Posted: 22 March 2013 at 1:37pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"Wasn't that the work of the customers, though? The customers who built him up into a superstar when he was at Marvel? You can't blame a company for publishing a popular artist and letting comic shops and fans buy his stuff by the truckload."
Yes and no. In those day there was an out of control speculator mentality to the comic buying audience.
I can remember shopping at Forbidden Planet on Van Nuys Blvd. and seeing men who were not regulars come in and buy literally pallets of Jim Lee's X-Men #1. People were going hog wild. Today these issues sit in dollar bins all over the world.
There are many factors to this and obviously the publishers are in it to make money but, for me, what created someone like a Rob Liefeld or a McFarlane is the era they came from - the speculator era of super-star artists and Image was created by this era. If we look back at the 1960s there were no super-star artists at the time. It was unheard of.
I think the marketing of super-stars and a company of "Marvel super-stars gone rebel" was a media myth in large part. Wizard, a fanatical publication that pumped up the speculator orgy all it could, had a lot to do with this. The idea that someone like Rob Liefeld was a super-star is beyond belief to me. It reminds me of Top 40 radio where "hits" were manufactured by playing the songs over and over and over until you "liked" them.
Growing roses was more like growing money to me. I can't think of one of these Image guys who created anything that will stand the test of time. Have you seen Jim Lee's costume redesigns? They're ugly. Maybe because he is a bug mucky muck no one will tell him but I would be happy to. Who else is still around from the Image founders? Offhand the only one I can think of is McFarlane. I look back and the lack of creativity at Image is sad to think of. Hordes of speculators making these people super-stars is also sad when you think of real comic greats languishing without work today.
I don't have any great answers or ideas but this is my opinion of it all.
Larsen was over the line and had a personal vendetta. He was not just making an art critique. Sorry but anyone who thinks he was hasn't read his Twitter comments.
It sort of reminds me of the "Jack the Hack" stuff we heard of when Kirby returned to Marvel.
|