| Posted: 27 June 2009 at 3:03pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
One of the things some fans seem to have trouble with is the (I should have thought) very simple notion that these pictures are symbolic. Whether its Donald Duck or a page from WATCHMEN, the pictures are used to tell the story, not to present a 100% spot on photo realistic representation of what's happening in every panel. So the drawing reflect mood.I'll go with this again (second time today!): 
Notice that in the third and in the last panels, Batman is drawn "realistically". The lighting on his figure fits the lighting in the room. But in the middle row, suddenly the lighting changes just for him, and even the way he's drawn changes. Because Neal was being a lazy goof-off that day and not paying attention? No. Because that was what the scene needed. I learned a lot in this respect from studying Neal Adams. That's why, in the space of a single page, you might find my Cyclops in a costume that was very shiny, sort of shiny, or absolutely flat black. It's all about the demands of the moment. Ditto for Wolverine's (and in Neal's case, from time to time, Batman's) eyes. (Which is why, I will confess, I am amused as all get out when I post a picture of Wolverine I've done as a commission, and his pupils/irises are showing. Elsewhere -- usually not here -- there will rise a chorus of "F**king Byrne drew Wolverine with his eyes showing! He's forgotten how to draw the character! Wolverine's eyes never show!" And I sit back and think of that "definitive" shot of Logan in the sewer that everybody seems to love so much. . . )
|
Topic Closed)
