My main problem is that there is an arrogance about Erik Larsen's comments and actions that isn't warranted.

In the past he has picked apart George Perez's art, and here he is doing it to John Byrne and Neal Adams. He redraws JB's artwork like he's some teacher correcting a student's papers. If Larsen's work was at least on a par to those he is criticizing it would be different, but this is like Michael Bay telling Alfred Hitchcock about how to direct a film.

I wonder, does Larsen think he's really at the level of the guys he criticizes?

"Playing God"

••

Hmm.

I get a "Currently Unavailable" error message.

Hmm. . .

What bothers me is that there should be no 'wrong' way to do things in a creative field (and especially comics). It's all about personal taste; if folk don't like 'tangents' (eye roll), then they'll avoid that particular artist's work and move on.

Screw the 'rules' is what I say!

••

Yes and no.

It depends to a very great degree on just where the art is being presented. There are, indeed, many "rules" about the production of good comic books, and they have evolved over years, decades, and with good reason.

When we consider that the main reason the art exists in a comic book is to TELL THE STORY, it is vitally important that the telling be CLEAR and CONCISE. That there be no points at which the reader/viewer is momentarily yanked out of the story by that dreaded question "What am I looking at, here?"

Neal Adams, a well we know, appeared like a thunderclap in the 1960s, and pretty much revolutionized the visual language of American comic books singlehandedly. After a long doldrums, mostly due to the Comics Code limiting any serious "artistic expression", Neal brought photorealism and powerful dynamics and wild camera angles to the pages he worked on. And, it must be said, not always with 100% success. There were, indeed, those moments of "What am I looking at?" from time to time.

The greater problem, tho, lay in those who emulated Neal (Present!), who often only skimmed the surface, and picked up the "tricks" but not the solid drawing skills that lay beneath them.