alex ross in the onion

Here's a link. I hope this works.

http://www.theonionavclub.com/4005/feature1.html

I think he's basically correct in his assessment of why they're popular. Leifeld is quite possibly the most over-rated penciller ever, and McFarlane, well, his early style was impressive compared to what was happening at the time, but he never actually matured as an artist, and now he's basically a cliche.

I'm surprised by how many people like Alex Ross, since his work strikes me as having an offputting superficial glow that doesn't challenge the reader enough. I'll cop to the rockism there and my preference for more stylized artists, but Ross seems satisfied to simply offer warmth and realism.

They didn't want to show that brightly clad superhero character too much, for fear that it would compromise the more literary and artistic qualities of their painted graphic novels.

Totally offbase here, and I think he's trying to paint himself (har har) as a populist as opposed to McKean/Sienkiewicz.

He's basically a photographer. I don't get worked up about it, but I'd agree that he's less art and more craft than "actual" artists.

Alex Ross is absolutely K-Rub - the worst sort of kitsch, maybe something to queasily laugh at in 20 years time but probably not even that. The reason nobody else is doing 'realistic painted superheroes' is that it's an embarrassing gimmick, sort of like Guru's Jazzmatazz series didn't exactly inspire a thousand imitators! I like how he talks about the Silver Age Purists being in charge in one answer and then in the very next one scratches his head about how comics don't attract a wider audience and don't appeal to kids!

I think his stuff is kinda neat. Yeah, it's flashy and chest-puffy, and pretend-classicist and full of empty pomp, but, like, it's superheroes!

Back in the day (cf. 6 years ago), I was mightily impressed by his stuff ("ooo, look, realism!"), but now, I'm more aligned to Tico's "he is EVIL!" view, though not to that extent - I think his more recent work is guilty of spinning wheels, while his earlier breakthrough work (Marvels, Kingdom Come, US) at least got by on its novelty, if not its admirable craftsmanship. It's just that his work (or the work of his I've seen) is so tied to realistic interpretations of fantasy - intent on making the spectacular more accessible & acceptable - that the power of this transformation from fantastical to realistic makes everything of his seem mundane.

It's amusing that August accuses McFarlane of not maturing, since the very same claim can be made of Ross. Of course, McFarlane doesn't need to mature, as he's more a CEO than a penciler nowadays.

And it does strike me as cockeyed that he's aligning himself with bringing Silver Age purity back to funny books since most (if not all!) of the revered Silver Age artists (and writers, too) were extreme stylists! In that light, McFarlane & Liefeld were tooting the Silver Age horn more that Ross ever will, though those kids were undoubtedly biting on the super-fancy-detail that George Perez & Byrne / Austin were famous for back in the 80s.

Just curious: is "detail" shorthand for "lots of crosshatching & other types of lines meant to distract the reader from the fact that the artist can't draw feet and/or is incapable of drawing figures & buildings in proper perspective and/or other fundamental artistic flaws"?

I think the Liefeld vs Ross thing is a bit of a false binary as they were both awful with sort-of redeeming features (Ross' stuff could actually be understood; you could stay awake through a Liefeld comic if only to larf).

O God I remember the days when "they can't draw feet" was considered some kind of sine qua non of insults, generally by people who liked Valiant Comics.