| Author |
|
John Byrne
Robot Wrangler
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
|
| Posted: 19 June 2004 at 8:21am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Looking at that page from UNCANNY X-MEN 117
and once again wondering what exactly is was about
my "old stuff" that some seem to think was "better".
sigh
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Papandrea
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 647
|
| Posted: 19 June 2004 at 8:45am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
Looking at that page from UNCANNY X-MEN 117
and once again wondering what exactly is was about
my "old stuff" that some seem to think was "better".
sigh |
|
|
They just need to look at the Hawkman pencils. If they still don't get it, I recommend glasses.
:-)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Frank Strysik
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: 19 June 2004 at 5:33pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
none.
Edited by Frank Strysik on 28 June 2004 at 2:41pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Phil Katzman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: 19 June 2004 at 9:03pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
Looking at that page from UNCANNY X-MEN 117
and once again wondering what exactly is was about
my "old stuff" that some seem to think was "better".
sigh |
|
|
John I don't want to berate your new stuff, but If you are seriously asking for a then and now critique I will glady oblige you.
When you came onto the scene the cookie cutter comicbooks were everywhere. There was really very little uniqueness in mainstream comicbook artistry then. Your style and approach was very novel, clean, uncluttered, realistic, well thought out, space-age, hightech, anatomically correct, and it also honored Neal Adams and Jack Kirby. In those days I didn't pay attention to what people were saying about books or artists I just thumbed through the pages of the comics at 7-11 and bought the ones with the best art. The difference in the look of yours and Terry's X-Men to the rest of the comics I saw then was almost infinite. I'm sure you've heard it before: "I was blown away". As to why the art is so beloved by the droves it is easiest to just say it really looked cool. There were no ugly lines. Every black looked like a real shadow. It was clear, nothing made you wonder what it was. There were hardly ever any of those scratchy "who knows why it's there" lines I see in your work today.
Two of the things I admire most in your artwork is your architectual drawings, both interiors and facades, and your byrnanatomy. You can draw hands perfectly. I sure wish I could. Female lips are also fantastic. You also make metal objects look like real metal objects. It seems to me like you've perfected kirby's techinique of squiggly line means shine. Back then the characters didn't look like drawings, they looked real. Today you still draw the figure very well yet the realism is fading. That is why I believe people say you need someone else to ink your work, because it looks almost incomplete. Now there are too many gaps in the inking or tiny areas where the lines don't connect, so it looks rushed. I understand it is a style thing, but that problem wasn't in your X-Men stuff. That stuff looked like Terry took months on each page. I've seen your inking on a number of pencilers and they've all amazed me. You do the 100% best job of inking other's stuff, I just wish you'd apply that same level of dedication to your own stuff. You have to be the best inker in the business period. Just think of all the shoddy work you could have subtly corrected if you had become an embellisher instead of a penciler. I'm also not a fan of brushes. I like the pen. Pens give those crips clean straight lines that look very professional where a brush looks like a painting..unreal.
I also think that some of the great detail that used to be in your work is now reserved for special pages. I used to think how cool it was to see so many details in the quickest read panels. Your gadgets and mechanisms have become cookie cutter and are not the Byrne of the 70's and 80's. I'd rather nothing in a panel than the new way you draw gadet panels. Mabey I'm just spoiled. The way you used to do it made it always look believable but now I'm dissatisfied because it always looks fake.
Hope that wasn't too much.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Phil Katzman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: 19 June 2004 at 10:43pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Compare at 15 years apart.
Edited by Phil Katzman on 19 June 2004 at 10:45pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Felipe Arambarri
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 3:49am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Looking at that page from UNCANNY X-MEN 117
and once again wondering what exactly is was about
my "old stuff" that some seem to think was "better".
---
Reverse question, JB:
What is 'wrong' on this page?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Frank Strysik
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 3:57pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
none.
Edited by Frank Strysik on 28 June 2004 at 2:43pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Robot Wrangler
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 6:37pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I also think that some of the great detail that used to
be in your work is now reserved for special pages. I
used to think how cool it was to see so many details
in the quickest read panels. Your gadgets and
mechanisms have become cookie cutter and are
not the Byrne of the 70's and 80's. I'd rather nothing
in a panel than the new way you draw gadet panels.
Mabey I'm just spoiled. The way you used to do it
made it always look believable but now I'm
dissatisfied because it always looks fake.
Hope that wasn't too much.
**************
Not sure how to read this. Let me say, first off, that
you're wrong. No other way to phrase it. I put more
detail into my backgrounds now that ever before --
and I do so over more pages, in more panels. If this
does not look "believable" to you, then I can only
think you are viewing the past works thru the lens of
nostalgia -- one of the most powerful opiates known
to man.
Everyone's taste is different, of course. If someone
comes up to me and says "I liked your old stuff
better," I cannot refute them. But if they say "I liked
your old stuff better because it was better," then I
have no choice but to dispute. Your comparison
pages, above, serve only to underline my point. The
"fifteen years later" pages show a much stronger
grasp of figure and face construction, figure
dynamics, perspective -- the whole palette.
Compare the mechanisms in the first ALPHA
FLIGHT page with the particle accelerator on the
second WONDER WOMAN page. Which looks
"fake"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Robot Wrangler
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 6:41pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
What is 'wrong' on this page (from X-MEN 117)?
***************
Construction of the heads and faces, drapery, hair,
and a general, overall flatness. The last I can lay in
some small part at Terry Austin's feet (and he would
agree, I can assure you), since he was as new to the
game as I was, and the real magic, such as it was,
was still some 20 issues away.
Don't get me wrong, mind you. That page is the best
work I could do, back then. I'm not ashamed of it in
any way -- not matter how much I cringe when I look
at it!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Phil Katzman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 8:32pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
JB you are correct. I do have very strong nostalgic feelings towards your X-Men, FF, Alpha-Flight, and Hulk stuff. Your new stuff is still great and looks cool, no doubt about it. On a technical level you may be correct that your drawings have more detail, better perspective and figure dynamics and so on and are thus more satisfying to you, as I'm sure you strive to improve your art all the time, but when I say there is a lack of detail I mean more in the obscure things you used to draw that made the pages so inspiring. Sometimes less is more. It's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is. There are just some things that makes me cringe about some of the stuff you do now. Case in point: the way you drew flash in the above WW page to me looks horrible because of the strange lines you drew around his body. You used to do this to Takion when you drew him too. The way you used to draw gadgets and spaceships was meticulous and precise. Nothing ever looked sloppy. The gaps in the inking I now see may not seem like a big deal to you, but I notice every single one. For me these things appear sloppy and therefore are not as realistic looking as in the past. Mabey it is just that I really don't like the way the brush makes your stuff look. When did you start using the brush to ink the majority of the page rather than the pen?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Phil:
I have to DISAGREE with you 100% about JB's current stuff. I
like it better. His old stuff, as he just said above, has a "flat"
quaility to it. The current stuff is the best stuff he's done.
AND
You do realize that the first WW page you posted in your
comparison post WAS INKED WITH A PEN!
Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Phil Katzman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: 22 June 2004 at 9:27pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Matthew Hansel wrote:
I have to DISAGREE with you 100% about JB's current stuff. I
like it better. His old stuff, as he just said above, has a "flat"
quaility to it. The current stuff is the best stuff he's done.
AND
You do realize that the first WW page you posted in your
comparison post WAS INKED WITH A PEN!
|
|
|
No I didn't realize that. And I'm glad YOU disagree with ME. Please tell me specifically what it is that you like so much better now about the artwork than when JB was drawning Alpha Flight. JB probably meant he didn't use perspective like he could have when he says it looks flat. Mabey I like the flat look. Kirby's stuff looked flat sometimes. Flat is fine. Flat is cool. Flat is better than sloppy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I could be 100% wrong. I could be 90% right. The fact is that there is a noticable difference to me and others and therefore I felt like expressing my thoughts. I hope you don't think I'm out of line for saying so. I have faithfully bought every single Byrne comicbook since 1977 and have liked everything I've bought, even Prototykes. But being the Byrne devotee that I am and having the chance to mabey make a difference for the better here in our forum I just could not keep quiet. I'm sorry if I come across as a "know it all", I just like to express my opinions unabashedly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
