Realistic Art in Comics?

Apologies if someone's posted this before, but I stumbled onto this article from CBR. Basically it's a panel with Rob Guillory (Chew), Erik Larsen (Savage Dragon), Kazu Kibushi (Flight), and Klaus Janson (Daredevil) discussing realistic comic art. Check it out here.

The gist of the discussion was basically about their feelings on realistic art in comics. The creators talk about how realistic art in modern comics is a problem as it doesn't fit the medium. I don't want to paraphrase anything out of context, so it's probably better if y'all just read the article yourself, but that's what I got from it.

Anyone has opinions about this? They're certainly entitled to their own stance, but I feel a little weirded out. I believe all types of art have a place in the comic medium and its many genres. You can have traditional superhero art like Jim Lee, dynamism like Kirby, realism like Alex Ross, abstract art like McKean - I think everything has its place. And I don't think there's an overwhelming amount of 'realistic art' in mainstream superhero books.

Off the top of my head, there's Ross, Epting, Hitch, and Cassaday. And maybe the mostly cover artists like Bradstreet, Bolland, or Granov. But me personally, I really dig 'grounded' art. I'm a big fan of artists going the extra mile to render something as real-world as possible. Of course, only if it fits the story's tone that is. For example, I'd want Epting on Captain America, but I'd prefer Ivan Reis on Justice League.

Thoughts?

Personally I'm a fan of the "cartoony" style, but when done right, like Alex Ross's style in Kingdom Come, it looks amazing and I really like it.

I was expecting a thread about how women are sexually portrayed in comics.

I like viewing different styles from different artists and while I certainly appreciate that talent and effort put into "realistic" art, I like Allred, Takara, etc. There is so much to enjoy both from the past and hopefully in the future with comic artists and having everyone pretty much draw everything the same (since it will be realistic), then a very important part of comics will be gone.

I remember reading a book this year that had actual pictures of real people in the comic -- I can't remember the name but it was centred around a down on his luck paparazzi and some kind of evil cult. Anyhoo, I didn't like it at all. I think I would feel the same about other comics featuring "realistic" art. I'm going to go read the CBR article now, thanks for the link.

lool I was too

Personally, I like more traditional style art for comics though I can really appreciate the realism behind some artists like Ross. It depends on the story for me really, if the tone matches the art well, I can get behind it. I think that its more about story tone than medium however.

If it looks good. I like it.

I agree that artistic diversity is always a plus for comics, but I don't think that 'realistic' is the dominant style of mainstream superhero comic-book art today. Since the 2000s, the definition of 'superhero comic art' has become increasingly varied; I mean just look at Marvel's roster of artists today. And the group of artists doing more grounded artwork only number in a few, as much so as any other 'type' of comic-art. I think we've come to a time in the industry where even mainstream books aren't afraid to branch out in art and aesthetics.

Realistic art can work - it just depends on the story. Robert Crumb and Takehiko Inoue certainly have mastered it...if they count as "realistic". What exactly counts as "realistic" art?

BB

I think that entire panel is bullsh!t

depends on the title, I really like a lot of the more stylized art out there, and I really like some of the realistic arts, and everyonce in a while I like the kind of cartoony classic look. but I don't like EVER when the proportions are all wrong. but mostly it just depends on the title.

Example, Action Comics or a Lex Luthor mini...NEVER Cartoony. I prefer the realistic look, but a good artsy one could be good too.

but I can't see myself enjoying deadpool all that much if it was incredibly realistic, I bet I would hate it.. I think I would prefer the cartoony look, and even artsy can make me unnerved about it im sure there must be one out there I might like though

I like realistic art. What I hate is crappy 1 dimensional "indie" artwork That gets praise for being gritty or whatever.

In the panel itself, the term seems to be referring largely to mainstream superhero comics. The panel quotes Alex Ross drawing 'folds' in his costumes to make them look real as an example, and also Bryan Hitch sampling Samuel L. Jackson's face in the Ultimates as another. The panel's participants don't seem to like both instances.

I don't know, they refer to Peanuts, Maus and Scott McCloud, and two of the creators aren't working in superhero comics.

The panel quotes Alex Ross drawing 'folds' in his costumes to make them look real as an example

I get that. Ross' work can be polarizing.

and also Bryan Hitch sampling Samuel L. Jackson's face in the Ultimates as another.

And I get that as well, though Fury looking like Jackson was the point.

BB

@billy_batson Well you asked for what counts as 'realistic art', and I was just using examples of what the panelists were referring to. They mention Peanuts and Maus as examples of non-realistic art, but the phrase 'realistic' art seems to be referring *largely* to superhero books.

Your b tipped over, dude.

As for the question.

I'm not a fan of Ross to to be honest. But I do prefer stuff like Lee, Hitch,Deodato and Bagley. So grounded without being overly real?

I very much prefer realistic art. I always have. I just prefer the details. My favorite artists are Steve Epting, Clayton Crain, Alex Ross, and a lot of the other detailed artists. I enjoy some of the more abstract or impressionist artwork on specific stories but not in general for all books.

Amen.

Kingdom Come is still a highly praised story and I think that is in part because of the art.

Did no one think it was funny how they omitted mentioning how unrealistic most female characters' costumes are, regardless of "realistic" artistry or not? It's one thing to talk about wrinkles in spandex/pleather/leather/vinyl from an outfit on a male character's super, buff body and quite another to show the physics-defying uniforms wrapped about Emma and her "girls". But hey, that would be asking too much -- can't get too realistic, amirite?

I guess it really depends on the tone of the book. If the story is striving for realism, then it makes sense to have more realistic art. However, I myself don't really like realistic art as it makes me feel sad especially the Alex Ross type of style. I guess I like traditional superhero art better because it feels fun and can sometimes pull me into the excitement as well.

I'm gonna bump this...because I think it warrants some discussion.

The art should fit the story.

I really don't like the idea of one style of art that fits comics. Never really a fan of the concept of a house style.... Comic art should have no rules......

I can't imagine comic art (or any art) following any set of rules. More realistic? I enjoy it but I also enjoy less traditional styles. Sometimes a lot more than what some people would consider "realistic." Ghost Rider's new book is a good example. Originality in comics gets my cash more easily than art which mimics real life, visually.

This says it best.

I think when you try to go for the more "Human" route, it will look good for now. But, it might like bad further down the line as technology and techniques change.(I think that applies video games more, but still)

This is why I enjoy say Ed Mcguiness or Darwyn Cooke, it only improves as time goes on, yet still it's own thing

LEE...

BERMEJO...

IS...

THE...

GREATEST...

REALSITIC...

COMIC...

ARTIST...

EVER...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yf6kwUv77HU/UqM901wmj_I/AAAAAAAAAas/J_EK9I5amBc/s1600/Trinity.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tdSlHRkkeI/UXb18-GnX4I/AAAAAAAAAW4/R7dCNxVuzvE/s1600/SpideyvsGoblin.low.jpg

@movieartman: I would agree, I like his and Ross's art.

I prefer detail to realistic, for example Jim Lee isn't realistic, but the art looks good and has great detail.

And because of.....everything else about it.

Can't argue against that. The story was fantastic. But we are very visual creatures and Ross delivers stunning visuals.