| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133580
|
| Posted: 26 February 2008 at 6:19pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Felicity Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: 26 February 2008 at 9:27pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Woah! I like how you did the background colour to match the forum so the effect is as if I had the font installed!
Another great John Byrne font. How many is that now? Byrne, Morelli, Miller...
I notice that in Hellboy: Seed of Destruction,
the lettering looks like Dave Gibbons, but Mr. Gibbons isn’t credited.
Since you scripted that mini-series, did you also letter it with a Dave
Gibbons font that you’d made?
Edited by Felicity Walker on 26 February 2008 at 9:43pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Nathan Greno
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9154
|
| Posted: 26 February 2008 at 10:04pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
More...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Hess
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9846
|
| Posted: 26 February 2008 at 10:25pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
yer just twisting the knife, Nathan . . .
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Stephen Bergstrom
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: 26 February 2008 at 10:48pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I drove myself a little bit nuts poring through all ten pages of posts here, but I think maybe I can muddy the waters even further with my own definition/example of things:
Say you want to draw a picture of Superman.
If you take art courses, study the human form, practice until your fingers go numb, or any combo thereof (although I'd say the practice part is WAY key), and produce a workable, recognizable picture of Superman that is in a style uniquely your own, then congrats, youse is an arteest.
If all you do is look at the style of one artist and produce a picture of the man of steel that could be passed off as that artist's own, then you might get the word "mimic" thrown at you. Mimicking others' styles might get you noticed, but unless you veer off at some point and develop your own look, your chances of going far in this industry aren't that great, particularly if one of the ones you're competing with is the person whose style you're aping.
If one takes a pre-existing drawing of the man of tomorrow and re-does it in one's own style, that might be considered an "homage" ('a' homage? Gods, I can't remember). Here's where it comes down to intent. If one acknowledges that one did not produce the original piece and credits the artist responsible, then it's safely assumed to be a homage (yeah, I think I'll mix it up). If, however, one doesn't do such, and tries to get away with calling it his/her own, then one runs the risk of their stunt being found out and having "shenanigans!" cried out on them.
Then, if one simply traces over or in other ways copies another's painting/photo/illustration of Kal-El (or another character, if the pose fits), makes a few piddling changes to suit the needs of the page, and calls it their own, that might be considered "swiping." At that point, one may as well buy a xerox machine for all the actual "art" one is producing. Regardless of which artist/editor tells you it's perfectly all right to do so for the purpose of producing product, it's particularly plagiaristic and profoundly pathetic.
Now, it is true that there are limits to the number of poses and angles that the human body may be viewed from, and coincidental duplication can occur. However, the art form is not so vast that one can not become familiar with at least the major talents and take steps to avoid looking too much like one or the other.
For my own part, I am finding it particularly difficult, having idolized and been influenced by Wrightson, Buscema (both of 'em), Perez, Starlin (heh, almost typed 'Stalin'), as well as Senor JB here, to avoid having my work not look like at least ONE of these fine gentlemen. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to try. I owe it to them and to myself to find my own look.
Edited by Stephen Bergstrom on 26 February 2008 at 10:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 12:27am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
"I would say that they were both probably aping Steranko"
Possibly, but Miller's approach is closer in parts to Hugo Pratt (who we know he has been influenced by).
I'd say some of the effects in Sin City look a lot like Alberto Breccia's black and white work, but I have no reason to suppose him to be an influence on Miller.
I'd also bet that a lot of Miller's approach in inking is slightly influenced by the inking genius of Klaus Janson. I can't prove it, but I think Miller may be familiar with his work (insert smiley face here)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Martin Redmond
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2006
Posts: 3882
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 7:48am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Well at least he changed a few things in that pic Nathan, his left leg is positioned different and so is his left arm. He didn't take the same background. He also drew the shoulders and chest all wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Dallaire
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:28am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
[quote=Armindo Macieira]I couldn't live with myself if I knew I'd built my career standing in
the shoulders of others. This is art! It's personal, it comes from
within, not from tracing a picture![quote]
You've got it right on the first part, but this isn't Art. It's Commerce. It's not personal - it's characters designed (either by others for by oneself) for commercial consumption. Not justifying blatantly ripping of others' work, just saying.
I used to have the perspective that all ART was personal and precious - until I worked a few years as a commercial illustrator. It's commerce, plain and simple.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Dallaire
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I think the major reason that swiping in comics has become so ingrained is due to a combination of publishing requirements and low pay. Comics, for years, was treated as a quick-turn commodity, one step below the pulps in the publishing hierarchy. That's why the studio system became so successful. If anyone was treating comics as art, they wouldn't be relying on assistants to draw backgrounds, etc. Time is money, and the early comic book illustrators were adults with bills to pay. What comic book giant quipped that you shouldn't draw what you could swipe, or trace, or paste in? I'm sure he was speaking from the pragmatic, bill-paying side of his experience.
Swiping and the flowery language of the pulp writers have a lot in common. When you're paid by the word, the motive is there to use three words where one might suffice. When you're paid by the page, the motive is there to take every available shortcut to get the page done and paid for.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Is it somewhere in the definition of art that it can't be used for profit?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Dallaire
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:49am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Paulo - noone is saying that art can't be used for profit. However, in almost all the swiping incidents shown, the swipes were taken from one comic book and used in another. It's commerce. Slightly unsavory commerce, but commerce.
Of course, I also have a problem with the word "art" and "artist" being so frequently used, when "illustrator" and "illustration" is more accurate.
In my experience, "art" is not something that a working illustrator, or painter, or sculptor would call their own work (at least not those who are grounded in reality with a sense of who they are and what their work is about). That's up to the viewer and critics to decide. Nor, when asked what they do for a living, would a cartoonist or illustrator or sculptor or dancer call themselves a capital A "Artist." They'd be more specific ("I'm an illustrator") or qualify the word art with specifics ("I do the artwork on the Spider-man comics").
Edited by John Dallaire on 27 February 2008 at 9:50am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133580
|
| Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:52am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Andy Warhol is reputed to have said "Art is whatever you can get away with."
In all fields of art, we see this manifest. Comics, somewhat moreso.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
