I am absolutely NOT and I can not use the word NOT enough in this sentance, making any commentary on JRs working habits, speed, ethic or anything else of the sort.

Let's say that some artist (for the sake of arguement we can use JR if you would like) get's a last minute assignment to do a 10 page back up story for a book because the regularly scheduled penciler doed in a tragic snipe hunting accident and the completed work was somehow destroyed in a freak cosmic ray accident. The artist has only a long three day weekend to complete ten pages, where their normal work speed is 2-2 1/2 pages per day. This artist RUSHES and gets all ten pages done in the alotted three days. He asmits that he would have liked to spend at least another day and a half to get the pages to where he wanted them to be, but he did get them in under the wire on short notice.

Now follow me close here folks.....

Let's say that in this hypothetical case we are talking about a 10 page Thor back up story by JR. We have probably all seen JRs Thor work and when we here JR did a Thor back up story, we get a certain expectation of how it is going to look, based on the previous exposure to similar work. Now you hear that JR admitted that he had to really rush through those pages, and that the quality wasn't really what he wanted in the end product. OK.....picture what YOU would imagine that artwork to look like in this hypothetical Thor story. You can imagine something that looks like JRs work, but if it was not done to a full level of satisfaction and completeness.

If you can make THAT leap of imagination, by picturing what a few pages by JR would look like if they WERE in fact rushed, then my using the description "looks rushed" is ENTIRELY valid, because I am using an adjective to give an indication of a particular LOOK of a piece of artwork, that evekes in the reader/listener a particular LOOK to picture as a frame of reference for how I view the art. Nowhere in my earlier posts do I EVER say that JR didn't have enough time to do the job right, I simply expressed the opinion that the pages look to me like they could have used more work. So if you complete a task (as I stated pretty clesrly above) and you could have done a better job by spending more time on it, and you don't spend more time making it better, that COULD imply that someone rushes their work. The end product is something that there is no temporal aspect to. It is and it just is. Time elements come into play when describing an action, such as an act of drawing. However a thing is just a thing, particularly when that this is a thing that actually DOES nothing. Artwork just pretty much sits there and gets looked at.

To say that art looks "rushed" is no more inappropriate than the words crude, raw, undeveloped, sketchy, or fragmented. Each gives a very similar connotation when used to describe a visual style (be the style intened or not) and or visual charachteristics.

Using Colatta's work as an example is perfect. In fact just the fact that many people can point out his work as visual examples of what rushed artwork looks like actually wins this point for me. His act of inking the pages was in fact very rushed, since he was always the "go to" guy when thhey needed something absolutely last minute and it often showed in the finished product. You can tell by looking at many of his pieces that it would look so much better if he had another few days to work on the pages. When you say that some particular art looks rushed, you might immediately think of Vince's work and mentally apply some of the deficiencies from that work to what you are envisioning the work being described, that is why the word can be used as an adjective, not just as a verb.

If you took the WORST Colatta page, where he just erased 2/3 of the pencils and it shows, then you had someone (we will take JB for example) spend three days doing a perfect line for line, dot for dot reproduction of that page. What would the end result be? You would have a page that took three days to draw, and the finished artwork would STILL look RUSHED.

Gregg, I'm not saying that you intend to disparage JRjr. I'm saying that "rushed" does not describe WHAT has been done, but HOW it's been done. It suggests that quality has been sacrificed for speed.  It's so easy to see it as a personal comment on a person's work ethic.

The reason that so many people feel that they can give Colletta as an example of "rushed" artwork is a) evidence, in the form of comparisons between uninked pencils and his finished work that clearly show that he omitted artwork and compromised the quality of the art and storytelling on the page. And b) he told any and all of his peers who cared to listen that his personal work ethic consisted of sacrificing quality in the name of speed and profit.

So, no: saying Colletta's work looks rushed doesn't prove your point, because a) we have clear evidence that it WAS "rushed" and b) when we say it looks "rushed", we do so with the clear intent of disparaging Colletta's work ethic.

Words like : crude, raw, sketchy, unpolished? certainly these can be used about art to describe what it looks like. But "rushed" makes a comment on HOW it was done. Not just how it LOOKS.

I'm a big fan of JR JR too.

Regarding comments on the change in his style, this is how I perceived it at the time:

(1) He started out very influenced by his father. A great starting point for any artist. His published art in this early period was also often highly influenced by the inker on the job (Bob Layton, Dan Green, etc) and in many cases it seems to me that it's the layouts that are most distinctly JR JR's. Examples of this: his early work on Iron Man, ASM, X-Men.

(2) Around the late '80's he entered into an awkward transitional phase during where he seemed to be trying to change his style. I remember being rather shocked at the two fill-in issues of ASM he drew in 1987, around the time of the Peter/Mary Jane wedding (issues 290-291, they featured the Spider Slayer). That they were inked by Vince Coletta may have been part of it, but even taking that into account something had changed in his art. However, his subsequent work on Daredevil with Al Williamson as inker (1988-1990) did suggest that he was on the right track over all. I have mixed feelings about his work with JB (as writer) on Iron Man (1990-1991) though: I like the story, but I don't care for the art in places and definitely consider it another product of his awkward phase.

(3) Then in the '90's he finally came out with a new style as seen in The Punisher, Daredevil: Man Without Fear, his return to X-Men, his return to Spider-Man, etc. I saw it at the time as being in many respects a successful attempt to remain contemporary and stylish. I don't know what JR JR himself thinks, but to me his new art style (the blocky style people have been mentioning here) was greatly influenced by Frank Miller who was so very popular and in style in the years right after "Dark Knight" came out.  Obviously JR JR has developed this influence over the years and it's fully integrated now, but at that time that was the impression it made on me.

As for his recent work, I like the art but agree with other posters that the writing is different. Basically JR JR works with all the most fashionable writers at the company, with all their good and bad points. Personally I would certainly prefer to see him work with someone like JB or Roger Stern, but that doesn't seem likely at present.

As for The Eternals, I liked JR JR's art on that series over all, but was not happy with the fact that they seemed to be trying out a new (young?) inker with Tom Palmer backing him up (acting at mentor, correcting mistakes, completing unfinished pages, I'm not sure).I would much rather have seen Eternals inked by either Klaus Jansen or Scott Hanna.

Hmm, I actually think he was going for a higher mark (as was Miller) by
using elements of Kirby's style (bold lines, blocky figures, etc.). John Romita
Jr even mentions his three influences in the interview I linked too; John
Romita Sr, Jack Kirby, and John Buscema.

Michael, I see your point, regarding the figures. I was thinking more of the faces, in particular the eyes.

Gregg, I got your point and didn't intend on implying that you thought less of JRjr's work. My main concern is using a word that is used to describe a period of time to describe a physical piece of work. Like saying the perspective is wrong on a clock that loses time. The descriptor (sp?) used isn't refrencing what is being described. To say JR's work looks "blocky", "loose", or whatnot would be fine, but to assign an adjective that specifically calls for a period of time doesn't fit the object.

I hope it's understood what I'm trying to say. It's a lot easier to understand before actually trying to word it and type correctly for others to get.

Is JRjr gonna be at the Con tomorrow?  I'd love to get my ETERNALS HC signed by him.  A sketch wouldn't be unpleasant either.

*****

Were you at Adventure Con?

edit: nevermind, I saw a subsequent post indicating you were at Super-Con.

Brian Floyd, are you in Knoxville, if you don't mind my asking?