| Author |
|
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:43pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Martin Redmond wrote:
Thievery is done by artists people dislike.
Homages are done by artists people respect.
That's nonsense, Marty. Personality doesn't (or at least shouldn't) enter
into the mix. The dichotomy is that homages draw attention to
themselves, while swipes are artistic shortcuts that want to slip under the
radar unnoticed.
There is a great Orson Welles movie, F For Fake, about forger Elmyr
de Hory, who throughout the film displays his ability to mimic the styles
of great artists. It's clearly fraud if de Hory signs "Picasso" on the work
(as he is alleged to have done in the past), but what if he were to sign his
own name on the piece? To echo Mr. Welles, is it art?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
F. Ron Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1289
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 12:29am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
No, the dichotomy is: homage is respectable while swiping disreputable.
The issue is how one defines those terms.
Putting that contest on the slippery slope of 'what is art' serves only to cloud
the issue further.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robert Bradley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4879
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 1:04am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Can we come to a consensus that -
An homage is a artist's attempt to use previous work to create an image which will elicit a feeling of nostalgia for the work it's based on.
A swipe is using another artist's work as a shortcut to compensate for a lack of effort, talent or creativity.
Aping another artist isn't necessarily swiping someone else's work - although it can include it. And even if it is used as an homage, it can grow tiresome pretty quickly.
And finally, artists can have a style which shows influence from other artists while still exhibiting a style all his own. For talented artists this can work. For the not-so-talented artists it doesn't work so well.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Chris Durnell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1235
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 1:18am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
One reason why swiping is so prevalent is that many comic artists start their careers "too soon," meaning they are still learning the craft.
If comics were done like a medieval guild system, they'd still be apprentices simply helping a master and duplicating his work. At this stage, they'd be doing a lot of swipes, but their master simply would not let it be published. They'd later progress to journeyman, and at that stage they would begin doing their own work and get published. Their style is still influenced by their master, but things like swiping would no longer be done. Finally, they become a master themselves, and have their own individual style.
Some artists, of course, already have distinctive styles. Walt Simonson's early work was obviously different, but he had not perfected it yet. With some artists, we can see this progression quite clearly. Bill Sienkiwicz went from being another Neal Adams clone to his own thing. Others will become respectable journeyman, but never make the transition to master. I can think of so many artists that turned out good, enjoyable work, but simply lacked the talent or genius to really stand the test of time. Others have the potential, but for one reason or another simply progress to the level they could.
So many artists had very noticeable flaws when they began in the business, but some editor saw potential and wanted to groom them. Those who started in the '70s or '80s had to improve if they were to keep getting work. But many in the '90s were able to become successful during the speculators phase, got much success, and then stagnated because they didn't need to improve.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10935
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 1:29am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"Thievery is done by artists people dislike.
Homages are done by artists people respect."
****
I think this oversimplifies soimething that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The context of the story being told and the artist's style both need to be factored in. It's not just up to the person evaluating the work.
But this statement grates on me as it doesn't encompass tracing other people's work, which is a blatant, outright swipe.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Thanos Kollias
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2004
Location: Greece
Posts: 5009
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 1:51am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Thievery is done by artists people dislike.
Homages are done by artists people respect. | | |
I disagree.
+++++++++++
I also disagree. I am a big fan of John Cassaday and I do respect him but he stole John's X-Men #141 cover for a Wizard Wolverine cover thing a couple years back. Everyone drew their own versions of recognizable Wolverine covers, Cassaday inked over John's work and passed it on as homage.
For me the first two are homages, the last one is a swipe.
 
 
 
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robert Bradley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4879
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 1:59am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I'd have to say the third is a swipe mainly because it's not an interpretation, but a recreation.
And while Cassaday is certainly talented, art like this is to derivative for my tastes.
I do like the other two interpretations/homages.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ron Chevrier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1641
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 2:08am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
When John Byrne gave us various iterations of the Fantastic Four # 1 cover, I understood it to be an homage to Jack Kirby because JB's drawing, storytelling and design repertoire were sufficiently developed at the time, that he could have easily come up with some other cover design that would be equally effective. I base this opinion on the fact that over the years, I have seen many panel design/compositions, characters, and storytelling techniques that indicate to me that JB is able to innovate on his own without relying on "cribs" from other comicbook sources. The covers are a fun way to point out that the FF, powered or unpowered, or the West Cast Avengers are in a situation that is familiar to readers "in the know".
Conversely, when Rob Liefeld uses a two-page layout for X-Force that clearly has its origins in a George Perez Teen Titans two-pager, almost down to similar poses, figure arrangements and background elements, I'm sorry but I have to call "swipe." Why? Because there is very little before or after that two-pager that Liefeld has done that suggests he is capable of generating original storytelling, panel design, or composition. Indeed, his artistic influences are all displayed on the page for anyone to see. He has liberally lifted "cool" figure and page designs from Miller, Art Adams, Perez, Jim Lee etc; basically all the "hot artists", but has demonstrated very little ability to generate that innovative "cool" himself. Liefeld's abilities at their peak are still very much wanting.
Now, I've only flipped through Godland, so I can't really say much about it. Whether or not it irritates the Kirby purists, I guess there must be a market for that "Kirby look" whether well or poorly executed. As far as I'm aware, he's drawing original characters in that style, correct? If he was drawing Mighty Thor or Iron Man in a faux-Kirby style for example, I'd find that very objectionable.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Leigh DJ Hunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 February 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1570
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 2:51am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Interestingly (at least I hope so) I read the new Nova Annual this morning and the cover is a 'homage' to the very first Nova #1 from the 70s. The story itself features a partial re-telling of his origin (and Chapter One style, it's been updated) and there on the credit page it says:
COVER AND STORY BASED ON NOVA #1 BY MARV WOLFMAN, JOHN BUSCEMA, RICH BUCKLER & JOE SINNOTT.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jim Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 October 2006
Posts: 380
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 5:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| For me the first two are homages, the last one is a swipe. |
|
|
I see the distinction, in as much as the first two are obviously not slavish
recreations. However, the first and third ones clearly have "after
MacFarlane" and "after Byrne" on them. I don't see how directly
acknowledging the original work constitutes a swipe.
The term, for me, implies a certain amount of dishonesty in passing off
work obviously (or even not so obviously) derived from another as your
own.
Cheers
Jim
Edited by Jim Campbell on 23 February 2008 at 8:19am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Paul Leyland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 April 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 474
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 5:55am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
In every case, the original cover is better.
Andy
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 17698
|
| Posted: 23 February 2008 at 8:04am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Agreed, Andy!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Topic Closed)
