July 3rd, 2008
You know you are big when someone accuses you of single-handedly destroying comic art.
People can be so narrow-minded sometimes.
Frank Santoro, whom I have never heard before, blogged this:
It’s not just Ross, it’s this culture of photo-referencing in comics that grinds my gears. It’s true, I hate Ross’s work. He’s got great technical ability, but big deal. Why is copying the nuances of a photograph such an achievement? That’s not drawing! He’s the worst example for a young artist to have, the worst role model. No one has done more harm to the form than Ross. It’s not comics he makes. It’s fumetti. There are no real panel-to-panel transitions as there are in “pure cartooning”; he’s just putting photograph next to photograph in a way that some find pleasing. But it’s not comics.
Two instances that made my eyebrows hit my hairline. [1] That’s not drawing. [2] it’s not comics.
Who is he to judge? Is the definition of comic/drawing so narrowed that it must be confined to handful of ways to do it? Do you want to know how many time my eyes roll heavenward when I heard ‘That’s not art!‘
I’m not a fan of Alex Ross, I’m also not a fan of hyper-realistic style, but you know what? I don’t go around accusing any style I don’t like as ‘not comic!’ There’s something for everyone, and there’s certainly enough people that enjoy this style. Why would their opinion matter any less than yours?
You know what I hate? I hate stupid 5 minutes chicken scratch that people passing it off as ‘indie’ or ‘artsy’ comic, What an insult to other artists who spent hours over their pages. But yeah, that’s comics for you, should I go running around screaming ‘That’s NOT COMICS!!!!’?
Just a thought
21 views