that both Marvel and DC are going to foreign artists in order to pay lower page rates... Not that this is a new procedure, as a frightening number of comics done for DC in the 70's were by Filipino arts who would work for $3 - $5 a page.
Nothing's more fun than reading all those great early Marvel books with "Swingin' Stan Lee" and "Joltin' Jack Kirby" with lettering by "Terrific Tom Orchewoski"...but apparently that wasn't something they had to do.
Apparently the Wolfman incident has some significance to writers and artists getting their names on the books.
They're trying to concentrate the value of their products back in the the things they own (the characters) rather than the things they don't (the talents of their current employees).
Archie Comics has managed to do this for years. Even now, all the publicity* they're getting is about the stories, not the creators. (And yes, I am familiar with how badly Dan DeCarlo was treated, I'm not praising this practice, just saying that is an understandable business decision.)
*Well... almost all the publicity... But even the other stuff is about ownership, not creators.
(Puts on "old man" cap)
Used to be a making a good comic made their creators famous. Nowadays a comic is famous for the creative team behind it, even though the first issue won't be seen for six months after it's announced.
When I picked up my first issue of New Teen Titans, it wasn't because I saw that Wolfman was writing or Perez was drawing it. It was because the artwork was stunningly beautiful, and the characters were being handled like nothing I'd ever read before. And Starfire's boobs, but that's a whole other story. :) When I first read Dark Knight Returns, it wasn't because Frank Miller was a household word. It was because it was Batman, and the ads promised a decidedly different take on him.
Now of course Wolfman, Perez, and Miller ARE household words, because of what they created. We've also learned that being famous doesn't necessarily mean you're going to always give us a quality read (At least in Miller's case. Perez shits gold and I'll take on all comers who want to say different! :) ). But it's gotten to the point where the creator sells the title...never mind whether the book is any good or not. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but as long as we're buying based on the creator, not the title, it's a trend that will continue.
(Takes off "old man" cap)
And that's not me being "anti-creator". I prefer to think of it as being "pro-good comics".
I feel like I'm "Pro-good comics" as well.
I think there is a point though where it isn't about the creative people at all but the editorial staff and their whims and too much focus on bottom lines. These are comics, they don't cost millions to produce like video games or film but they are owned by these types of companies with these mindsets and to me it shows. I see the same trends in those areas cropping up in comics and I hear the stories of the creative people that echo the same crap. I just don't see any other outcome but what I've already mentioned previously when you factor all of that in and to me that is like my own personal nightmare. I watch documentaries and indie films and the rare occasional bigger movie and if comics continue to go that way it will be perfectly mirrored there for me too. Lots of people are happy with blockbusters and mindless/less-artistic movies, and that's OK by me but it just isn't what I like again same parallel.
I don't see it so much as the companies striving to protect the comics (the cynical side of me believes they really don't give a shit about the comics themselves), but the IP contained within them. Wolverine sells a lot of comics, but his movies also make a ton of money, and let's not get started on Batman - a comic book, movie, cartoon AND video game star. So you have things where a kid really enjoyed Batman: Brave and the Bold so his parents picked him up All-Star B&R and suddenly he's the "goddamn" Batman. Same deal with the "Starfire has boobs? And likes fucking?!? Well, I never!" argument around the first issue of Red Hood from last year. So not too surprising that editorial is trying to rein in their creators...admittedly somewhat INCONSISTENTLY...quite a bit.
The ideal model for me is to let artists play in the big sandbox for awhile to make a name for themselves - and when they have, break out and show me what you REALLY have to offer. As I've said about Before Watchmen - I'm looking forward to reading Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner's take on the Silk Spectre. But I'd be doing cartwheels to see what they'd do if they'd paired up on something original.
In the fall, I may drop the bulk of issues & go to trades from 16 titles to 7 or 8 & buy in collected format more often (especially when DC wraps up its 2nd arc on their titles). I will still get Superman & Action Comics but I will be cutting "the comics fat" & go lean. Yes it is shocking I know but I may by a back issue here or there. After 30 years (1982-2012), I will be semi-retired from reading monthly comics so wish me luck.
Matthew
At the big two, No.
Why?
Because Marvel and DC are property houses, they are the stewards of intellectual property that generates a ton of $$$ for their owners.
The Writers have a bigger influence on the development and growth of the characters (and thus more impact to the bottom line).
The Artists impact the popularity of the comic they are on, but I dont think they have a big impact outside the comic they are on. They do shape how a character looks, but outside of some modernization, the characters are generally similar to their original concept (Spidey still wears the red and blue tights, Cap still has a shield, Iron Man is still wearing red and gold armor)
I think Bendis, Fraction, Johns and the other big writers helped shape the "tone" of these characters, modernizing their character and voice in a way that Hollywood, TV, and other comercial entities could see their value in marketing other products.
And its because of this that the big two put a bigger emphasis on the writers.
Just look at the writers "summit" for marvel. Isnt it a big deal when an artist gets invited? (I seem to remember reading this happing at times, and it made it onto an article somewhere)... and its what the other writers (Im guessing) strive for when they start working at the company, to have enough responsibility to be able to help "shape" the character...
1) Stan Lee
2) Jack Kirby
There can be the marriage of quality writing & art but it is largely done today w/ Vertigo, Icon as the side creative playhouses for creators at the big two w/ Image, Dark Horse & IDW getting the crumbs let over & the true indie outside the big 5 (aka after the front half of Previews) you get 5 to 10 big hits that have the greatest potential as "real" indie creators Jeff Lemire on Essex County, Stumptown by Greg Rucka & Matt Southworth, Alan Moore & Kevin O'Neil w/LOEG, Stan Sakai on Usagi Yojimbo for 25 years & Locke & Key by Joe Hill & Gabriel Rodriguez are batting a 1,000.
Matthew
2) By the major companies - no